Faculty Bibliography

OBJECTIVE:Scalable, accessible forms of behavioral therapy for migraine prevention are needed. We assessed the feasibility and acceptability of progressive muscle relaxation (PMR) delivered by a smartphone application (app) in the Primary Care setting. METHODS:This pilot study was a non-blinded, randomized, parallel-arm controlled trial of adults with migraine and 4+ headache days/month. Eligible participants spoke English and owned a smartphone. All participants were given the RELAXaHEAD app which includes an electronic headache diary. Participants were randomized to receive 1 of the 2 versions of the app-one with PMR and the other without PMR. The primary outcomes were measures of feasibility (adherence to the intervention and diary entries during the 90-day interval) and acceptability (satisfaction levels). We conducted exploratory analyses to determine whether there was a change in Migraine Disability Assessment Scale (MIDAS) scores or a change in headache days. RESULTS:Of 139 participants (77 PMR, 62 control), 116 (83%) were female, mean age was 41.7 ± 12.8 years. Most patients 108/139 (78%) had moderate-severe disability. Using a 1-5 Likert scale, participants found the app easy to use (mean 4.2 ± 0.7) and stated that they would be happy to engage in the PMR intervention again (mean 4.3 ± 0.6). For the first 6 weeks, participants practiced PMR 2-4 days/week. Mean per session duration was 11.1 ± 8.3 minutes. Relative to the diary-only group, the PMR group showed a greater non-significant decline in mean MIDAS scores (-8.7 vs -22.7, P = .100) corresponding to a small-moderate mean effect size (Cohen's d = 0.38). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Smartphone-delivered PMR may be an acceptable, accessible form of therapy for migraine. Mean effects show a small-moderate mean effect size in disability scores.

OBJECTIVE:Increasingly, patients are seeking same-day care at urgent care (UC) facilities. Little is known about the health care utilization patterns of patients who visit UC facilities for headache and migraine. We examined the frequency of headache and migraine visits and revisits at UC facilities. METHODS:We conducted a retrospective cohort study of headache not otherwise specified (NOS) and migraine visits from 67 NYC UC facilities over an eight-month period. We report descriptive analyses, the frequency of headache NOS revisits, and the elapsed time to revisits. RESULTS:There were 10,240 patients who visited UC facilities for headache NOS or migraine within the eight-month period. The majority of patients, 6,994 (68.3%), were female, and the mean age (SD) was 35.1 (15.0) years. Most (93.9%) patients (N = 9,613) lived within 60 miles of NYC; 5.5% (N = 564) had at least one revisit, and among re-visitors, there was an average (SD) of 2.2 (0.7) visits to UC facilities during the study period and an average time to revisit (SD) of 61.3 (55.2) days. CONCLUSIONS:In just eight months, there were >10,000 headache NOS and migraine visits to UC facilities in NYC, with half of revisits occurring within 90 days. Future work should examine headache management in UC facilities.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW/OBJECTIVE:This narrative review examines the use of behavioral interventions for acute treatment of headache and pain in the emergency department (ED)/urgent care (UC) and inpatient settings. RECENT FINDINGS/RESULTS:Behavioral interventions demonstrate reductions of pain and associated disability in headache, migraine, and other conditions in the outpatient setting. Behavioral treatments may be a useful addition for patients presenting with acute pain to hospitals and emergency departments. We review challenges and limitations and offer suggestions for implementation of behavioral interventions in the acute setting. Some evidence exists for relaxation-based treatments, mindfulness-based treatments, hypnosis/self-hypnosis, and immersive virtual reality for acute pain, migraine, and headache. There are few high-quality studies on behavioral treatments in the inpatient and emergency department settings. Further research is warranted to determine the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of these interventions. Given the general safety and cost-effectiveness of behavioral interventions, healthcare professionals may want to include these therapies in treatment plans.

