Global incidence, prevalence, years lived with disability (YLDs), disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs), and healthy life expectancy (HALE) for 371 diseases and injuries in 204 countries and territories and 811 subnational locations, 1990-2021: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021

BACKGROUND

Detailed, comprehensive, and timely reporting on population health by underlying causes of disability and premature death is crucial to understanding and responding to complex patterns of disease and injury burden over time and across age groups, sexes, and locations. The availability of disease burden estimates can promote evidence-based interventions that enable public health researchers, policy makers, and other professionals to implement strategies that can mitigate diseases. It can also facilitate more rigorous monitoring of progress towards national and international health targets, such as the Sustainable Development Goals. For three decades, the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) has filled that need. A global network of collaborators contributed to the production of GBD 2021 by providing, reviewing, and analysing all available data. GBD estimates are updated routinely with additional data and refined analytical methods. GBD 2021 presents, for the first time, estimates of health loss due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODS

The GBD 2021 disease and injury burden analysis estimated years lived with disability (YLDs), years of life lost (YLLs), disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs), and healthy life expectancy (HALE) for 371 diseases and injuries using 100 983 data sources. Data were extracted from vital registration systems, verbal autopsies, censuses, household surveys, disease-specific registries, health service contact data, and other sources. YLDs were calculated by multiplying cause-age-sex-location-year-specific prevalence of sequelae by their respective disability weights, for each disease and injury. YLLs were calculated by multiplying cause-age-sex-location-year-specific deaths by the standard life expectancy at the age that death occurred. DALYs were calculated by summing YLDs and YLLs. HALE estimates were produced using YLDs per capita and age-specific mortality rates by location, age, sex, year, and cause. 95% uncertainty intervals (UIs) were generated for all final estimates as the 2·5th and 97·5th percentiles values of 500 draws. Uncertainty was propagated at each step of the estimation process. Counts and age-standardised rates were calculated globally, for seven super-regions, 21 regions, 204 countries and territories (including 21 countries with subnational locations), and 811 subnational locations, from 1990 to 2021. Here we report data for 2010 to 2021 to highlight trends in disease burden over the past decade and through the first 2 years of the COVID-19 pandemic.

FINDINGS

Global DALYs increased from 2·63 billion (95% UI 2·44-2·85) in 2010 to 2·88 billion (2·64-3·15) in 2021 for all causes combined. Much of this increase in the number of DALYs was due to population growth and ageing, as indicated by a decrease in global age-standardised all-cause DALY rates of 14·2% (95% UI 10·7-17·3) between 2010 and 2019. Notably, however, this decrease in rates reversed during the first 2 years of the COVID-19 pandemic, with increases in global age-standardised all-cause DALY rates since 2019 of 4·1% (1·8-6·3) in 2020 and 7·2% (4·7-10·0) in 2021. In 2021, COVID-19 was the leading cause of DALYs globally (212·0 million [198·0-234·5] DALYs), followed by ischaemic heart disease (188·3 million [176·7-198·3]), neonatal disorders (186·3 million [162·3-214·9]), and stroke (160·4 million [148·0-171·7]). However, notable health gains were seen among other leading communicable, maternal, neonatal, and nutritional (CMNN) diseases. Globally between 2010 and 2021, the age-standardised DALY rates for HIV/AIDS decreased by 47·8% (43·3-51·7) and for diarrhoeal diseases decreased by 47·0% (39·9-52·9). Non-communicable diseases contributed 1·73 billion (95% UI 1·54-1·94) DALYs in 2021, with a decrease in age-standardised DALY rates since 2010 of 6·4% (95% UI 3·5-9·5). Between 2010 and 2021, among the 25 leading Level 3 causes, age-standardised DALY rates increased most substantially for anxiety disorders (16·7% [14·0-19·8]), depressive disorders (16·4% [11·9-21·3]), and diabetes (14·0% [10·0-17·4]). Age-standardised DALY rates due to injuries decreased globally by 24·0% (20·7-27·2) between 2010 and 2021, although improvements were not uniform across locations, ages, and sexes. Globally, HALE at birth improved slightly, from 61·3 years (58·6-63·6) in 2010 to 62·2 years (59·4-64·7) in 2021. However, despite this overall increase, HALE decreased by 2·2% (1·6-2·9) between 2019 and 2021.

INTERPRETATION

Putting the COVID-19 pandemic in the context of a mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive list of causes of health loss is crucial to understanding its impact and ensuring that health funding and policy address needs at both local and global levels through cost-effective and evidence-based interventions. A global epidemiological transition remains underway. Our findings suggest that prioritising non-communicable disease prevention and treatment policies, as well as strengthening health systems, continues to be crucially important. The progress on reducing the burden of CMNN diseases must not stall; although global trends are improving, the burden of CMNN diseases remains unacceptably high. Evidence-based interventions will help save the lives of young children and mothers and improve the overall health and economic conditions of societies across the world. Governments and multilateral organisations should prioritise pandemic preparedness planning alongside efforts to reduce the burden of diseases and injuries that will strain resources in the coming decades.

FUNDING

Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Australian Headache Epidemiology Data (AHEAD): a pilot study to assess sampling and engagement methodology for a nationwide population-based survey

BACKGROUND

There are no robust population-based Australian data on prevalence and attributed burden of migraine and medication-overuse headache (MOH) data. In this pilot cross-sectional study, we aimed to capture the participation rate, preferred response method, and acceptability of self-report questionnaires to inform the conduct of a future nationwide migraine/MOH epidemiological study.

METHODS

We developed a self-report questionnaire, available in hard-copy and online, including modules from the Headache-Attributed Restriction, Disability, Social Handicap and Impaired Participation (HARDSHIP) questionnaire, the Eq. 5D (quality of life), and enquiry into treatment gaps. Study invitations were mailed to 20,000 randomly selected households across Australia's two most populous states. The household member who most recently had a birthday and was aged ≥ 18 years was invited to participate, and could do so by returning a hard-copy questionnaire via reply-paid mail, or by entering responses directly into an online platform.

RESULTS

The participation rate was 5.0% (N = 1,000). Participants' median age was 60 years (IQR 44-71 years), and 64.7% (n = 647) were female. Significantly more responses were received from areas with relatively older populations and middle-level socioeconomic status. Hard copy was the more commonly chosen response method (n = 736). Females and younger respondents were significantly more likely to respond online than via hard-copy.

CONCLUSIONS

This pilot study indicates that alternative methodology is needed to achieve satisfactory engagement in a future nationwide migraine/MOH epidemiological study, for example through inclusion of migraine screening questions in well-resourced, interview-based national health surveys that are conducted regularly by government agencies. Meanwhile, additional future research directions include defining and addressing treatment gaps to improve migraine awareness, and minimise under-diagnosis and under-treatment.

The burden of headache disorders in the adult general population of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: estimates from a cross-sectional population-based study including a health-care needs assessment

BACKGROUND

We have previously shown headache to be highly prevalent among adults in Saudi Arabia. Here we estimate associated symptom burden and impaired participation (impaired use of time, lost productivity and disengagement from social activity), and use these estimates to assess headache-related health-care needs in Saudi Arabia.

METHODS

A randomised cross-sectional survey included 2,316 adults (18-65 years) from all 13 regions of the country. It used the standardised methodology of the Global Campaign against Headache with a culturally mandated modification: engagement by cellphone using random digit-dialling rather than door-to-door visits. Enquiry used the HARDSHIP questionnaire, with diagnostic questions based on ICHD-3 beta, questions on symptom burden, enquiries into impaired participation using the HALT index and questions about activity yesterday in those reporting headache yesterday (HY). Health-care "need" was defined in terms of likelihood of benefit. We counted all those with headache on ≥ 15 days/month, with migraine on ≥ 3 days/month, or with migraine or TTH and meeting either of two criteria: a) proportion of time in ictal state (pTIS) > 3.3% and intensity ≥ 2 (moderate-severe); b) ≥ 3 lost days from paid work and/or household chores during 3 months.

RESULTS

For all headache, mean frequency was 4.3 days/month, mean duration 8.4 h, mean intensity 2.3 (moderate). Mean pTIS was 3.6%. Mean lost days from work were 3.9, from household chores 6.6, from social/leisure activities 2.0. Of participants reporting HY, 37.3% could do less than half their expected activity, 19.8% could do nothing. At population-level (i.e., for every adult), 2.5 workdays (potentially translating into lost GDP), 3.6 household days and 1.3 social/leisure days were lost to headache. According to HY data, mean total impaired participation (not distinguishing between work, household and social/leisure) was 6.8%. A total of 830 individuals (35.8%) fulfilled one or more of our needs assessment criteria.

CONCLUSION

A very high symptom burden is associated with a commensurately high burden of impaired participation. The economic cost appears to be enormous. Over a third of the adult population are revealed to require headache-related health care on the basis of being likely to benefit, demanding highly efficient organization of care.

The prevalence and demographic associations of headache in the adult population of Benin: a cross-sectional population-based study

BACKGROUND

The Global Burden of Disease (GBD) study is increasingly well informed with regard to headache disorders, but sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) remains one of the large regions of the world with limited data directly derived from population-based studies. The Global Campaign against Headache has conducted three studies in this region: Ethiopia in the east, Zambia in the south and Cameroon in Central SSA. Here we report a similar study in Benin, the first from West SSA.

METHODS

We used the same methods and questionnaire, applying cluster-randomized sampling in three regions of the country, randomly selecting households in each region, visiting these unannounced and randomly selecting one adult member (aged 18-65 years) of each household. The HARDSHIP structured questionnaire, translated into Central African French, was administered face-to-face by trained interviewers. Demographic enquiry was followed by diagnostic questions based on ICHD-3 criteria.

RESULTS

From 2,550 households with eligible members, we recruited 2,400 participants (participating proportion 94.1%). Headache ever was reported by almost all (95.2%), this being the lifetime prevalence. Headache in the last year was reported by 74.9%. Age-, gender- and habitation-adjusted estimates of 1-year prevalence were 72.9% for all headache, 21.2% for migraine (including definite and probable), 43.1% for TTH (also including definite and probable), 4.5% for probable medication-overuse (pMOH) and 3.1% for other headache on ≥ 15 days/month. One-day (point) prevalence of headache was 14.8% according to reported headache on the day preceding interview.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, these findings are evidence that headache disorders are very common in Benin, a low-income country. The prevalence of pMOH, well above the estimated global mean of 1-2%, is evidence that poverty is not a bar to medication overuse. The findings are very much the same as those in a similar study in its near neighbour, Cameroon. With regard to migraine, they are reasonably in accord with two of three earlier studies in selected Beninese populations, which did not take account of probable migraine. This study adds to the hitherto limited knowledge of headache in SSA.

