Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND: There are five to nine million primary care office visits a year for migraine in the United States. However, migraine care is often suboptimal in the primary care setting. A prior study indicated that primary care physicians (PCPs) wanted direct contact with headache specialists to improve the migraine care they provide. OBJECTIVE: We sought to further examine PCPs' knowledge of migraine management and assess the feasibility of a multimodal migraine education program for PCPs. METHODS: We conducted a survey assessing PCPs' knowledge about migraine. We then held three live educational sessions and developed an email consultative service for PCPs to submit questions they had about migraine. We report both quantitative and qualitative findings. RESULTS: Twenty-one PCPs completed the survey. They were generally familiar with the epidemiology of migraine (mean prevalence of migraine reported was 12.6%+/-10.1), the psychiatric comorbidities (mean prevalence of comorbid depression was 24.5% +/- 16.7, mean prevalence of comorbid anxiety was 24.6% +/- 18.3), and evidence-based behavioral treatments. Fifty-six percent cited cognitive behavioral therapy, 78% cited biofeedback, and 61% cited relaxation therapy as evidence based treatments. Though most were aware of the prevalence of psychiatric comorbidities, they did not routinely assess for them (43% did not routinely assess for anxiety, 29% did not routinely assess for depression). PCPs reported frequently referring patients for non-level A evidence based treatments: special diets (60%), acupuncture (50%), physical therapy (30%), and psychoanalysis (20%). Relaxation therapy was a therapy recommended by 40% of the PCPs. Only 10% reported referring for cognitive behavioral therapy or biofeedback. Nineteen percent made minimal or no use of migraine preventive medications. Seventy-two percent were unaware of or only slightly aware of the American Academy of Neurology guidelines for migraine. There was variable attendance at the educational sessions (N=22 at 1st session, 6 at 2nd session, 15 at 3rd session). Very few PCPs used the email consultative service (N=4). CONCLUSIONS: Though PCPs are familiar with many aspects of migraine care, there is a need and opportunity for improvement. The three live sessions were poorly attended and the email consultative service was rarely used. We provide an in depth discussion of targeted areas for educational intervention, of the challenges in developing a migraine educational program for PCPs, and areas for future study.

BACKGROUND: Studies reveal that migraine is often under-recognized, misdiagnosed and inadequately treated in the primary care setting. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this article is to assess primary care providers' (PCP) knowledge and needs regarding migraine diagnosis and management. METHODS: We held semi-structured group interviews and distributed a brief questionnaire to PCPs in our hospital network. Building on the information from the interviews, we developed a comprehensive survey assessing PCPs' knowledge about migraine. Descriptive analyses were performed. RESULTS: The initial interviews and brief questionnaires revealed that PCPs are aware of the prevalence of migraine but are uncertain about the details of management. Eighty-three of 120 physicians completed the comprehensive survey. Only 47% would order imaging for a new type of headache, 31% for worsening headache, and 35% for a headache unresponsive to treatment. Only 28% were familiar with the American Academy of Neurology guidelines on preventive treatment and 40% were familiar with the Choosing Wisely Campaign recommendations on migraine treatment. Just 34% were aware that opioids can cause medication-overuse headache. Non-pharmacologic treatment was not usually recommended. PCPs favored educational opportunities involving direct contact with headache physicians (56%). CONCLUSIONS: PCPs are not universally aware of the specific recommendations for managing migraine patients. Future work should focus on innovative ways to provide decision support and education for PCPs caring for migraineurs.