There has been a substantial rise in the number of women pursuing careers in neurology. However, research has shown that women in neurology have high rates of burnout with gender disparities in burnout and attrition in the field. Recently, there was a call from the NIH, including the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, asking for input on factors that may limit or discourage grant applications from women. As the recipients of the highly coveted NIH career mentored awards (K awards) in headache medicine, we applaud the NIH for asking for gender-specific feedback and for raising awareness of research showing that female faculty on the Research Track are at an increased risk of departure. Using the NIH model for the Responsible Conduct of Research and the tenant of Nurturing the Fertile Environment, we discuss specific challenges in academic research that may contribute to gender differences in neurology research success. Although the rate of women conducting NIH-funded migraine research increased from 23% to 41% over the last 10 years, more women are currently in training compared with independence, with 6/6 of the NIH training grants but only 12/36 of the NIH research-level grants, held by women in fiscal years 2017-2019. We suggest concrete solutions to these challenges to ensure the success of women in research reaching independence.

BACKGROUND:Multiple Sclerosis (MS) and Migraine are comorbid neurologic conditions. Migraine prevalence is three times higher in the MS clinic population compared to the general population, and patients with MS and migraine are more symptomatic than patients with MS without migraine. OBJECTIVE:We sought to conduct a pilot feasibility and acceptability study of the RELAXaHEAD app in MS-Migraine patients and to assess whether there was any change in migraine disability and MS pain-related disability. METHODS:Randomized controlled study of patients with MS-migraine ages 18-80 years with 4+ headache days/ month who were willing to engage in smartphone based behavioral therapy. Half received the RELAXaHEAD app with progressive muscle relaxation (PMR) and the other half received the app without the PMR. Data was collected for 90 days on measures of recruitment, retention, engagement, and adherence to RELAXaHEAD. Preliminary data was also collected on migraine disability (MIDAS) and MS pain (PES). RESULTS:Sixty-two subjects with MS-migraine were enrolled in the study (34 in PMR arm, 28 in monitored usual care arm). On average, during the 90 days, participants played the PMR on average 1.8 times per week, and for 12.9 min on days it was played. Forty-one percent (14/34) of the participants played the PMR two or more times weekly on average. Data was entered into the daily diaries, on average, 49% (44/90) of the days. There were major challenges in reaching subjects in follow-up for the efficacy data, and there was no significant change in migraine disability (MIDAS) scores or MS Pain (PES) scores from baseline to the endpoints. During the six-month follow-up, most patients felt either positively or neutral about the relaxation therapy. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:There was interest in scalable accessible forms of behavioral therapy to treat migraine and MS-related pain in patients with MS and comorbid migraine. Similar to prior studies, a significant minority were willing to practice the PMR at least twice weekly. In the societal shift from telephone to more text and internet-based interactions, follow up was challenging, but those reached indicated that they appreciated the PMR and would recommend it to others. Future work should focus on engagement and efficacy.

Background: Headache diaries are a mainstay of headache treatment. Various headache smartphone applications (apps) are commercially available. While a Modified Delphi Study aimed to determine specialists' expectations of what a headache app should entail, consumer expectations of these apps have not been evaluated extensively. The aim of this study was to evaluate publicly available reviews of headache apps in the Google Play Store and Apple store to understand app features that motivate consumers to use apps.
Method(s): Using pre-specified criteria, the Google and Apple Play Stores were systematically searched for headache/migraine diary apps with at least 10 consumer reviews. A maximum of 300 'Most Helpful' reviews for each app were extracted into Google Sheets. Four coders qualitatively reviewed and coded reviews until discrepancies were resolved. Codes were counted, and 4 themes with sub-themes were created based on codes used 5+ times.
Result(s): 15 apps met study criteria (9 Android, 6 IOS). The four main themes with sub-themes were: (1) Apps allows user to track headache characteristics, potential triggers, and treatments: track triggers; track treatments; track headache information; users suggest features to log relevant information. (2) App usability: apps allow viewing/editing of existing records; design features for migraine patients are appreciated; technical difficulties limit app usage; developer services satisfy customers. (3) Personalization and features to assess trends in data are key motivators for app use: apps point out trends in data; customization by collection of user's personal information; app provides relief. (4) Ease with exportation and viewing data is critical: app generates data reports; app assists doctors in better treating user's headaches.
Conclusion(s): A user-centered design with the ability to customize key features including headache characteristics, potential triggers and treatments, assess trends in data and view and export the data would best optimize headache smartphone applications based on consumer preference

