Faculty Bibliography

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.

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:We conducted focus groups in people who had participated in mobile health (mHealth) studies of behavioral interventions for migraine to better understand: (a) Participant experience in the recruitment/enrollment process; (b) participant experience during the studies themselves; (c) ideas for improving participant experience for future studies. METHODS:We conducted four focus groups in people who had agreed to participate in one of three studies involving mHealth and behavioral therapy for migraine. Inclusion criteria were being age 18-80, owning a smartphone, and having four or more headache days per month. All participants met the International Classification of Headache Disorders third edition beta version criteria for migraine. Exclusion criteria were not speaking English and having had behavioral therapy for migraine in the past year. Focus groups were audio recorded, fully transcribed and coded using general thematic analysis. RESULTS:(ii) Enrollment should be simple and study requirements should be carefully explained prior to enrollment. When asked about their experiences during the studies (b), the following themes emerged: (i) It is difficult to participate in study follow-up and compliance phone calls; (ii) participants prefer to choose from among various options for contact with the study team; (iii) there are barriers that limit app use related to migraine itself, as well as other barriers; (iv) completing diaries on a daily basis is challenging; (v) technical difficulties and uncertainties about app features limit use; (vi) being part of a research study promoted daily behavioral therapy use; (vii) progressive muscle relaxation (PMR) is enjoyable, and has a positive impact on life; (viii) behavioral therapy was a preferred treatment to reduce migraine pain. Ideas for improving study design or patient experience (c) included: (i) Increased opportunity to interact with other people with migraine would be beneficial; (ii) navigating the app and data entry should be easier; (iii) more varied methods for viewing the data and measures of adherence are needed; (iv) more information on and more varied behavioral treatment modalities would be preferred. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Though people with migraine are motivated to participate in mHealth and behavioral treatment studies, better communication up front about interventions as well as greater flexibility in interventions and follow-up methods are desired.

OBJECTIVE:To estimate the prevalence of having at least one or two or more chronic health conditions among US adults with self-reported migraine or severe headaches. DESIGN/METHODS:Cross-sectional study. METHODS:Using data collected from the 2013-2015 National Health Interview Survey, we examined adults with and without migraine or severe headache and associations with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, cancer, heart disease, stroke, diabetes, and hypertension. We calculated point estimates, variances, and 95% confidence intervals and conducted bivariate and multivariable logistic regression modeling to examine the relationships between migraine or severe headache and each of the chronic health conditions, as well as multinomial modeling, to examine the relationship between migraine or severe headache and having one or more chronic health conditions. RESULTS:A total of 104,926 people were in the study. Adults aged 18 to 44 years (18.2%), women (20.1%), and those with some college education (17.6%) had the greatest proportion with migraine or severe headache (P < 0.0001). Using multinomial modeling with the number of chronic health conditions as the dependent variable, adults reporting migraine had an increased odds of reporting a single chronic health condition (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.7, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.6-1.8) and more than double the odds of reporting two or more chronic health conditions (aOR = 2.5, 95% CI = 2.3-2.8) compared with adults who did not have migraine or severe headache. CONCLUSIONS:Our study confirms observed relationships between migraine or severe headache and chronic health conditions and supports the need for further research to uncover the shared biological pathways.