The prevalence and demographic associations of headache in the adult population of Peru: a national cross-sectional population-based study

BACKGROUND

The Global Campaign against Headache is conducting a series of population-based studies to fill the large geographical gaps in knowledge of headache prevalence and attributable burden. One major region not until now included is South America. Here we present a study from Peru, a country of 32.4 million inhabitants located at the west coast of South America, notable for its high Andes mountains.

METHODS

The study was conducted in accordance with the standardized methodology used by the Global Campaign. It was a cross-sectional survey using cluster randomised sampling in five regions to derive a nationally representative sample, visiting households unannounced, and interviewing one randomly selected adult member (aged 18-65 years) of each using the Headache-Attributed Restriction, Disability, Social Handicap and Impaired Participation (HARDSHIP) questionnaire translated into South American Spanish. The neutral screening question ("Have you had headache in the last year?") was followed by diagnostic questions based on ICHD-3 and demographic enquiry.

RESULTS

The study included 2,149 participants from 2,385 eligible households (participating proportion 90.1%): 1,065 males and 1,084 females, mean age 42.0 ± 13.7 years. The observed 1-year prevalence of all headache was 64.6% [95% CI: 62.5-66.6], with age-, gender- and habitation-adjusted prevalences of 22.8% [21.0-24.6] for migraine (definite + probable), 38.9% [36.8-41.0] for tension-type headache (TTH: also definite + probable), 1.2% [0.8-1.8] for probable medication-overuse headache (pMOH) and 2.7% [2.1-3.5] for other headache on ≥ 15 days/month (H15+). One-day prevalence of headache (reported headache yesterday) was 12.1%. Migraine was almost twice as prevalent among females (28.2%) as males (16.4%; aOR = 2.1; p < 0.001), and strongly associated with living at very high altitude (aOR = 2.5 for > 3,500 versus < 350 m).

CONCLUSION

The Global Campaign's first population-based study in South America found headache disorders to be common in Peru, with prevalence estimates for both migraine and TTH substantially exceeding global estimates. H15 + was also common, but with fewer than one third of cases diagnosed as pMOH. The association between migraine and altitude was confirmed, and found to be strengthened at very high altitude. This association demands further study.

The prevalence of headache in the adult population of Morocco: a cross-sectional population-based study

BACKGROUND

The series of population-based studies conducted by the Global Campaign against Headache has, so far, included Pakistan and Saudi Arabia from the Eastern Mediterranean Region. The Maghreb countries of North Africa, also part of this Region, are geographically apart and culturally very different from these countries. Here we report a study in Morocco.

METHODS

We applied the standardised methodology of Global Campaign studies, with cluster-randomized sampling in regions of Morocco selected to be representative of its diversities. In three of these regions, in accordance with this methodology, we made unannounced visits to randomly selected households and, from each, interviewed one randomly selected adult member (aged 18-65 years) using the HARDSHIP structured questionnaire translated into Moroccan Arabic and French. In a fourth region (Fès), because permission for such sampling was not given by the administrative authority, people were randomly stopped in streets and markets and, when willing, interviewed using the same questionnaire. This was a major protocol violation.

RESULTS

We included 3,474 participants, 1,074 (41.7%) from Agadir, 1,079 (41.9%) from Marrakech, 422 (16.4%) from Tétouan and 899 from Fès. In a second protocol violation, interviewers failed to record the non-participating proportion. In the main analysis, excluding Fès, observed 1-year prevalence of any headache was 80.1% among females, 68.2% among males. Observed 1-day prevalence (headache yesterday) was 17.8%. After adjustment for age and gender, migraine prevalence was 30.8% (higher among females [aOR = 1.6]) and TTH prevalence 32.1% (lower among females [aOR = 0.8]). Headache on ≥ 15 days/month (H15+) was very common (10.5%), and in more than half of cases (5.9%) associated with acute medication overuse (on ≥ 15 days/month) and accordingly diagnosed as probable medication-overuse headache (pMOH). Both pMOH (aOR = 2.6) and other H15+ (aOR = 1.9) were more common among females. In the Fès sample, adjusted prevalences were similar, numerically but not significantly higher except for other H15+.

CONCLUSIONS

While the 1-year prevalence of headache among adults in Morocco is similar to that of many other countries, migraine on the evidence here is at the upper end of the global range, but not outside it. H15 + and pMOH are very prevalent, contributing to the high one-day prevalence of headache.

The burden attributable to primary headache disorders in children and adolescents in Ethiopia: estimates from a national schools-based study

BACKGROUND

We previously reported high prevalences of headache disorders among children (6-11 years) and adolescents (12-17 years) in Ethiopia. Here we provide data on headache-attributed burden collected contemporaneously from the same study participants. Part of the global schools-based programme within the Global Campaign against Headache, the study is the first to present such data from sub-Saharan Africa.

METHODS

A cross-sectional survey following the generic protocol for the global study was conducted in six schools (urban and rural), in Addis Ababa city and three regions of Ethiopia. The child or adolescent versions of the Headache-Attributed Restriction, Disability, Social Handicap and Impaired Participation (HARDSHIP) structured questionnaires were self-completed under supervision by pupils in class. Headache diagnostic questions were based on ICHD-3 beta but for the inclusion of undifferentiated headache (UdH).

RESULTS

Of 2,349 eligible participants, 2,344 completed the questionnaires (1,011 children [43.1%], 1,333 adolescents [56.9%]; 1,157 males [49.4%], 1,187 females [50.6%]; participating proportion 99.8%). Gender- and age-adjusted 1-year prevalence of headache, reported previously, was 72.8% (migraine: 38.6%; tension-type headache [TTH]: 19.9%; UdH: 12.3%; headache on ≥ 15 days/month (H15+): 1.2%). Mean headache frequency was 2.6 days/4 weeks but, with mean duration of 2.7 h, mean proportion of time with headache was only 1.0% (migraine: 1.4%; TTH: 0.7%; H15+: 9.1%). Mean intensity was 1.8 on a scale of 1-3. Symptomatic medication was consumed on about one third of headache days across headache types. Lost school time reportedly averaged 0.7 days over the preceding 4 weeks, representing 3.5% of school time, but was 2.4 days/4 weeks (12.0%) in the important small minority with H15+. However, actual absences with headache the day before indicated averages overall of 9.7% of school time lost, and 13.3% among those with migraine. Emotional impact and quality-of-life scores reflected other measures of burden, with clear adverse impact gradients (H15 + > migraine > TTH > UdH).

CONCLUSIONS

The high prevalence of headache among children and adolescents in Ethiopia, who represent half its population, is associated with substantial burden. Lost school time is probably the most important consequence. Estimates suggest a quite deleterious effect, likely to be reflected in both individual prospects and the prosperity of society.

Global, regional, and national burden of disorders affecting the nervous system, 1990-2021: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021

BACKGROUND

Disorders affecting the nervous system are diverse and include neurodevelopmental disorders, late-life neurodegeneration, and newly emergent conditions, such as cognitive impairment following COVID-19. Previous publications from the Global Burden of Disease, Injuries, and Risk Factor Study estimated the burden of 15 neurological conditions in 2015 and 2016, but these analyses did not include neurodevelopmental disorders, as defined by the International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-11, or a subset of cases of congenital, neonatal, and infectious conditions that cause neurological damage. Here, we estimate nervous system health loss caused by 37 unique conditions and their associated risk factors globally, regionally, and nationally from 1990 to 2021.

METHODS

We estimated mortality, prevalence, years lived with disability (YLDs), years of life lost (YLLs), and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs), with corresponding 95% uncertainty intervals (UIs), by age and sex in 204 countries and territories, from 1990 to 2021. We included morbidity and deaths due to neurological conditions, for which health loss is directly due to damage to the CNS or peripheral nervous system. We also isolated neurological health loss from conditions for which nervous system morbidity is a consequence, but not the primary feature, including a subset of congenital conditions (ie, chromosomal anomalies and congenital birth defects), neonatal conditions (ie, jaundice, preterm birth, and sepsis), infectious diseases (ie, COVID-19, cystic echinococcosis, malaria, syphilis, and Zika virus disease), and diabetic neuropathy. By conducting a sequela-level analysis of the health outcomes for these conditions, only cases where nervous system damage occurred were included, and YLDs were recalculated to isolate the non-fatal burden directly attributable to nervous system health loss. A comorbidity correction was used to calculate total prevalence of all conditions that affect the nervous system combined.

FINDINGS

Globally, the 37 conditions affecting the nervous system were collectively ranked as the leading group cause of DALYs in 2021 (443 million, 95% UI 378-521), affecting 3·40 billion (3·20-3·62) individuals (43·1%, 40·5-45·9 of the global population); global DALY counts attributed to these conditions increased by 18·2% (8·7-26·7) between 1990 and 2021. Age-standardised rates of deaths per 100 000 people attributed to these conditions decreased from 1990 to 2021 by 33·6% (27·6-38·8), and age-standardised rates of DALYs attributed to these conditions decreased by 27·0% (21·5-32·4). Age-standardised prevalence was almost stable, with a change of 1·5% (0·7-2·4). The ten conditions with the highest age-standardised DALYs in 2021 were stroke, neonatal encephalopathy, migraine, Alzheimer's disease and other dementias, diabetic neuropathy, meningitis, epilepsy, neurological complications due to preterm birth, autism spectrum disorder, and nervous system cancer.

INTERPRETATION

As the leading cause of overall disease burden in the world, with increasing global DALY counts, effective prevention, treatment, and rehabilitation strategies for disorders affecting the nervous system are needed.

FUNDING

Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Headache in the adult population of Cameroon: prevalence estimates and demographic associations from a cross-sectional nationwide population-based study

BACKGROUND

Knowledge of headache prevalence, and the burdens attributable to headache disorders, remains incomplete in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA): reliable studies have been conducted only in Zambia (southern SSA) and Ethiopia (eastern SSA). As part of the Global Campaign against Headache, we investigated the prevalence of headache in Cameroon, in Central SSA.