OBJECTIVE/UNASSIGNED:Behavioral treatments for migraine prevention are safe and effective but underutilized in migraine management. Health message framing may be helpful in guiding patients with treatment decision making. The authors assessed associations between message framing and the willingness to seek migraine behavioral treatment among persons with a diagnosis of migraine headache. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:A total of 401 individuals (median age=34 years [interquartile range, 12 years]) who screened positive for migraine, as determined by the American Migraine Prevalence and Prevention questionnaire, were assessed. Participants were randomly assigned to receive one of four message frames using TurkPrime: specific loss framing (N=101), specific gain framing (N=98), nonspecific loss framing (N=102), and nonspecific gain framing (N=100). The message frames were initially piloted for 56 participants and then revised by a headache specialist, with input from a communications specialist, and randomly distributed to the larger sample. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:More than two-thirds of participants (70.3%) were women. The median number of headache days per month was 5 (interquartile range, 5.3). Some of the participants (12.5%) had previously used evidence-based behavioral therapy for migraine. No significant differences in the willingness to pursue behavioral treatment for migraine between the four message framing groups were found. The median for all four types of message frames was 4 (interquartile range, 1; Kruskal-Wallis H, p=0.41). CONCLUSIONS/UNASSIGNED:Findings revealed that message framing was not associated with willingness to seek behavioral therapy for migraine.

BACKGROUND:The development of mobile health (mHealth) technologies is progressing at a faster pace than that of the science to evaluate their validity and efficacy. Under the International Committee of Journal Medical Editors (ICMJE) guidelines, clinical trials that prospectively assign people to interventions should be registered with a database before the initiation of the study. OBJECTIVE:The aim of this study was to better understand the smartphone mHealth trials for high-burden neuropsychiatric conditions registered on ClinicalTrials.gov through November 2018, including the number, types, and characteristics of the studies being conducted; the frequency and timing of any outcome changes; and the reporting of results. METHODS:We conducted a systematic search of ClinicalTrials.gov for the top 10 most disabling neuropsychiatric conditions and prespecified terms related to mHealth. According to the 2016 World Health Organization Global Burden of Disease Study, the top 10 most disabling neuropsychiatric conditions are (1) stroke, (2) migraine, (3) major depressive disorder, (4) Alzheimer disease and other dementias, (5) anxiety disorders, (6) alcohol use disorders, (7) opioid use disorders, (8) epilepsy, (9) schizophrenia, and (10) other mental and substance use disorders. There were no date, location, or status restrictions. RESULTS:Our search identified 135 studies. A total of 28.9% (39/135) of studies evaluated interventions for major depressive disorder, 14.1% (19/135) of studies evaluated interventions for alcohol use disorders, 12.6% (17/135) of studies evaluated interventions for stroke, 11.1% (15/135) of studies evaluated interventions for schizophrenia, 8.1% (11/135) of studies evaluated interventions for anxiety disorders, 8.1% (11/135) of studies evaluated interventions for other mental and substance use disorders, 7.4% (10/135) of studies evaluated interventions for opioid use disorders, 3.7% (5/135) of studies evaluated interventions for Alzheimer disease or other dementias, 3.0% (4/135) of studies evaluated interventions for epilepsy, and 3.0% (4/135) of studies evaluated interventions for migraine. The studies were first registered in 2008; more than half of the studies were registered from 2016 to 2018. A total of 18.5% (25/135) of trials had results reported in some publicly accessible location. Across all the studies, the mean estimated enrollment (reported by the study) was 1078, although the median was only 100. In addition, across all the studies, the actual reported enrollment was lower, with a mean of 249 and a median of 80. Only about a quarter of the studies (35/135, 25.9%) were funded by the National Institutes of Health. CONCLUSIONS:Despite the increasing use of health-based technologies, this analysis of ClinicalTrials.gov suggests that only a few apps for high-burden neuropsychiatric conditions are being clinically evaluated in trials.