OBJECTIVE:The current Phase 2b study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of mindfulness-based cognitive therapy for migraine (MBCT-M) to reduce migraine-related disability in people with migraine. BACKGROUND:Mindfulness-based interventions represent a promising avenue to investigate effects in people with migraine. MBCT teaches mindfulness meditation and cognitive-behavioral skills and directly applies these skills to address disease-related cognitions. METHODS:Participants with migraine (6-30 headache days/month) were recruited from neurology office referrals and local and online advertisements in the broader New York City area. During the 30-day baseline period, all participants completed a daily headache diary. Participants who met inclusion and exclusion criteria were randomized in a parallel design, stratified by chronic migraine status, to receive either 8 weekly individual MBCT-M sessions or 8 weeks of waitlist/treatment as usual (WL/TAU). All participants completed surveys including primary outcome evaluations at Months 0, 1, 2, and 4. All participants completed a headache diary during the 30-day posttreatment evaluation period. Primary outcomes were the change from Month 0 to Month 4 in the headache disability inventory (HDI) and the Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) (total score ≥ 21 indicating severe disability); secondary outcomes (headache days/30 days, average headache attack pain intensity, and attack-level migraine-related disability [Migraine Disability Index (MIDI)]) were derived from the daily headache diary. RESULTS:Sixty participants were randomized to receive MBCT-M (n = 31) or WL/TAU (n = 29). Participants (M age = 40.1, SD = 11.7) were predominantly White (n = 49/60; 81.7%) and Non-Hispanic (N = 50/60; 83.3%) women (n = 55/60; 91.7%) with a graduate degree (n = 35/60; 55.0%) who were working full-time (n = 38/60; 63.3%). At baseline, the average HDI score (51.4, SD = 19.0) indicated a moderate level of disability and the majority of participants (50/60, 83.3%) fell in the "Severe Disability" range in the MIDAS. Participants recorded an average of 16.0 (SD = 5.9) headache days/30 days, with an average headache attack pain intensity of 1.7 on a 4-point scale (SD = 0.3), indicating moderate intensity. Average levels of daily disability reported on the MIDI were 3.1/10 (SD = 1.8). For the HDI, mean scores decreased more from Month 0 to Month 4 in the MBCT-M group (-14.3) than the waitlist/treatment as an usual group (-0.2; P < .001). For the MIDAS, the group*month interaction was not significant when accounting for the divided alpha, P = .027; across all participants in both groups, the estimated proportion of participants falling in the "Severe Disability" category fell significantly from 88.3% at Month 0 to 66.7% at Month 4, P < .001. For diary-reported headache days/30 days an average headache attack pain intensity, neither the group*month interaction (Ps = .773 and .888, respectively) nor the time effect (Ps = .059 and .428, respectively) was significant. Mean MIDI scores decreased in the MBCT-M group (-0.6/10), whereas they increased in the waitlist/treatment as an usual group (+0.3/10), P = .007. CONCLUSIONS:MBCT-M demonstrated efficacy to reduce headache-related disability and attack-level migraine-related disability. MBCT-M is a promising emerging treatment for addressing migraine-related disability.

The current planned secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial aimed to evaluate whether the efficacy of Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy for Migraine (MBCTM) to reduce headache-related disability differs among people with episodic migraine (EM) and chronic migraine (CM). After a 30-day monitoring period, participants were stratified by EM (6-14 days/month) and CM (15-30 days/month) and randomized to receive MBCT-M (8 weekly individual sessions) or 8 weeks of wait list/treatment as usual (WL/TAU). Surveys were completed at Months 0, 1, 2, and 4; daily diary was also completed during the 30-day post-treatment evaluation period. Primary outcomes were the Headache Disability Inventory (HDI; Range 0-100) and the Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS >= 21 indicating Severe Disability); secondary outcomes (headache days/30 days, average headache attack pain intensity) were derived from daily headache diary. Intent-to-treat mixed models for repeated measures tested formal moderation (time*treatment*CM) in the full sample. Planned subgroup analyses evaluated treatment*time effects EM and CM separately. Sixty participants were randomized to receive MBCT-M (n = 31) or WL/TAU (n = 29). Participants (M age = 40.1, SD = 11.7) were predominantly White (n = 49/60; 81.7%), Non-Hispanic (N = 50/60; 83.3%) women (n = 55/60; 91.7%). At baseline, 29 participants (48.3%) met criteria for EM and 31 (51.7%) met criteria for CM. At baseline, people with CM reporter higher HDI [M(SD) = 57.6 (16.7) vs. 45.5 (19.4), p = .015] and greater headache days/30 days [M(SD) = 20.5 (3.0) vs 11.2 (4.2), p < .001]; no other variable differed by CM status (ps > .30). For the MIDAS, CM status moderated the effect of MBCTM on the MIDAS; MBCT-M reduced the proportion of people reporting severe disability in EM only, p = .013. For the HDI, subgroup analysis revealed that MBCT-M (vs WL/TAU) significantly reduced HDI for EM (p = .011) but not for CM (p = .268). Subgroup analysis found no significant effect of MBCT-M on headache days/30 days or average headache attack pain intensity in either EM or CM. MBCT-M is a promising treatment for reducing disability. Surprisingly, MBCT-M produced larger changes on both primary outcomes in the EM, rather than CM, subgroup