METHODS

We used the same methodology as the studies in Zambia and Ethiopia, employing cluster-randomized sampling in four regions of Cameroon, selected to reflect the country's geographic, ethnic and cultural diversities. We visited, unannounced, randomly selected households in each region, and randomly selected one adult member (aged 18-65 years) of each. Trained interviewers administered the Headache-Attributed Restriction, Disability and Impaired Participation (HARDSHIP) structured questionnaire, developed by an international expert consensus group and translated into Central African French. Demographic enquiry was followed by diagnostic questions based on ICHD-3 criteria.

RESULTS

Headache was a near-universal experience in Cameroon (lifetime prevalence: 94.8%). Observed 1-year prevalence of headache was 77.1%. Age- and gender-adjusted estimates were 76.4% (95% confidence interval: 74.9-77.9) for any headache, 17.9% (16.6-19.3) for migraine (definite + probable), 44.4% (42.6-46.2) for tension-type headache (TTH; also definite + probable), 6.5% (5.7-7.4) for probable medication-overuse headache (pMOH) and 6.6% (5.8-7.6) for other headache on ≥ 15 days/month (H15 +). One-day prevalence ("headache yesterday") was 15.3%. Gender differentials were as expected (more migraine and pMOH among females, and rather more TTH among males). pMOH increased in prevalence until age 55 years, then declined somewhat. Migraine and TTH were both associated with urban dwelling, pMOH, in contrast, with rural dwelling.

CONCLUSIONS

Headache disorders are prevalent in Cameroon. As in Zambia and Ethiopia, estimates for both migraine and TTH exceed global mean estimates. Attributable burden is yet to be reported, but these findings must lead to further research, and measures to develop and implement headache services in Cameroon, with appropriate management and preventative strategies.

The burden of headache disorders in North India: methodology, and validation of a Hindi version of the HARDSHIP questionnaire, for a community-based survey in Delhi and national capital territory region

BACKGROUND

Knowledge of the prevalence and attributable burden of headache disorders in India is sparse, with only two recent population-based studies from South and East India. These produced conflicting results. A study in North India is needed. We report the methodology of such a study using, and validating, a Hindi translation of the Headache-Attributed Restriction, Disability, Social Handicap, and Impaired Participation (HARDSHIP) questionnaire developed by Lifting The Burden (LTB). Almost half of the Indian population speak Hindi or one of its dialects.

METHODS

The study adopted LTB's standardized protocol for population-based studies in a cross-sectional survey using multistage random sampling conducted in urban Delhi and a surrounding rural area. Trained interviewers visited households unannounced, randomly selected one adult member from each and applied the Hindi version of HARDSHIP in face-to-face interviews. The most bothersome headache reported by participants was classified algorithmically into headache on ≥ 15 days/month (H15 +), migraine (including definite and probable) or tension-type headache (including definite and probable). These diagnoses were mutually exclusive. All participants diagnosed with H15 + and a 10% subsample of all others were additionally assessed by headache specialists and classified as above. We estimated the sensitivity and specificity of HARDSHIP diagnoses by comparison with the specialists' diagnoses.

RESULTS

From 3,040 eligible households, 2,066 participants were interviewed. The participating proportions were 98.3% in rural areas but 52.9% in urban Delhi. In the validation subsample of 291 participants (149 rural, 142 urban), 61 did not report any headache (seven of those assessed by HARDSHIP, eight by headache specialists and 46 by both) [kappa = 0.83; 95% CI: 0.74-0.91]. In the remaining 230 participants who reported headache in the preceding year, sensitivity, specificity and kappa with (95% CI) were 0.73 (0.65-0.79), 0.80 (0.67-0.90) and 0.43 (0.34-0.58) for migraine; 0.71 (0.56-0.83), 0.80 (0.730.85) and 0.43 (0.37-0.62) for TTH and 0.75 (0.47-0.94), 0.93 (0.89-0.96) and 0.46 (0.34-0.58) for H15 + respectively.

CONCLUSION

This study validates the Hindi version of HARDSHIP, finding its performance similar to those of other versions. It can be used to conduct population surveys in other Hindi-speaking regions of India.

Premonitory symptoms in migraine: A REFORM Study

BACKGROUND

Estimates of proportions of people with migraine who report premonitory symptoms vary greatly among previous studies. Our aims were to establish the proportion of patients reporting premonitory symptoms and its dependency on the enquiry method. Additionally, we investigated the impact of premonitory symptoms on disease burden using Headache Impact Test (HIT-6), Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) and World Health Organization Disability Assessment 2.0 (WHODAS 2.0), whilst investigating how various clinical factors influenced the likelihood of reporting premonitory symptoms.

METHODS

In a cross-sectional study, premonitory symptoms were assessed among 632 patients with migraine. Unprompted enquiry was used first, followed by a list of 17 items (prompted). Additionally, we obtained clinical characteristics through a semi-structured interview.

RESULTS

Prompted enquiry resulted in a greater proportion reporting premonitory symptoms than unprompted (69.9% vs. 43.0%; p < 0.001) and with higher symptom counts (medians 2, interquartile range = 0-6 vs. 1, interquartile range = 0-1; p < 0.001). The number of symptoms correlated weakly with HIT-6 (ρ = 0.14; p < 0.001) and WHODAS scores (ρ = 0.09; p = 0.041). Reporting postdromal symptoms or triggers increased the probability of reporting premonitory symptoms, whereas monthly migraine days decreased it.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of a standardized and optimized method for assessing premonitory symptoms is necessary to estimate their prevalence and to understand whether and how they contribute to disease burden.

The World Health Organization Intersectoral Global Action Plan on Epilepsy and Other Neurological Disorders and the headache revolution: from headache burden to a global action plan for headache disorders

The World Health Organization (WHO) Intersectoral Global Action Plan on Epilepsy and Other Neurological Disorders was developed by WHO to address the worldwide challenges and gaps in provision of care and services for people with epilepsy and other neurological disorders and to ensure a comprehensive, coordinated response across sectors to the burden of neurologic diseases and to promote brain health across life-course. Headache disorders constitute the second most burdensome of all neurological diseases after stroke, but the first if young and midlife adults are taken into account. Despite the availability of a range of treatments, disability associated with headache disorders, and with migraine, remains very high. In addition, there are inequalities between high-income and low and middle income countries in access to medical care. In line with several brain health initiatives following the WHOiGAP resolution, herein we tailor the main pillars of the action plan to headache disorders: (1) raising policy prioritization and strengthen governance; (2) providing effective, timely and responsive diagnosis, treatment and care; (3) implementing strategies for promotion and prevention; (4) fostering research and innovation and strengthen information systems. Specific targets for future policy actions are proposed. The Global Action Plan triggered a revolution in neurology, not only by increasing public awareness of brain disorders and brain health but also by boosting the number of neurologists in training, raising research funding and making neurology a public health priority for policy makers. Reducing the burden of headache disorders will not only improve the quality of life and wellbeing of people with headache but also reduce the burden of neurological disorders increasing global brain health and, thus, global population health.

What proportion of people with migraine report postdromal symptoms? A systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies

BACKGROUND

Postdromal symptoms, following headache resolution, are said to constitute a distinct phase of the migraine attack. We question the evidence for this, with regard both to the nature of such symptoms and to how often they are reported to occur.

METHODS

We searched the Pubmed and Embase databases for relevant articles from their inception until 25 May 2023. We included observational studies recording the proportions of participants with migraine reporting one or more postdromal symptoms or specific individual symptoms. Two reviewers independently screened studies for relevance (agreeing on those to be included), extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Data were analyzed using random-effects meta-analysis to establish the proportions of those with migraine reporting one or more postdromal symptoms, whether among the general population or patients in clinic-based samples.

RESULTS

Large majorities of participants in either case reported postdromal symptoms: 97% in the only population-based study, and a mean of 86% (95% CI: 71-94%) in four clinic-based studies. The most commonly reported specific symptoms were fatigue (52%; 95% CI: 44-60%), concentration difficulties (35%; 95% CI: 14-65%) and mood changes (29%; 95% CI: 9-64%), none of these being clearly described. These estimates could not be considered reliable: they were subject to substantial study heterogeneity, none of the studies applied International Classification of Headache Disorders definitions of postdromal symptoms, and all had high risk of bias.

CONCLUSION

Postdromal symptoms in migraine appear to be very commonly reported, but the data are unreliable with regard both to their nature and to how often they occur. Further studies are needed to conclude that they constitute a distinct phase of migraine.

Migraine in older adults

Migraine is an evolving, and sometimes lifelong disorder. The prevalence of episodic migraine peaks among individuals aged in their late 30s, implying a tendency for the disorder to remit with increasing age thereafter, whereas chronic migraine is more likely to persist into later life. Diagnosis and treatment of migraine in older adults, defined as individuals aged 60 years or older, is rendered more complex by increasing probabilities of atypical clinical features and comorbidities, with patients' comorbidities sometimes limiting their therapeutic options. However, the changing clinical presentation of migraine over an individual's lifespan is not well characterised. The neurobiological basis of remission in older adults remains unclear, although vascular, neuronal, and hormonal changes are likely to be involved. Long-term longitudinal studies of individuals with migraine would be particularly informative, with the potential not only to suggest new research directions, but also to lead to the identification of novel therapeutic agents. Although several novel migraine medications are becoming available, their effectiveness, tolerability, and safety often remain uncertain in older adults, who have commonly been excluded from the evaluation of these agents in randomised controlled trials, or who constitute only a small proportion of study populations. There is a need to recognise these limitations in the available evidence, and the specific, and often unmet, clinical needs of older adults with migraine, not least because older adults constitute an increasing proportion of populations worldwide.

The HARDSHIP databases: a forthcoming free good from the Global Campaign against Headache

In order to pursue its purpose of reducing the global burden of headache, the Global Campaign against Headache has gathered data on headache-attributed burden from countries worldwide. These data, from the individual participants in adult population-based studies and child and adolescent schools-based studies, are being collated in two databases, which will be powerful resources for research and teaching and rich information sources for health policy.Here we briefly describe the structure and content of these databases, and announce the intention to make them available in due course as a free good.

Characterizing healthcare utilization patterns in a Danish population with headache: results from the nationwide headache in Denmark (HINDER) panel

INTRODUCTION

Worldwide, far from all of those who would benefit make use of headache services, largely because of clinical, social, and political barriers to access. Identifying the factors contributing to low healthcare utilization can generate evidence to guide health policy. Our purpose here is better to characterize healthcare utilization patterns in Denmark.

