Faculty Bibliography

OBJECTIVE:To outline strategies for the treatment of migraine which do not require in-person visits to clinic or the emergency department, and to describe ways that health insurance companies can remove barriers to quality care for migraine. BACKGROUND:COVID-19 is a global pandemic causing widespread infections and death. To control the spread of infection we are called to observe "social distancing" and we have been asked to postpone any procedures which are not essential. Since procedural therapies are a mainstay of headache care, the inability to do procedures could negatively affect our patients with migraine. In this manuscript we review alternative therapies, with particular attention to those which may be contra-indicated in the setting of COVID-19 infection. DESIGN/RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:The manuscript reviews the use of telemedicine visits and acute, bridge, and preventive therapies for migraine. We focus on evidence-based treatment where possible, but also describe "real world" strategies which may be tried. In each section we call out areas where changes to rules from commercial health insurance companies would facilitate better migraine care. CONCLUSIONS:Our common goal as health care providers is to maximize the health and safety of our patients. Successful management of migraine with avoidance of in-person clinic and emergency department visits further benefits the current urgent societal goal of maintaining social distance to contain the COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVE:There has been a rise in urgent care centers throughout the country over the past 10 years, leading to an increase in patients accessing medical care in these locations. These centers advertise an alternative to the Emergency Department (ED) for the evaluation and treatment of urgent medical conditions. The goal of this analysis was to examine the use of urgent care visits for migraine within 2 urgent care centers within a large academic medical system in New York City. We examined the trends in management and treatment of migraine in these urgent care settings, as well as prescriptions and instructions given to this patient population upon discharge. We paid particular attention to whether the medications administered and prescribed on discharge were those recommended by American Headache Society migraine management guidelines. METHODS:We conducted a retrospective chart review of patients with migraine diagnoses at 2 different urgent care locations within 1 large urban medical center. We determined baseline patient demographics, previous migraine characteristics, frequencies of reasons for urgent care visits as well as various medications administered, medications prescribed on discharge, and characteristics of patient outcomes post-discharge. RESULTS:Of the 78 patients who visited urgent care with a migraine diagnosis, 20 (25.6%) had a known primary care provider within the urgent care centers' healthcare system. More than three-fourths of all patients (78.2%) had a self-reported history of either recurrent headache or migraine prior to the urgent care visit. Of those with a documented frequency of prior headaches, 94.1% (32/34) had episodic migraine and 79.4% (27/34) experienced at most 1-2 headache days per month. Of those presenting to the urgent care during an episode of migraine, 12.3% (9/73) were given intravenous metoclopramide and none were given subcutaneous sumatriptan or intravenous prochlorperazine. Of those with reported nausea or vomiting with their migraine, 46.2% (18/39) received an anti-emetic at the visit and 33.3% (13/39) were given an anti-emetic prescription. Only 11.1% (6/54) of patients who did not have a record of previous triptan use were given a triptan prescription at the urgent care visit. CONCLUSIONS:The majority of patients in our study who sought medical treatment for migraine in these 2 urgent care centers were not established patients within the urgent care centers' healthcare system. While 93.6% (73/78) of patients were experiencing current pain upon presentation to the urgent care centers, only 12.3% (9/73) received administration of the medications with the highest level of evidence by the American Headache Society (Level B) for acute migraine treatment in an ED. In addition, the majority of patients with a migraine history presenting to the urgent care setting were not given triptans or anti-emetic prescriptions upon discharge from their urgent care visit. Having these migraine-specific prescriptions may improve self-treatment at home should a migraine attack recur.

The American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) published guidelines in July 2019 on the diagnosis and management of acute nontraumatic headaches in the emergency department, focusing predominantly on the diagnosis of subarachnoid hemorrhage and the role of imaging and lumbar puncture in diagnosis. The ACEP Clinical Policies document is intended to aide Emergency Physicians in their approach to patients presenting with acute headache and to improve the accuracy of diagnosis, while promoting safe patient care practices. The Clinical Policies document also highlights the need for future research into best practices to distinguish primary from secondary headaches and the efficacy and safety of current treatment options for acute headaches. The following commentary on these guidelines is intended to support and expand on these guidelines from the Headache specialists' perspective, written on behalf of the Refractory, Inpatient, Emergency Care section of the American Headache Society (AHS). The commentary have been reviewed and approved by Board of Directors of the AHS.

BACKGROUND:Relaxation, biofeedback, and cognitive behavioral therapy are evidence-based behavioral therapies for migraine. Despite such efficacy, research shows that only about half of patients initiate behavioral therapy recommended by their headache specialists. OBJECTIVE:Motivational interviewing (MI) is a widely used method to help patients explore and overcome ambivalence to enact positive life changes. We tested the hypothesis that telephone-based MI would improve initiation, scheduling, and attending behavioral therapy for migraine. METHODS:Single-blind randomized controlled trial comparing telephone-based MI to treatment as usual (TAU). Participants were recruited during their appointments with headache specialists at two sites of a New York City medical center. INCLUSION CRITERIA/METHODS:ages from 16 to 80, migraine diagnosis by United Council of Neurologic Subspecialty fellowship trained and/or certified headache specialist, and referral for behavioral therapy for prevention in the appointment of recruitment. EXCLUSION CRITERIA/METHODS:having done behavioral therapy for migraine in the past year. Participants in the MI group received up to 5 MI calls. TAU participants were called after 3 months for general follow-up data. The prespecified primary outcome was scheduling a behavioral therapy appointment, and secondary outcomes were initiating and attending a behavioral therapy appointment. RESULTS:76 patients were enrolled and randomized (MI = 36, TAU = 40). At baseline, the mean number of headache days was 12.0 ± 9.0. Self-reported anxiety was present for 36/52 (69.2%) and depression for 30/52 (57.7%). Follow-up assessments were completed for 77.6% (59/76, MI = 32, TAU = 27). The mean number of MI calls per participant was 2.69 ± 1.56 [0 to 5]. There was a greater likelihood of those in the MI group to initiating an appointment (22/32, 68.8% vs 11/27, 40.7%, P = .0309). There were no differences in appointment scheduling or attendance. Reasons stated for not initiating behavioral therapy were lack of time, lack of insurance/funding, prioritizing other treatments, and travel plans. CONCLUSIONS:Brief telephone-based MI may improve rates of initiation of behavioral therapy for migraine, but other barriers appear to lessen the impact on scheduling and attending behavioral therapy appointments.

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.