OBJECTIVE: To educate physicians about appropriate acute migraine treatment guidelines by determining (1) where headache patients were first prescribed opioids and barbiturates, and (2) the characteristics of the patient population who had been prescribed opioids and barbiturates. BACKGROUND: Several specialty societies issued recommendations that caution against the indiscriminate use of opioids or barbiturate containing medications for the treatment of migraine. These medications are still being prescribed in various medical settings and could put headache specialists in a difficult position when patients request these agents. METHODS: Patients presenting to a headache center comprised of eight physicians were asked to complete a survey that assessed headache types, comorbid conditions, and whether they had ever been prescribed opioids or barbiturates. If they responded affirmatively to the latter question, they were asked about the prescribing doctor, medication effectiveness, and whether they were currently on the medication. Data collection took place over a one month period. RESULTS: Two hundred forty-four patients were given the survey and 218 of these patients completed it. The predominant diagnosis was migraine (83.9%). More than half of the patients reported having been prescribed an opioid (54.8%) or a barbiturate (56.7%). About one fifth were on opioids (19.4%) or barbiturates (20.7%) at the time of completing the survey. Most patients reported being on opioids for more than 2 years (24.6%) or less than one week (32.1%). The reasons most frequently cited for stopping opioids were that the medications did not help (30.9%) or that they saw a new doctor who would not prescribe them (29.4%). Among patients who had previously been on barbiturates, 32.2% had been on these for over 2 years. Most patients (61.8%) stopped barbiturates because they did not find the medication helpful, while 17.6% said they saw a new doctor who would not prescribe them. The physician specialty most frequently cited as being the first prescriber for opioids was emergency medicine (20.2%) with family doctors and general neurologists the next groups at 17.7% each. General neurologists were the most frequent (37.8%) first prescribers of barbiturates. CONCLUSIONS: Approximately 20% of patients presenting to a headache center reported current use of opioids and/or barbiturates. ED physicians were reported to be the most frequent first prescribers of opioids and general neurologists were the most frequent first prescribers of barbiturates. Taken as a whole, these data provide a useful snapshot of the wide variety of physician specialties that might benefit from additional education on the appropriate use of opioids and barbiturate-containing medications in patients with headaches.

OBJECTIVES: We sought to survey the New Investigators and Trainees Section (NITS) members of the American Headache Society (AHS) to better understand their exposure to headache medicine during training and to determine their perceptions and attitudes about the field and the future of headache medicine. BACKGROUND: Despite the high prevalence of headache disorders in the general population, only about 2% of neurology residents pursue headache medicine fellowships. Furthermore, there is a paucity of United Council of Neurologic Subspecialties headache specialists in the country to meet the population demands. Thus, there needs to be a focus on how to recruit and retain more headache specialists. METHODS: A survey was distributed via SurveyMonkey to the NITS listserv. It remained online for 60 days, during which reminder emails were sent to members of the listserv. In addition, the survey was available on laptops at NITS-related events at an annual AHS meeting. Descriptive analyses were then conducted using SurveyMonkey and Excel. RESULTS: Of the 93 members of NITS, 64 of the 96 (68.8%) clicked to initiate the survey and 52.7% successfully completed it. Attendings made up the majority of respondents (62.5%), followed by fellows (10.9%), and residents (7.8%). Key highlights of the survey included the following: just under 10% reported no exposure to a headache center during any time in their training (medical school, residency, or fellowship); less than 2% had exposure to a headache center during medical school; less than half of participants reported exposure to a headache center in residency (45.3%) and during fellowship (43.4%). Having a mentor in the field, liking the patient population, and working in a headache center, 64.7%, 52.9%, and 41.2%, respectively, were the top ways in which participants became interested in headache. The journal Headache (56.9%), attendings (56.3%), and the AHS/American Academy of Neurology guidelines for migraine management (52.0%) are the resources cited as being used all/most of the time. About 82.4% strongly agree that there needs to be improved headache education for physicians of all specialties (primary care, emergency department, psychiatry); 84.4% feel that they are appreciated by their patients; 68.6% feel that there is strong support in their departments for headache; 56.9% believe that their work schedule leaves enough time for personal and family life; and 60.8% agreed that their professional life will improve in years to come. Participants agreed/strongly agreed that they like to treat the following diseases/symptoms: migraine headache (98.0%), cluster headache (92%), chronic daily headache (84%), and post-concussive syndrome (71.4%). Participants disagreed/strongly disagreed that they like to treat the following comorbid conditions/symptoms: low back pain (66.6%), dizziness (42.9%), sleep apnea (36.7%), depression (32.0%), and anxiety (32.0%). CONCLUSIONS: In this detailed survey on the recruitment and retention of headache specialists, the following themes emerged: mentorship and exposure to a headache center are key foundations in the young investigator/trainee experience. Young headache specialists appear positive about their field of medicine. These specialists like to treat various headache types but not necessarily some of the related comorbidities (sleep disorders, depression, anxiety, back pain, and dizziness). Finally, there was strong agreement that there needs to be improved headache education for physicians of other medical specialties.