METHODS

The Headache in Denmark (HINDER) study is a nationwide cross-sectional survey of people with headache, conducted using SurveyXact (Rambøll Group A/S, Copenhagen). Healthcare utilization was assessed in a study sample generated by population screening and recruitment. Data collection occurred over two weeks, from September 23^rd until October 4^th, 2021. The questions enquired into disease characteristics, management, burden, medication intake and healthcare utilization.

RESULTS

The number of participants included in the HINDER panel was 4,431, with 2,990 (67.5%: 2,522 [84.3%] female, 468 [15.7%] male; mean age 40.9 ± 11.6 years) completing the survey. One quarter of participants (27.7%) disagreed or strongly disagreed that they were able to manage their headache attacks. Most participants (81.7%) agreed or strongly agreed that their headache was a burden in their everyday lives. The most reported acute medications, by 87.2% of participants, were simple analgesics; of note, 8.6% reported using opioids for their headache. One quarter of participants (24.4%) had never consulted a medical doctor for their headache; one in six (16.5%: more than two thirds of the 24.4%) had never done so despite agreeing or strongly agreeing that their headache was a burden in their everyday lives. Two thirds (65.3%) of participants overall, and almost three quarters (72.4%) of those with weekly headache, had tried one or more complementary or alternative therapies outside conventional medical care.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings are indicative of inadequate delivery of headache care in a country that provides free and universal coverage for all its residents. The implications are twofold. First, it is not sufficient merely to make services available: public education and increased awareness are necessary to encourage uptake by those who would benefit. Second, educational interventions in both pre- and postgraduate settings are necessary, but a prerequisite for these is a resetting of policy priorities, properly to reflect the very high population ill-health burden of headache.

The relationship between headache-attributed disability and lost productivity: 3 Attack frequency is the dominating variable

BACKGROUND

In an earlier paper, we examined the relationship between headache-attributed disability, measured as proportion of time in ictal state, and lost productivity. In a linear model, we found positive and significant associations with lost paid worktime, lost household worktime and total lost productivity (paid + household), but with high variance, which was increased when headache intensity was introduced as a factor. We speculated that analyses based on headache frequency alone as the independent variable, eliminating both the subjectivity of intensity estimates and the uncertainties of duration, might show stronger associations.

METHODS

Focusing on migraine, we used individual participant data from 16 countries surveyed either in population-based studies or in the Eurolight project. These data included frequency (headache days/month), usual attack duration (hours), usual headache intensity ("not bad", "quite bad", "very bad") and lost productivity from paid and household work according to enquiries using the Headache-Attributed Lost Time (HALT) questionnaire. We used multiple linear regressions, calculating regression equations along with unstandardized and standardized regression coefficients. We made line and bar charts to visualize relationships.

RESULTS

Both frequency and intensity were significant predictors of lost productivity in all multiple linear regressions, but duration was a non-significant predictor in several of the regressions. Predicted productivity in paid work decreased among males by 0.75-0.85 days/3 months for each increase of 1 headache day/month, and among females by 0.34-0.53 days/3 months. In household chores, decreases in productivity for each added day/month of headache were more similar (0.67-0.87 days/3 months among males, 0.83-0.89 days/3 months among females). Visualizations showed that the impact of duration varied little across the range of 2-24 h. The standardized regression coefficients demonstrated that frequency was a much better predictor of lost productivity than intensity or duration.

CONCLUSION

In the relationship between migraine-attributed impairment (symptom burden) and lost productivity, frequency (migraine days/month) is the dominating variable - more important than headache intensity and far more important than episode duration. This has major implications for current practice in headache care and for health policy and health-resource investment. Preventative drugs, grossly underutilized in current practice, offer a high prospect of economic benefit (cost-saving), but new preventative drugs are needed with better efficacy and/or tolerability.

Barriers to headache care in low- and middle-income countries

Headache disorders are a common cause of disability globally and lead not only to physical disability but also to financial strain, higher rates of mental health disorders such as depression and anxiety, and reduced economic productivity which negatively impacts gross domestic product (GDP) on a national scale. While data about headache are relatively scarce in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), those available suggest that headache disorders occur on a similar scale in LMICs as they do in high-income countries. In this manuscript, we discuss common clinical, political, economic and social barriers to headache care for people living in LMICs. These barriers, affecting every aspect of headache care, begin with community perceptions and cultural beliefs about headache, include ineffective headache care delivery systems and poor headache care training for healthcare workers, and extend through fewer available diagnostic and management tools to limited therapeutic options for headache. Finally, we review potential solutions to these barriers, including educational interventions for healthcare workers, the introduction of a tiered system for headache care provision, creation of locally contextualized diagnostic and management algorithms, and implementation of a stepped approach to headache treatment.

Premonitory symptoms in migraine: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies reporting prevalence or relative frequency

Background

Observational studies on the prevalence of premonitory symptoms in people with migraine, preceding the headache pain (or aura) phase, have shown conflicting results. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate the prevalence, and relative frequency among clinic populations, of premonitory symptoms in people with migraine, overall and of the multifarious individual symptoms, and to review the methodologies used to assess them.

Methods

We searched PubMed and Embase for studies published from database inception until 31st of May 2022. Two investigators independently screened titles, abstracts, and full texts. We retrieved observational studies that reported the prevalence/relative frequency of one or more premonitory symptoms in people with migraine. Two investigators independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Results were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis. Our main outcomes were the percentage of people with migraine who experienced at least one premonitory symptom and the percentages who experienced different individual premonitory symptoms. To describe our outcomes, we used the terms prevalence for data from population-based samples and relative frequency for data from clinic-based samples. We also descriptively and critically assessed the methodologies used to assess these symptoms.

Results

The pooled estimated prevalence in population-based studies of at least one premonitory symptom was 29% (95% CI: 8–63; I2 99%) and the corresponding pooled estimated relative frequency in clinic-based studies was 66% (95% CI: 45–82; I2 99%). The data from clinic-based studies only supported meta-analysis of 11 of 96 individual symptoms, with relative frequency estimates ranging from 11 to 49%. Risk of bias was determined as high in 20 studies, moderate in seven, and low in two.

Conclusions

The substantial between-study heterogeneity demands cautious interpretation of our estimates. Studies showed wide methodological variations, and many lacked rigor. Overall, the evidence was insufficient to support reliable prevalence estimation or characterization of premonitory symptoms. More data are needed, of better quality, to confirm the existence of a distinctive premonitory phase of migraine, and its features. Methodological guidelines based on expert consensus are a prerequisite.

The prevalence of primary headache disorders in children and adolescents in Zambia: a schools-based study

BACKGROUND

The Global Campaign against Headache collects data from children (6-11 years) and adolescents (12-17) to inform health and education policies and contribute to the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) study. This survey in Zambia, part of this global enquiry, was the second from sub-Saharan Africa (SSA).

METHODS

Following the generic protocol, this was a schools-based cross-sectional survey. We used the child and adolescent versions of the structured Headache-Attributed Restriction, Disability, Social Handicap and Impaired Participation (HARDSHIP) questionnaire, self-completed by pupils within classes, in a total of nine schools in Lusaka (urban) and Copperbelt (semi-rural). These two of Zambia's ten provinces were selected to represent the country's urban/rural divide. Headache diagnostic questions were based on ICHD-3 except for undifferentiated headache (UdH).

RESULTS

Of 2,759 potential participants, 2,089 (615 children [29.4%], 1,474 adolescents [70.6%]) completed questionnaires (participating proportion 75.7%). Children were therefore under-represented (mean age 13.1 ± 2.8 years), while gender distribution (1,128 [54.0%] male, 961 [46.0%] female) was close to expectation. Observed lifetime prevalence of headache was 97.5%. Gender- and age-adjusted 1-year prevalence estimates were 85.8% for all headache, 53.2% for migraine (definite 17.5%, probable 35.7%), 12.1% for tension-type headache (TTH), 14.8% for UdH, 3.3% for all headache on ≥ 15 days/month and 0.9% for probable medication-overuse headache. Headache durations were short: only 28.6% of participants with any headache, and only 10.5% of those diagnosed as probable migraine, reported usual durations of > 2 h (the threshold for definite migraine). Of the latter, 36.6% reported < 1 h, the duration criterion for UdH. There were weak associations of migraine (definite + probable) with female gender, and of TTH and headache on ≥ 15 days/month with adolescence. Headache yesterday was reported by 22.2% of the sample, 25.5% of those with headache.

CONCLUSIONS

Headache disorders among young people are prevalent in Zambia. Among them, migraine is the most common, with UdH also highly prevalent. In this study there were diagnostic uncertainties, which rested to a large extent on the distinction between migraine and UdH among the many participants reporting headache of < 2 h' duration. Similar uncertainties occurred in the first study in SSA, in Ethiopia. Because of these, we conclude only that migraine affects at least 17.5% of these age groups in Zambia, which is still a large proportion, adult prevalence in an earlier study being 22.9%. Supplementary estimates of attributed burden are needed to inform public-health and educational policies in Zambia.

One-quarter of individuals with weekly headache have never consulted a medical doctor: a Danish nationwide cross-sectional survey

INTRODUCTION

Large numbers of people with headache who would benefit are not reached by headache services. Among the causes are poor or disorganized provision of headache services, but reluctance to seek healthcare has frequently been identified as a significant barrier. We conducted a national survey of people with headache to assess the extent of this problem in Denmark, a country with well organized, highly resourced, and readily accessible services.

METHODS

We conducted a nationwide cross-sectional survey of adults ≥ 18 years old in Denmark reporting at least one headache day in the last year. We used social media (Facebook) to publicize and drive a recruitment campaign. The survey investigated five items: (1) disease burden, (2) social life, (3) presenteeism, (4) social support, and (5) healthcare utilization.

RESULTS

We included 6,567 respondents from May 2021 to June 2021; 70.2% were female, 39.8% male, and mean age was 43.2 ± 13.4 years. Of the respondents, 54.2% reported headache at least once a week, 33.4% reported headache a couple of times a month, and 12.4% reported headache a couple of times a year. Two-thirds of respondents (66.6%) reported that headache limited their social lives occasionally or frequently. Most respondents (86.8%) reported going to work or attending educational activities occasionally or more frequently even though they had headache. Half of the respondents (49.5%) experienced lack of understanding of their headaches from people occasionally or more frequently. Almost half of respondents (43.7%) had never consulted a medical doctor for their headache; even of those with weekly headache, more than a quarter (28.3%) had never done so in their lifetimes.

