Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND: Migraine is one of the top 10 most disabling conditions among adults worldwide. Most migraine research is quantitative and indicates concerns about medication adherence, stigma, and more. Qualitative studies might reveal an improved understanding of migraine patients' perspectives regarding migraine treatment. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to synthesize the qualitative research on migraine patients' perspectives regarding migraine treatment to (a) identify common patterns across various types of migraine treatment studies and (b) inform future research. METHODS: A systematic search for qualitative studies in the HA (HA) literature was conducted in Medline (PubMed), PsycINFO, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, Joanna Briggs Institute EBP Database, and The Cochrane Library. Search terms (subject headings and keywords) were HA, HA disorders, migraine, qualitative studies, and qualitative research. Qualitative studies were systematically identified by using published qualitative search filters recommended by The InterTASC Information Specialists' Sub-Group (ISSG). The search was limited to English only, peer reviewed publications, and studies published between 1996 and 2016. For screening, additional inclusion criteria were (1) adult migraine patients; (2) must mention treatment in the title or study design of the abstract. Ten studies met the inclusion criteria. The Critical Appraisal Skills Program tool was applied to appraise study quality. Thematic analysis produced the codes and themes. Two authors read articles separately and individually created codes. Code lists were synthesized and themes emerged iteratively from the process. RESULTS: Study sample sizes ranged from 10 to 33 participants, with our findings representing 161 participants. Data were collected either using interviews or focus groups. The more common methodologies were grounded theory and phenomenology. Few (3) studies described the number of headache (HA) days for inclusion in the study. Eight out of 10 used International Classification of Headache Disorders (ICHD) criteria. Our synthesis produced five major themes. The first theme was "Migraine patients' difficulties with health care utilization," and it included issues surrounding the cost of migraine treatment (seeing providers and prescription medications). The second theme was "Migraine patients' perceived relationships with their providers," which included the role and relationship with the provider, as well as trust in the provider and the providers' knowledge in managing HAs. The third theme was "Thoughts about the various migraine treatments." It was based on patients' comments indicating an aversion to prescription medications, the use of non-pharmacological interventions for treatment, behavioral modification as a form of treatment, and the need for additional treatment options. The fourth and fifth themes were "Understanding diagnosis/triggers" and "Societal implications," respectively. The latter theme included feelings of not being taken seriously and issues surrounding quality of life. DISCUSSION: The metasynthesis revealed several key commonalities regarding patients' perspectives on migraine treatment and identified new areas for research using a qualitative approach. Researchers conducting qualitative research with patients experiencing migraines might consider using and reporting more of the inclusion and exclusion criteria commonly used in migraine research, for example, reporting whether the ICHD criteria were used and the number of HA days for patients to be in a study. Future studies might be done to determine how the role of allied health care providers, for example, pharmacists, physical therapists, and psychologists, might be expanded to help with migraine treatment and ultimately to improve patient outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Given that post-traumatic headache is one of the most prevalent and long-lasting post-concussion sequelae, causes significant morbidity, and might be associated with slower neurocognitive recovery, we sought to evaluate the use of concussion screening scores in a concussion clinic population to assess for post-traumatic headache. METHODS: This is a retrospective cross-sectional study of 254 concussion patients from the New York University (NYU) Concussion Registry. Data on the headache characteristics, concussion mechanism, concussion screening scores were collected and analyzed. RESULTS: 72% of the patients had post-traumatic headache. About half (56.3%) were women. The mean age was 35 (SD 16.2). 90 (35%) patients suffered from sport-related concussions (SRC). Daily post-traumatic headache patients had higher Sport Concussion Assessment Tool (SCAT)-3 symptom severity scores than the non-daily post-traumatic headache and the headache-free patients (50.2 [SD 28.2] vs. 33.1 [SD 27.5] vs. 21.6 SD23], p < 0.001). Patients with SRC had lower headache intensity (4.47 [SD 2.5] vs. 6.24 [SD 2.28], p < 0.001) and SCAT symptom severity scores (33.9 [SD 27.4] vs. 51.4 [SD 27.7], p < 0.001) than the other patients, but there were no differences in post-traumatic headache prevalence, frequency, and Standardized Assessment of Concussion (SAC) scores. CONCLUSION: The presence and frequency of post-traumatic headache are associated with the SCAT-3 symptom severity score, which is the most important predictor for post-concussion recovery. The SCAT-3 symptom severity score might be a useful tool to help characterize patients' post-traumatic headache.

OBJECTIVES: To analyze triptan coverage by insurers to examine (1) possible disparities in coverage for different formulations (oral, intranasal, etc) and (2) quantity limits and stepped care requirements to obtain triptans. BACKGROUND: Triptans are FDA approved migraine abortive medications. Patients frequently state that they have difficulty accessing triptans prescribed to them. METHODS: We searched the 2015 drug formularies of commercial and government health insurers providing coverage in NY State. We created a spreadsheet with all of the commercially available triptans and included information about covered formulations, tier numbers and quantity limits for each drug. We then calculated the number of listed plans that cover or do not cover each triptan or triptan formulation, the total number of medications not covered by an insurance provided across all of its plans, as well as the percentage of plans offered by individual companies and across all companies that covered each drug. We also calculated the number and proportion of plans that imposed quantity limits or step therapy for each drug. RESULTS: Of the 100 formularies searched, generic sumatriptan (all formulations), naratriptan, and zolmitriptan tablets were covered by all plans, and rizatriptan tablets and ODTs were covered by 98% of plans. Brand triptans were less likely to be covered: 4/36 Medicaid plans covered brand triptans. Commercial insurers were more likely to cover brand triptans. All plans imposed quantity limits on 1+ triptan formulations, with >80% imposing quantity limits on 14/19 formulations studied. Almost all plans used tiers for cost allocation for different medications. Generic triptans were almost always in Tier 1. Brand triptans were most commonly in Tier 3. Approximately 40% of brand triptans required step therapy, compared with 11% of generic triptans. CONCLUSIONS: There are substantial variations in coverage and quantity limits and a high degree of complexity in triptan coverage for both government and commercial plans.