BACKGROUND: Published data from 1998 revealed that most patients treated for migraine in an emergency department received opioids. Over the intervening years, a large body of evidence has emerged demonstrating the efficacy and safety of non-opioid alternatives. Expert opinion during these years has cautioned against use of opioids for migraine. Our objectives were to compare current frequency of use of various medications for acute migraine in US emergency departments with use of these same medications in 1998 and to identify factors independently associated with opioid use. METHODS: We analyzed National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey data from 2010, the most current dataset available. The National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey is a public dataset collected and distributed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. It is a multi-stage probability sample from randomly selected emergency departments across the country, designed to be representative of all US emergency department visits. We included in our analysis all patients with the ICD9 emergency department discharge diagnosis of migraine. We tabulated frequency of use of specific medications in 2010 and compared these results with the 1998 data. Using a logistic regression model, into which all of the following variables were entered, we explored the independent association between any opioid use in 2010 and sex, age, race/ethnicity, geographic region, type of hospital, triage pain score and history of emergency department use within the previous 12 months. RESULTS: In 2010, there were 1.2 (95% confidence interval 0.9, 1.4) million migraine visits to US emergency departments. Including opioid-containing oral analgesic combinations, opioids were administered in 59% of visits (95% confidence interval 51, 67). The most commonly used parenteral agent, hydromorphone, was used in 25% (95% confidence interval 19, 33) of visits in 2010 versus less than 1% (95% confidence interval 0, 3) in 1998. Conversely, use of meperidine had decreased markedly over the same timeframe. In 2010, it was used in just 7% (95% confidence interval 4, 12) of visits compared to 37% (95% confidence interval 29, 45) in 1998. Metoclopramide, the most commonly used anti-dopaminergic, was administered in 17% (95% confidence interval 12, 23) of visits in 2010 and 3% (95% confidence interval 1, 6) of visits in 1998. Use of any triptan was relatively uncommon in 2010 (7% (95% confidence interval 4, 11) of visits) and in 1998 (10% (95% confidence interval 6, 15) of visits). Of the predictor variables listed above, only emergency department use within the previous 12 months was associated with opioid administration (adjusted odds ratio: 2.87 (95% confidence interval 1.03, 7.97)). CONCLUSIONS: In spite of recommendations to the contrary, opioids are still used in more than half of all emergency department visits for migraine. Though use of meperidine has decreased markedly between 1998 and 2010, it has largely been replaced by hydromorphone. Opioid use in migraine visits is independently associated with prior visits to the same emergency department in the previous 12 months.