CONCLUSIONS

Headache disorders continue to be a problem, even in a high-income country with free and easily accessible headache services. Further studies are needed to investigate and clarify why even people with the highest burden are hesitant to seek and make use of widely available headache services.

The prevalence of headache disorders in children and adolescents in Iran: a schools-based study

BACKGROUND

While the Global Burden of Disease study reports headache disorders as the third-highest cause of disability worldwide, the headache data in this study largely come from adults. This national study in Iran, the first of its type in the Eastern Mediterranean Region, was part of a global schools-based programme within the Global Campaign against Headache contributing data from children (6-11 years) and adolescents (12-17 years).

METHODS

We followed the generic protocol for the global study. In a cross-sectional survey, self-completed structured questionnaires were administered to pupils within their classes in 121 schools selected from across the country to be representative of its diversities. Headache diagnostic questions were based on ICHD-3 criteria but for the inclusion of undifferentiated headache.

RESULTS

Of 3,357 potential participants, 3,244 (children 1,308 [40.3%], adolescents 1,936 [59.7%]; males 1,531 [47.2%], females 1,713 [52.8%]) satisfactorily completed the questionnaire. Children and males were therefore somewhat under-represented, with a participating proportion of 96.6%. Gender- and age-adjusted 1-year prevalence of any headache was 65.4%, of migraine 25.2%, of tension-type headache 12.7%, of undifferentiated headache 22.1%, of all headache on ≥15 days/month 4.1%, and of probable medication-overuse headache 1.1%. All headache types except undifferentiated headache were more prevalent among adolescents than children; probable medication-overuse headache increased five-fold between childhood and adolescence.

CONCLUSIONS

Headache disorders are common in children and adolescents in Iran, with undifferentiated headache accounting for over one third of cases. The increasing prevalence of probable medication-overuse headache with age is concerning. These findings are of importance to health and educational policies in Iran.

Migraine-attributed burden, impact and disability, and migraine-impacted quality of life: Expert consensus on definitions from a Delphi process

Background

Migraine-attributed burden, impact, disability and migraine-impacted quality of life are important concepts in clinical management, clinical and epidemiological research, and health policy, requiring clear and agreed definitions. We aimed to formulate concise and precise definitions of these concepts by expert consensus.

Methods

We searched the terms migraine-attributed burden, impact, disability and migraine-impacted quality of life in Embase and Medline from 1974 and 1946 respectively. We followed a Delphi process to reach consensus on definitions.

Results

We found widespread conflation of concepts and inconsistent terminology within publications. Following three Delphi rounds, we defined migraine-attributed burden as “the summation of all negative consequences of the disease or its diagnosis”; migraine-attributed impact as “the effect of the disease, or its diagnosis, on a specified aspect of life, health or wellbeing”; migraine-attributed disability as “physical, cognitive and mental incapacities imposed by the disease”; and migraine-impacted quality of life as “the subjective assessment by a person with the disease of their general wellbeing, position and prospects in life”. We complemented each definition with a detailed description.

Conclusion

These definitions and descriptions should foster consistency and encourage more appropriate use of currently available quantifying instruments and aid the future development of others.

The Global Campaign turns 18: a brief review of its activities and achievements

The Global Campaign against Headache, as a collaborative activity with the World Health Organization (WHO), was formally launched in Copenhagen in March 2004. In the month it turns 18, we review its activities and achievements, from initial determination of its strategic objectives, through partnerships and project management, knowledge acquisition and awareness generation, to evidence-based proposals for change justified by cost-effectiveness analysis.

The global prevalence of headache: an update, with analysis of the influences of methodological factors on prevalence estimates

Background

According to the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) study, headache disorders are among the most prevalent and disabling conditions worldwide. GBD builds on epidemiological studies (published and unpublished) which are notable for wide variations in both their methodologies and their prevalence estimates.

Our first aim was to update the documentation of headache epidemiological studies, summarizing global prevalence estimates for all headache, migraine, tension-type headache (TTH) and headache on ≥15 days/month (H15+), comparing these with GBD estimates and exploring time trends and geographical variations. Our second aim was to analyse how methodological factors influenced prevalence estimates.

Methods

In a narrative review, all prevalence studies published until 2020, excluding those of clinic populations, were identified through a literature search. Prevalence data were extracted, along with those related to methodology, world region and publication year. Bivariate analyses (correlations or comparisons of means) and multiple linear regression (MLR) analyses were performed.

Results

From 357 publications, the vast majority from high-income countries, the estimated global prevalence of active headache disorder was 52.0% (95%CI 48.9–55.4), of migraine 14.0% (12.9–15.2), of TTH 26.0% (22.7–29.5) and of H15+ 4.6% (3.9–5.5). These estimates were comparable with those of migraine and TTH in GBD2019, the most recent iteration, but higher for headache overall. Each day, 15.8% of the world’s population had headache. MLR analyses explained less than 30% of the variation. Methodological factors contributing to variation, were publication year, sample size, inclusion of probable diagnoses, sub-population sampling (e.g., of health-care personnel), sampling method (random or not), screening question (neutral, or qualified in severity or presumed cause) and scope of enquiry (headache disorders only or multiple other conditions). With these taken into account, migraine prevalence estimates increased over the years, while estimates for all headache types varied between world regions.

Conclusion

The review confirms GBD in finding that headache disorders remain highly prevalent worldwide, and it identifies methodological factors explaining some of the large variation between study findings. These variations render uncertain both the increase in migraine prevalence estimates over time, and the geographical differences. More and better studies are needed in low- and middle-income countries.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s10194-022-01402-2.

Burden of headache in a HIV-positive population of sub-Saharan Africa

BACKGROUND

About 26 million people are living with HIV in sub-Saharan Africa. The DREAM programme in sub-Saharan Africa provides free healthcare for HIV/AIDS and a range of chronic non-communicable diseases. HIV is a risk factor for neurological non-communicable diseases including stroke and epilepsy, which themselves are associated with headache, and HIV may be a direct risk factor for headache. We investigated the prevalence and burden of headache in a HIV+ population in sub-Saharan Africa.

METHODS

At the DREAM Centre in Blantyre, Malawi, a low-income country with a population of 19 million and 9.2% HIV prevalence, a structured questionnaire was administered by a trained lay interviewer to consecutively attending HIV+ patients aged 6-65 years. All were monitored with regular viral load detection.

RESULTS

Of 513 eligible patients invited, 498 were included (mean age 34.1 ± 12.8 years; 72% females; 15 declined). All were on antiretroviral treatment, with viral load undetectable in 83.9%. The 1-year prevalence of headache was 80.3% (females 83.6%, males 71.9%); 3.8% had ≥15 headache days/month, 1.4% had probable medication-overuse headache. Mean overall headache frequency was 4.4 ± 5.4 days/month. Those reporting headache lost means of 2.3% of paid workdays and 3.3% of household workdays because of headache. Only one third had sought advice for their headache.

CONCLUSIONS

Headache is very prevalent among HIV+ patients in Malawi, imposing additional burden and costs on individuals and the community. Management of headache disorders should be implemented in HIV centres, as it is for other chronic non-communicable diseases.

The relationship between headache-attributed disability and lost productivity: 2. Empirical evidence from population-based studies in nine disparate countries

Background

Headache disorders are disabling, with major consequences for productivity, yet the literature is silent on the relationship between headache-attributed disability and lost productivity, often erroneously regarding the two as synonymous. We evaluated the relationship empirically, having earlier found that investment in structured headache services would be cost saving, not merely cost-effective, if reductions in headache-attributed disability led to > 20% pro rata recovery of lost productivity.

Methods

We used individual participant data from Global Campaign population-based studies conducted in China, Ethiopia, India, Nepal, Pakistan and Russia, and from Eurolight in Lithuania, Luxembourg and Spain. We assessed relationships in migraine and probable medication-overuse headache (pMOH), the most disabling common headache disorders. Available symptom data included headache frequency, usual duration and usual intensity. We used frequency and duration to estimate proportion of time in ictal state (pTIS). Disability, in the sense used by the Global Burden of Disease study, was measured as the product of pTIS and disability weight for the ictal state. Impairment was measured as pTIS * intensity. Lost productivity was measured as lost days (absence or < 50% productivity) from paid work and corresponding losses from household work over the preceding 3 months. We used Spearman correlation and linear regression analyses.

Results

For migraine, in a linear model, we found positive associations with lost paid worktime, significant (p < 0.05) in many countries and highly significant (p < 0.001) in some despite low values of R² (0–0.16) due to high variance. With lost household worktime and total lost productivity (paid + household), associations were highly significant in almost all countries, although still with low R² (0.04–0.22). Applying the regression equations for each country to the population mean migraine-attributed disability, we found pro rata recoveries of lost productivity in the range 16–56% (> 20% in all countries but Pakistan). Analysing impairment rather than disability increased variability. For pMOH, with smaller numbers, associations were generally weaker, occasionally negative and mostly not significant.

Conclusion

Relief of disability through effective treatment of migraine is expected, in most countries, to recover > 20% pro rata of lost productivity, above the threshold for investment in structured headache services to be cost saving.

Structured headache services as the solution to the ill-health burden of headache. 2. Modelling effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of implementation in Europe: methodology

BACKGROUND

Health economic evaluations support health-care decision-making by providing information on the costs and consequences of health interventions. No universally accepted methodology exists for modelling effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of interventions designed to close treatment gaps for headache disorders in countries of Europe (or elsewhere). Our aim here, within the European Brain Council's Value-of-Treatment project, was to develop headache-type-specific analytical models to be applied to implementation of structured headache services in Europe as the health-care solution to headache.

METHODS

We developed three headache-type-specific decision-analytical models using the WHO-CHOICE framework and adapted these for three European Region country settings (Luxembourg, Russia and Spain), diverse in geographical location, population size, income level and health-care systems and for which we had population-based data. Each model compared current (suboptimal) care vs target care (delivered in accordance with the structured headache services model). Epidemiological and economic data were drawn from studies conducted by the Global Campaign against Headache; data on efficacy of treatments were taken from published randomized controlled trials; assumptions on uptake of treatments, and those made for Healthy Life Year (HLY) calculations and target-care benefits, were agreed with experts. We made annual and 5-year cost estimates from health-care provider (main analyses) and societal (secondary analyses) perspectives (2020 figures, euros).

RESULTS

The analytical models were successfully developed and applied to each country setting. Headache-related costs (including use of health-care resources and lost productivity) and health outcomes (HLYs) were mapped across populations. The same calculations were repeated for each alternative (current vs target care). Analyses of the differences in costs and health outcomes between alternatives and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios are presented elsewhere.

CONCLUSIONS

This study presents the first headache-type-specific analytical models to evaluate effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of implementing structured headache services in countries in the European Region. The models are robust, and can assist policy makers in allocating health budgets between interventions to maximize the health of populations.

Structured headache services as the solution to the ill-health burden of headache. 3. Modelling effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of implementation in Europe: findings and conclusions

BACKGROUND

There have been several calls for estimations of costs and consequences of headache interventions to inform European public-health policies. In a previous paper, in the absence of universally accepted methodology, we developed headache-type-specific analytical models to be applied to implementation of structured headache services in Europe as the health-care solution to headache. Here we apply this methodology and present the findings.

METHODS

Data sources were published evidence and expert opinions, including those from an earlier economic evaluation framework using the WHO-CHOICE model. We used three headache-type-specific analytical models, for migraine, tension-type-headache (TTH) and medication-overuse-headache (MOH). We considered three European Region case studies, from Luxembourg, Russia and Spain to include a range of health-care systems, comparing current (suboptimal) care versus target care (structured services implemented, with provider-training and consumer-education). We made annual and 5-year cost estimates from health-care provider and societal perspectives (2020 figures, euros). We expressed effectiveness as healthy life years (HLYs) gained, and cost-effectiveness as incremental cost-effectiveness-ratios (ICERs; cost to be invested/HLY gained). We applied WHO thresholds for cost-effectiveness.

RESULTS

The models demonstrated increased effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness (migraine) or cost saving (TTH, MOH) from the provider perspective over one and 5 years and consistently across the health-care systems and settings. From the societal perspective, we found structured headache services would be economically successful, not only delivering increased effectiveness but also cost saving across headache types and over time. The predicted magnitude of cost saving correlated positively with country wage levels. Lost productivity had a major impact on these estimates, but sensitivity analyses showed the intervention remained cost-effective across all models when we assumed that remedying disability would recover only 20% of lost productivity.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first study to propose a health-care solution for headache, in the form of structured headache services, and evaluate it economically in multiple settings. Despite numerous challenges, we demonstrated that economic evaluation of headache services, in terms of outcomes and costs, is feasible as well as necessary. Furthermore, it is strongly supportive of the proposed intervention, while its framework is general enough to be easily adapted and implemented across Europe.

Diagnosis and management of migraine in ten steps

Migraine is a disabling primary headache disorder that directly affects more than one billion people worldwide. Despite its widespread prevalence, migraine remains under-diagnosed and under-treated. To support clinical decision-making, we convened a European panel of experts to develop a ten-step approach to the diagnosis and management of migraine. Each step was established by expert consensus and supported by a review of current literature, and the Consensus Statement is endorsed by the European Headache Federation and the European Academy of Neurology. In this Consensus Statement, we introduce typical clinical features, diagnostic criteria and differential diagnoses of migraine. We then emphasize the value of patient centricity and patient education to ensure treatment adherence and satisfaction with care provision. Further, we outline best practices for acute and preventive treatment of migraine in various patient populations, including adults, children and adolescents, pregnant and breastfeeding women, and older people. In addition, we provide recommendations for evaluating treatment response and managing treatment failure. Lastly, we discuss the management of complications and comorbidities as well as the importance of planning long-term follow-up.

Structured headache services as the solution to the ill-health burden of headache: 1. Rationale and description

In countries where headache services exist at all, their focus is usually on specialist (tertiary) care. This is clinically and economically inappropriate: most headache disorders can effectively and more efficiently (and at lower cost) be treated in educationally supported primary care. At the same time, compartmentalizing divisions between primary, secondary and tertiary care in many health-care systems create multiple inefficiencies, confronting patients attempting to navigate these levels (the "patient journey") with perplexing obstacles.High demand for headache care, estimated here in a needs-assessment exercise, is the biggest of the challenges to reform. It is also the principal reason why reform is necessary.The structured headache services model presented here by experts from all world regions on behalf of the Global Campaign against Headache is the suggested health-care solution to headache. It develops and refines previous proposals, responding to the challenge of high demand by basing headache services in primary care, with two supporting arguments. First, only primary care can deliver headache services equitably to the large numbers of people needing it. Second, with educational supports, they can do so effectively to most of these people. The model calls for vertical integration between care levels (primary, secondary and tertiary), and protection of the more advanced levels for the minority of patients who need them. At the same time, it is amenable to horizontal integration with other care services. It is adaptable according to the broader national or regional health services in which headache services should be embedded.It is, according to evidence and argument presented, an efficient and cost-effective model, but these are claims to be tested in formal economic analyses.

The relationship between headache-attributed disability and lost productivity: 1. A review of the literature

BACKGROUND

Headache disorders are disabling and have a significant impact on productivity. The relationship between these two consequences is of considerable economic and political interest. We enquired into it through a systematic search of the English-language literature.

METHODS

We followed PRISMA guidelines in specifying search terms and syntax and in article selection. We used the term "disability" in the search, accepting any meaning that authors attached to it, but this proved problematic. Accordingly, we adopted the definition used in the Global Burden of Disease study. In article selection, we included only those that purported to measure disability as so defined and lost productivity. We reviewed the full texts of those selected. We included further articles identified from review of the bibliographies of selected articles.

RESULTS

The literature search found 598 studies, of which 21 warranted further review. Their bibliographies identified another four of possible relevance. On full-text reading of these 25, all were rejected. Ten applied incompatible definitions of disability and/or lost productivity. Two did not measure both. Four reported lost productivity but not disability. Eight studies reported and measured both but did not assess the association between them or provide the means of doing so. One was purely methodological.

CONCLUSIONS

The literature is silent on the relationship between headache-attributed disability and lost productivity. In view of its health economic and political importance, empirical studies are required to remedy this. A prerequisite is to clarify what is meant by "disability" in this context.

A universal outcome measure for headache treatments, care-delivery systems and economic analysis

BACKGROUND

The first manuscript in this series delineated a model of structured headache services, potentially cost-effective but requiring formal cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA). We envisaged a need for a new outcome measure for this purpose, applicable to all forms of treatment, care and care-delivery systems as opposed to comparisons of single-modality treatments.

CONCEPTION AND DELINEATION

A literature review confirmed the lack of any suitable established measure. We prioritised construct validity, simplicity, comprehensiveness and expression in intuitive units. We noted that pain was the key burdensome symptom of migraine and episodic tension-type headache (TTH), that pain above a certain level was disabling, that it was difficult to put economic value to pain but relatively easy to do this for time, a casualty of headache leading to lost productivity. Alleviation of pain to a non-disabling level would be expected to bring restoration of function. We therefore based the measure on time spent in the ictal state (TIS) of migraine or TTH, either as total TIS or proportion of all time. We expressed impact on health, in units of time, as TIS*DW, where DW was the disability weight for the ictal state supplied by the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) studies. If the time unit was hours, TIS*DW yielded hours lived with (or lost to) disability (HLDs), in analogy with GBD's years lived with disability (YLDs).

UTILITY ASSESSMENT

Acute treatments would reduce TIS by shortening attack duration, preventative treatments by reducing attack frequency; health-care systems such as structured headache services would have these effects by delivering these treatments. These benefits were all measurable as HLDs-averted. Population-level estimates would be derived by factoring in prevalence, but also taking treatment coverage and adherence into account. For health-care systems, additional gains from provider-training (promoting adherence to guidelines and, therefore, enhancing coverage) and consumer-education (improving adherence to care plans), increasing numbers within populations gaining the benefits of treatments, would be measurable by the same metric.

CONCLUSIONS

The new outcome measure expressed in intuitive units of time is applicable to treatments of all modalities and to system-level interventions for multiple headache types, with utility for CEA and for informing health policy.

If headache has any association with hypertension, it is negative. Evidence from a population-based study in Nepal

BACKGROUND

Hypertension and headache disorders are major contributors to public ill health, linked by a long-standing but questionable belief that hypertension is a conspicuous cause of headache. In Nepal, where hypertension is common and often untreated, we assessed the substance of this belief, hypothesising that, should hypertension be a significant cause of headache, a clear positive association between these disorders would exist.

METHODS

In a cross-sectional, nationwide study, trained health workers conducted face-to-face structured interviews, during unannounced home visits, with a representative sample of the Nepalese adult population (18-65 years). They applied standard diagnostic criteria for headache disorders and measured blood pressure digitally. Hypertension was defined as systolic pressure ≥140 and/or diastolic ≥90 mm Hg.

RESULTS

Of 2,100 participants (59.0% female, mean age 36.4 ± 12.8 years), 317 (15.1%) had hypertension (41.0% female) and 1,794 (85.4%) had headache (61.6% female; 728 migraine, 863 tension-type headache, 161 headache on ≥15 days/month [mutually exclusive diagnoses]; 42 unclassified headaches).All headache collectively was less prevalent among hypertension cases (78.9%) than non-cases (86.6%; p = 0.001). A negative association between hypertension and all headache was demonstrated in bivariate analysis (odds ratio: 0.6 [95% Confidence interval: 0.4-0.8]; p < 0.001), but did not maintain significance in multivariate regression analysis (adjusted odds ratio: 0.8 [95% Confidence interval: 0.5-1.1]; p = 0.09). The findings were reflected, without significance, in each headache type.

CONCLUSIONS

If any association exists between hypertension and headache disorders, it is negative. From the public-health perspective, headache disorders and hypertension are unrelated entities: they need distinct policies and programs for prevention, control and management.

Migraine: epidemiology and systems of care

Migraine is a neurovascular disorder that affects over 1 billion people worldwide. Its widespread prevalence, and associated disability, have a range of negative and substantial effects not only on those immediately affected but also on their families, colleagues, employers, and society. To reduce this global burden, concerted efforts are needed to implement and improve migraine care that is supported by informed health-care policies. In this Series paper, we summarise the data on migraine epidemiology, including estimates of its very considerable burden on the global economy. First, we present the challenges that continue to obstruct provision of adequate care worldwide. Second, we outline the advantages of integrated and coordinated systems of care, in which primary and specialist care complement and support each other; the use of comprehensive referral and linkage protocols should enable continuity of care between these systems levels. Finally, we describe challenges in low and middle-income countries, including countries with poor public health education, inadequate access to medication, and insufficient formal education and training of health-care professionals resulting in misdiagnosis, mismanagement, and wastage of resources.