OBJECTIVE/BACKGROUND: This study aims to determine why patients with migraine present to an emergency department (ED). While migraine accounts for over 800,000 ED visits annually, no prospectively gathered data characterize patients' reasons for presenting to an ED. METHODS: We prospectively interviewed 309 consecutive patients presenting to an urban ED for headache. Patients were asked 100 closed-ended questions regarding sociodemographics, headache history, and current headache attack. We performed descriptive analyses on patients fulfilling International Classification of Headache Disorders 2 migraine criteria. RESULTS: Of 186 patients who met migraine criteria, 77% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 71, 83%) had a primary care provider (PCP), 87% (95% CI: 82, 92%) had medical insurance, and 83% (95% CI: 77, 88%) had drug coverage. Fifty-three percent (95% CI: 46, 60%) reported that they previously visited a doctor for headache. Fifty-five percent (95% CI: 48, 62%) previously received a migraine diagnosis. Twenty-two percent (95% CI: 16, 28%) sought medical care for the current headache prior to ED presentation. Fifty-five percent (95% CI: 48, 63%) took abortive medication for migraine on the day of the ED visit. Median headache duration was 24 hours (IQR: 12-72). Forty-nine percent (95% CI: 42, 57%) screened positive for depression. The most common reason for visiting the ED was a perceived emergency condition or referral by a physician (33.3% [95% CI: 27, 40%]). Other commonly cited reasons related to access to care. CONCLUSIONS: Most migraineurs presenting to the ED have a PCP and health insurance. ED visits commonly result from an inability to access care elsewhere and because patients consider pain to be an emergency condition. Missed opportunities for diagnosis and treatment likely contribute to ED visits.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to examine the relationship of family history of headache and family history of psychiatric disorders on self-reported health care utilization tendencies for migraine treatment. BACKGROUND: Familial aggregation of both migraine and depression has been well established in the literature. Family history of headache and psychiatric disorders could influence health care utilization tendencies for migraine. METHODS: This is a secondary analysis of patients with severe migraine (n = 225) who answered questions about their family history, previous headache treatment history, disability (Headache Disability Inventory), and psychiatric symptoms (Beck Depression Inventory and Beck Anxiety Inventory). Using regression, we examined the relationship between family history of headache, depression, and anxiety and reported headache-related health care utilization. RESULTS: Participants reported family histories of headache (67.6%), anxiety (15.6%), and depression (29.3%). Participants reported seeing a physician for headache an average of 3.1 (standard deviation = 3.8) times in the past 2 years. In a 2-year period, 27.6% of participants reported seeing a general practitioner and 18.5% of participants reported seeing a neurologist. Twenty-eight percent of participants went to urgent care for headaches at least once in the last 2 years. Thirty-nine percent of participants reported using non-pharmacologic treatment for headache in the prior 2 years, with the highest rates of chiropractic manipulation (27.1%) and massage (18.2%), and fewest rates of biofeedback (0.4%), relaxation training (4.4%), psychotherapy (1.8%), physical therapy (4.9%), or acupuncture (1.8%). Family history of anxiety was associated with trying non-pharmacologic treatments for headache, but no other self-reported health care utilization variable. However, neither family history of headache nor family history of depression was associated with self-reported health care utilization tendencies. Headache Disability Inventory was associated with self-reported non-pharmacologic treatments for headache. CONCLUSIONS: Family history of anxiety, but not depression, was associated with utilizing non-pharmacologic treatments for headache. Also, disability was associated with utilizing non-pharmacologic treatments for headache. However, participants reported low rates of utilization for non-pharmacologic treatments with grade-A evidence.

Patients presenting with tinnitus commonly have neuropsychiatric symptoms with which physicians need to be familiar. We provide an overview of tinnitus, including its types and pathophysiology. We discuss how recent methods such as transcranial magnetic stimulation, positron emission tomography, MRI, magnetoencephalography and quantitative EEG improve our understanding of the pathophysiology of tinnitus and connect tinnitus to the neuropsychiatric symptoms. We then explain why treatment of the tinnitus patient falls within the purview of neuropsychiatry. Psychiatric problems such as depression, anxiety and personality disorders are discussed. We also discuss how stress, headache, cognitive processing speed and sleep disturbance are associated with tinnitus. Finally, we provide a brief overview of treatment options and discuss the efficacy of various medications, including benzodiazepines, antidepressants, antipsychotics and mood-stabilising agents, and various non-pharmacological treatment options, such as cognitive behavioural therapy, habituation therapy and acupuncture. We also discuss how brain stimulation therapies are being developed for the treatment of tinnitus. In conclusion, a review of the literature demonstrates the varied neuropsychiatric manifestations of tinnitus. Imaging studies help to explain the mechanism of the association. However, more research is needed to elucidate the neurocircuitry underlying the association.