The burden attributable to headache disorders in children and adolescents in Lithuania: estimates from a national schools-based study

Background

We recently showed headache to be common in children (aged 7–11 years) and adolescents (aged 12–17) in Lithuania. Here we provide evidence from the same study of the headache-attributable burden.

Methods

Following the generic protocol for Lifting The Burden’s global schools-based study, this cross-sectional survey administered self-completed structured questionnaires to pupils within classes in 24 nationally representative schools selected from seven regions of the country. Headache diagnostic questions were based on ICHD-3 beta criteria but for the inclusion of undifferentiated headache (UdH; defined as mild headache with usual duration < 1 h). Burden enquiry was conducted in multiple domains.

Results

Questionnaires were completed by 2505 pupils (1382 children, 1123 adolescents; participating proportion 67.4%), of whom 1858 reported headache in the preceding year, with mean frequency (±SD) of 3.7 ± 4.5 days/4 weeks and mean duration of 1.6 ± 1.9 h. Mean proportion of time in ictal state, estimated from these, was 0.9% (migraine 1.5%, probable medication-overuse headache [pMOH] 10.9%). Mean intensity on a scale of 1–3 was 1.6 ± 0.6 (mild-to-moderate). Symptomatic medication was consumed on 1.5 ± 2.8 days/4 weeks. Lost school time was 0.5 ± 1.5 days/4 weeks (migraine 0.7 ± 1.5, pMOH 5.0 ± 7.8) based on recall, but about 50% higher for migraine according to actual absences recorded in association with reported headache on the preceding day. More days were reported with limited activity (overall 1.2 ± 2.4, migraine 1.5 ± 2.2, pMOH 8.4 ± 8.5) than lost from school. One in 30 parents (3.3%) missed work at least once in 4 weeks because of their son’s or daughter’s headache. Emotional impact and quality-of-life scores generally reflected other measures of burden, with pMOH causing greatest detriments, followed by migraine and tension-type headache, and UdH least. Burdens were greater in adolescents than children as UdH differentiated into adult headache types.

Conclusions

Headache in children and adolescents in Lithuania is mostly associated with modest symptom burden. However, the consequential burdens, in particular lost school days, are far from negligible for migraine (which is prevalent) and very heavy for pMOH (which, while uncommon in children, becomes four-fold more prevalent in adolescents). These findings are of importance to both health and educational policies in Lithuania.

Burden of Neurological Disorders Across the US From 1990-2017: A Global Burden of Disease Study

Question

What is the current burden of neurological disorders in the US by states, and what are the temporal trends (from 1990 to 2017)?

Findings

Systematic analysis of the Global Burden of Disease study shows that, in 2017, the 3 most burdensome neurological disorders in the US were stroke, Alzheimer disease and other dementias, and migraine. The burden of individual neurological disorders varied moderately to widely by states (a 1.2-fold to 7.5-fold difference), and the absolute numbers of incident, prevalent, and fatal cases and disability-adjusted life-years of neurological disorders (except for traumatic brain injury incidence; spinal cord injury prevalence; meningitis prevalence, deaths, and disability-adjusted life-years; and encephalitis disability-adjusted life-years) across all US states increased from 1990 to 2017.

Meaning

A large and increasing number of people have various neurological disorders in the US, with significant variation in the burden of and trends in neurological disorders across the US states, and the reasons for these geographic variations need to be explored further.

Importance

Accurate and up-to-date estimates on incidence, prevalence, mortality, and disability-adjusted life-years (burden) of neurological disorders are the backbone of evidence-based health care planning and resource allocation for these disorders. It appears that no such estimates have been reported at the state level for the US.

Objective

To present burden estimates of major neurological disorders in the US states by age and sex from 1990 to 2017.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This is a systematic analysis of the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) 2017 study. Data on incidence, prevalence, mortality, and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) of major neurological disorders were derived from the GBD 2017 study of the 48 contiguous US states, Alaska, and Hawaii. Fourteen major neurological disorders were analyzed: stroke, Alzheimer disease and other dementias, Parkinson disease, epilepsy, multiple sclerosis, motor neuron disease, migraine, tension-type headache, traumatic brain injury, spinal cord injuries, brain and other nervous system cancers, meningitis, encephalitis, and tetanus.

Exposures

Any of the 14 listed neurological diseases.

Main Outcome and Measure

Absolute numbers in detail by age and sex and age-standardized rates (with 95% uncertainty intervals) were calculated.

Results

The 3 most burdensome neurological disorders in the US in terms of absolute number of DALYs were stroke (3.58 [95% uncertainty interval [UI], 3.25-3.92] million DALYs), Alzheimer disease and other dementias (2.55 [95% UI, 2.43-2.68] million DALYs), and migraine (2.40 [95% UI, 1.53-3.44] million DALYs). The burden of almost all neurological disorders (in terms of absolute number of incident, prevalent, and fatal cases, as well as DALYs) increased from 1990 to 2017, largely because of the aging of the population. Exceptions for this trend included traumatic brain injury incidence (−29.1% [95% UI, −32.4% to −25.8%]); spinal cord injury prevalence (−38.5% [95% UI, −43.1% to −34.0%]); meningitis prevalence (−44.8% [95% UI, −47.3% to −42.3%]), deaths (−64.4% [95% UI, −67.7% to −50.3%]), and DALYs (−66.9% [95% UI, −70.1% to −55.9%]); and encephalitis DALYs (−25.8% [95% UI, −30.7% to −5.8%]). The different metrics of age-standardized rates varied between the US states from a 1.2-fold difference for tension-type headache to 7.5-fold for tetanus; southeastern states and Arkansas had a relatively higher burden for stroke, while northern states had a relatively higher burden of multiple sclerosis and eastern states had higher rates of Parkinson disease, idiopathic epilepsy, migraine and tension-type headache, and meningitis, encephalitis, and tetanus.

Conclusions and Relevance

There is a large and increasing burden of noncommunicable neurological disorders in the US, with up to a 5-fold variation in the burden of and trends in particular neurological disorders across the US states. The information reported in this article can be used by health care professionals and policy makers at the national and state levels to advance their health care planning and resource allocation to prevent and reduce the burden of neurological disorders.

Use of medicinal plants for headache, and their potential implication in medication-overuse headache: Evidence from a population-based study in Nepal

Background

In Nepal, traditional treatment using medicinal plants is popular. Whereas medication-overuse headache is, by definition, caused by excessive use of acute headache medication, we hypothesized that medicinal plants, being pharmacologically active, were as likely a cause.

Methods

We used data from a cross-sectional, nationwide population-based study, which enquired into headache and use of medicinal plants and allopathic medications. We searched the literature for pharmacodynamic actions of the medicinal plants.

Results

Of 2100 participants, 1794 (85.4%) reported headache in the preceding year; 161 (7.7%) reported headache on ≥15 days/month, of whom 28 (17.4%) had used medicinal plants and 117 (72.7%) allopathic medication(s). Of 46 with probable medication-overuse headache, 87.0% (40/46) were using allopathic medication(s) and 13.0% (6/46) medicinal plants, a ratio of 6.7:1, higher than the overall ratio among those with headache of 4.9:1 (912/185). Of 60 plant species identified, 49 were pharmacodynamically active on the central nervous system, with various effects of likely relevance in medication-overuse headache causation.

Conclusions

MPs are potentially a cause of medication-overuse headache, and not to be seen as innocent in this regard. Numbers presumptively affected in Nepal are low but not negligible. This pioneering project provides a starting point for further research to provide needed guidance on use of medicinal plants for headache.

The prevalence of headache disorders in children and adolescents in Ethiopia: a schools-based study

Background

The Global Burden of Disease (GBD) study establishes headache as the second-highest cause of disability worldwide. Because most headache data in GBD are from adults, leading to underestimation of headache-attributed burden, a global schools-based programme within the Global Campaign against Headache is contributing data from children (7–11 years) and adolescents (12–17 years). This national study in Ethiopia is the first in this programme reported from sub-Saharan Africa.

Methods

A cross-sectional survey following the generic protocol for the global study was conducted in six schools (urban and rural), in Addis Ababa city and three regions of Ethiopia. Structured questionnaires were self-completed under supervision by pupils within their classes. Headache diagnostic questions were based on ICHD-3 beta criteria but for the inclusion of undifferentiated headache (UdH).

Results

Of 2349 potential participants, 2344 completed the questionnaire (1011 children [43.1%], 1333 adolescents [56.9%]; 1157 males [49.4%], 1187 females [50.6%]), a participation proportion of 99.8%. Gender- and age-adjusted 1-year prevalence of headache was 72.8% (migraine: 38.6%; tension-type headache: 19.9%; UdH: 12.3%; all headache on ≥15 days/month: 1.2%; probable medication-overuse headache: 0.2%). Headache was more prevalent in females (76.2%) than males (71.0%), a finding reflected only in migraine among the headache types. Headache was more prevalent among adolescents (77.6%) than children (68.4%), reflected in all types except migraine, although prevalence of UdH fell sharply after age 14 years to 3.9%.

For headache overall, findings matched those in Turkey and Austria, obtained with the same questionnaire, but the high prevalence of migraine, not increasing with age, was surprising. The study highlighted diagnostic difficulties in young people, especially when poorly educated, with migraine diagnoses driven by improbably high proportions reporting nausea (44.8%) and vomiting (28.0%) as usual symptoms accompanying their headaches.

Conclusions

Headache is very common in children and adolescents in Ethiopia. This has major public-health implications, since half the country’s population are aged under 18 years.

The prevalence of headache disorders in children and adolescents in Mongolia: a nationwide schools-based study

BACKGROUND

The Global Campaign against Headache collects data from children (7-11 years) and adolescents (12-17 years) both to inform health and education policies and to contribute to the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) study. This survey in Mongolia was part of this global enquiry.

METHODS

Following the generic protocol for the global enquiry, this was a schools-based cross-sectional survey. Self-completed structured questionnaires were administered, within classes, in seven schools in four districts of the Capital city and three rural areas of Mongolia, selected to represent the country's diversities. Headache diagnostic questions were based on ICHD-3 criteria but for the inclusion of undifferentiated headache (UdH).

RESULTS

Of 4515 potential participants, 4266 completed the questionnaire (children 2241 [52.5%], adolescents 2025 [47.5%]; males 2107 [49.4%], females 2159 [50.6%]). Children were therefore slightly over-represented, although overall mean age was 11.3 ± 3.3 years (range: 6-17; median 11). The non-participation proportion was 4.5%. Observed lifetime prevalence of headache was 81.0%. Gender- and age-adjusted 1-year prevalence was 59.4% (migraine: 27.3%; tension-type headache [TTH]: 16.1%; UdH: 6.6%; all headache on ≥15 days/month: 4.2%; probable medication-overuse headache: 0.7%). All headache types except UdH were more prevalent among females than males, and all were more prevalent among adolescents than children, although UdH represented a higher proportion of all headache in children (13.0%) than in adolescents (10.0%). Headache yesterday was reported by 15.9% of the sample, 26.0% of those with headache.

CONCLUSIONS

At least in adolescents, headache in Mongolia is no less common than in adults. The clear difference from similar studies in other countries was a lower prevalence of UdH, perhaps a consequence of reporting bias in a non-troublesome headache (mild and short-lasting by definition). This study informs policy in Mongolia and, with no similar study yet from elsewhere in Western Pacific Region, makes an important contribution to the global enquiry.

The prevalence of headache disorders in children and adolescents in Lithuania: a schools-based study

BACKGROUND

While the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) study reports headache disorders as the second-highest cause of disability worldwide, the headache data in GBD come very largely from adults. This national study in Lithuania was part of a global schools-based programme within the Global Campaign against Headache contributing data from children (7-11 years) and adolescents (12-17 years).

METHODS

The methods followed the generic protocol for the global study. The basic study design was a cross-sectional survey. Self-completed structured questionnaires were administered, within classes, in 24 schools selected from seven regions of Lithuania to be nationally representative. Headache diagnostic questions were based on ICHD-3 beta criteria but for the inclusion of undifferentiated headache (UdH).

RESULTS

Of 3714 potential participants, 2505 (children 1382 [55.2%], adolescents 1123 [44.8%]; males 1169 [46.7%], females 1336 [53.3%]) completed the questionnaire. Adolescents and males were therefore relatively under-represented, with non-participation (32.6%) due in most cases to lack of parental consent. Observed lifetime prevalence of headache was 92.2%. Gender- and age-adjusted 1-year prevalence was 76.6% (migraine: 21.4%; tension-type headache [TTH]: 25.6%; UdH: 24.0%; all headache on ≥15 days/month: 3.9%; probable medication-overuse headache: 0.8%). All headache types except UdH were more prevalent among females than males, and among adolescents than children. UdH showed a complex relationship with age, but represented 38.0% of all reported headache in children, 27.4% in adolescents. Headache yesterday (HY) was reported by 17.5%, almost double the 9.8% predicted from prevalence and headache frequency to have headache on any day. The reason was unclear.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings were not very different from those reported in Turkey and Austria, but with more TTH. Headache has, therefore, again been shown to be common in children and adolescents, and UdH confirmed as a headache type that must be recognised and included in accounts of headache in these age groups.

The prevalence of primary headache disorders in Saudi Arabia: a cross-sectional population-based study

BACKGROUND

The large geographical gaps in our knowledge of the prevalence and burden of headache disorders include most of Eastern Mediterranean Region (EMR). Following a nationwide population-based study in Pakistan, we present here a similar study from Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA). Both were conducted as projects within the Global Campaign against Headache The two purposes of this study were to inform national health policy and contribute to global knowledge of headache disorders.

METHODS

We surveyed Arabic-speaking adults aged 18-65 years in all 13 regions of KSA. While previous Global Campaign studies have engaged participants by calling at randomly selected households, the culture of KSA made this unacceptable. Participants were, instead, contacted by cell-phone (since cell-phone coverage exceeded 100% in KSA), using random-digit dialling. Trained interviewers used a culturally adapted version of the Headache-Attributed Restriction, Disability, Social Handicap and Impaired Participation (HARDSHIP) questionnaire, with diagnostic enquiry based on ICHD-II. We estimated 1-year prevalences of the headache disorders of public-health importance (migraine, tension-type headache [TTH] and probable medication-overuse headache [pMOH]) and examined their associations with demographic variables.

RESULTS

A total of 2316 participants (mean age of 32.2 ± 10.7 years; 62.3% male; 37.7% female) were included (participation proportion 86.5%). Gender and age distributions imperfectly matched those of the national population, requiring adjustments for these to prevalence estimates. Observed 1-year prevalence of all headache was 77.2%, reducing to 65.8% when adjusted. For headache types, adjusted 1-year prevalences were migraine 25.0%, TTH 34.1%, pMOH 2.0% and other headache on ≥15 days/month 2.3%. Adjusted 1-day prevalence of any headache was 11.5%. Migraine and pMOH were associated with female gender (ORs: 1.7 and 4.7; p < 0.0001). Migraine was negatively associated with age > 45 years (OR: 0.4; p = 0.0143) while pMOH was most prevalent in those aged 46-55 years (OR: 2.7; p = 0.0415). TTH reportedly became more common with increasing level of education.

CONCLUSION

Prevalences of migraine and TTH in KSA are considerably higher than global averages (which may be underestimated), and not very different from those in Pakistan. There is more pMOH in KSA than in Pakistan, reflecting, probably, its higher-income status and greater urbanisation (facilitating access to medication).

Primary headache disorders among the adult population of Mongolia: prevalences and associations from a population-based survey

BACKGROUND

In the ongoing Global Campaign endeavour to improve knowledge and awareness of headache prevalence worldwide, Mongolia is a country of interest. It sits between Russia and China, in which prevalence is, respectively, much higher and much lower than the estimated global mean. We conducted a population-based study in Mongolia both to add to knowledge and to inform local health policy.

METHODS

Using standardized methodology with cluster random sampling, we selected Mongolian adults (aged 18-65 years) from five regions reflecting the country's diversities. They were interviewed by trained researchers, cold-calling at their homes, using the Headache-Attributed Restriction, Disability, Social Handicap and Impaired Participation (HARDSHIP) structured questionnaire following pilot-testing. ICHD-3 beta diagnostic criteria were applied.

RESULTS

N = 2043 (mean age 38.0 [±13.4] years, 40% urban-dwelling and 60% rural), with a non-participation proportion of 1.7%. Males were somewhat underrepresented, for which corrections were made. The crude 1-year prevalence of any headache was 66.1% (95% CI: 64.0-68.2%), with a strong female preponderance (OR: 2.2; p < 0.0001). Age- and gender-adjusted prevalences were: migraine 23.1% (for females, OR = 2.2; p < 0.0001); tension-type headache (TTH) 29.1% (no gender difference); probable medication-overuse headache (pMOH) 5.7% (trending towards higher in females); other headache on ≥15 days/month 5.0% (for females, OR = 2.2; p = 0.0008). Unclassified cases were only 35 (1.7%). Any headache yesterday was reported by 410 (20.1%; for females, OR = 2.4; p < 0.0001). Only pMOH showed a strong association with age, peaking in middle years with a 5-fold increase in prevalence. Migraine showed a consistent association with educational level, while pMOH showed the reverse, and was also more common among other groups than among participants who were single (never married). Migraine was less common among rural participants than urban (OR: 0.80; p = 0.0326), while pMOH again showed the reverse (OR: 2.4; p < 0.0001). Finally, pMOH (but not migraine or TTH) was significantly associated with obesity (OR: 1.8; p = 0.0214).

CONCLUSION

Headache disorders are common in Mongolia, with, most notably, a very high prevalence of headache on ≥15 days/month corroborated by the high prevalence of headache yesterday. The picture is very like that in Russia, and dissimilar to China. There are messages for national health policy.

Problematic presentation and use of efficacy measures in current trials of CGRP monoclonal antibodies for episodic migraine prevention: A mini-review

Background

In trials of monoclonal antibodies against calcitonin gene-related peptide or its receptor for prevention of episodic migraine, we observed two problematic aspects: a) The graphic presentations; b) the methods of calculating “response rates” (≥50% decrease of monthly migraine days from baseline).

Observations

Decrease in monthly migraine days is presented, over time, in figures on a downward (negative) scale from zero at baseline, with the ordinate stopped just beyond the maximum effect of the active drugs. In one trial, decreases in monthly migraine days were −1.8 after placebo, −3.2 after erenumab 70 mg and −3.7 after erenumab 140 mg, with the ordinate stopped at −4.5. The reader can perceive only a relative 2-fold benefit of erenumab versus placebo. If, however, treatment periods are compared with baseline in bar charts, MMDs persisting after treatment in the same trial can be illustrated as follows, creating a different perception: 78% for placebo, 61% for erenumab 70 mg, and 55% for erenumab 140 mg. In the nine trials, “response rates” defined as above were calculated in five different ways, taking different numbers of treatment months into account in comparisons with the one-month baseline. This makes comparisons impossible.

Suggestions for improvements

Mean monthly migraine days before and after treatment should be presented in a bar chart. Such figures, presenting persisting MMDs, are more clinically relevant and less misleading than decreases from baseline. The definition and methods of calculating and presenting “50% response rates” should be standardized by the Drug Trial Committee of the International Headache Society.

Migraine: a major debilitating chronic non-communicable disease in Brazil, evidence from two national surveys

Background

Even though migraine and other primary headache disorders are common and debilitating, major health surveys in Brazil have not included them. We repair this omission by combining data on non-communicable diseases (NCDs) in the Brazilian National Health Survey (PNS) 2013 with epidemiological data on migraine prevalence and severity in Brazil. The purpose is to rank migraine and its impact on public healthh among NCDs in order to support public-health policy toward better care for migraine in Brazil.

Methods

Data from PNS, a cross-sectional population-based study, were merged with estimates made by the Brazilian Headache Epidemiology Study (BHES) of migraine prevalence (numbers of people affected and of candidates for migraine preventative therapy) and migraine-attributed disability.

Results

Migraine ranked second in prevalence among the NCDs, and as the highest cause of disability among adults in Brazil. Probable migraine accounted for substantial additional disability. An estimated total of 5.5 million people in Brazil (or 9.5 million with probable migraine included) were in need of preventative therapy.

Conclusion

On this evidence, migraine should be included in the next health surveys in Brazil. Public-health policy should recognize the burden of migraine expressed in public ill health, and promote health services offering better diagnosis and treatment.