Consensus recommendations on the role of nurses in headache care: A European e-Delphi study.

BACKGROUND: Nurses work at headache centres throughout Europe, and their care for migraine patients is acknowledged. However, the specific roles and tasks of nursing vary, and a unified understanding is lacking, posing challenges to knowledge sharing and research. OBJECTIVES: Using an e-Delphi study method, the objective is to obtain healthcare professional headache experts' opinions on nursing-specific roles and tasks and combine this into consensus statements for nurse recommendations for migraine treatment. METHODS: A three-round questionnaire study was conducted with nurses and neurologists from 18 specialised headache centres in 10 countries. In round 1, statements were compiled from a systematic examination of existing literature and expert opinions. In rounds 2 and 3, the experts rated the importance of statements (from round 1) on a 5-point Likert scale. Statements were analysed using a content analysis method, and the consensus of pre-defined statements was evaluated with gradually increased predetermined criteria using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Twenty-one experts, representing all 10 countries, participated. The predetermined consensus of ≥70% agreement was reached for 42 out of the initial 63 statements. These statements formed the final recommendations within two themes: "The nurses' roles and tasks in the clinical setting" and "The nurses' roles and tasks in educating patients and colleagues." The consensus level of statements was strong, with 40% receiving unanimous agreement (100%) and 97% achieving relatively high agreement (>80%). CONCLUSION: Nursing plays a vital role with diverse tasks in migraine care. This study offers practical recommendations and a framework for nurses, equipping them with a clinical tool to enhance care and promote a coordinated approach to migraine treatment.

Consensus recommendations on the role of nurses in the care of headache patients: protocol for a european e-delphi study.

BACKGROUND: Nurses play an important role in the treatment of headache patients at the specialized headache centers in Europe, however, a unified definition of nursing tasks and conduction of tasks is lacking. The objective of this e-Delphi study is twofold. Initially, to obtain healthcare professional headache experts' opinions on which tasks are associated with nurses' care in migraine treatment. Then, through an iterative multi-staged process, to combine the opinions into group consensus statements and develop evident European nursing recommendations for migraine treatment. METHODS: In Delphi studies there are no unambiguous methodological guidelines and this protocol is being published to ensure transparency and quality in the study process. We invite nurses working in specialized headache centers and neurologists co-working with nurses in Finland, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, United Kingdom, Netherlands, Germany, Ireland, Estonia and Switzerland to participate anonymously in the expert panel. This e-Delphi study consists of three rounds of online questionnaires. We use Open-ended questions to capture the essentials of nurse tasks as understood by the expert panel members. Data are analyzed using content analysis. Predefined statements are applied for the experts to rate the importance of nurses' tasks synthesized from a systematic examination of the existing literature. Consensus is measured using descriptive statistics; median, Interquartile range (IQR) and percentage agreement. Measurement of agreement between participants will be analyzed using inferential statistics; Kendall's coefficient and stability between rounds; Wilcoxon rank-sum test. Statements, which receive consensus in the third round, are included in the final compilation of European recommendations for nurse care for migraine patients. DISCUSSION: The e-Delphi study will provide European recommendations on nurse care in migraine treatment, which could not be created on the basis of the existing literature. The recommendations can open for the conduction of further research including measurement of efficacy of clinical implementation of the recommended tasks. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study is registered at The Region of Southern Denmark (21/52,885). According to The Regional Ethical Committee and Danish law, no additional approval is relevant (20212000-145). A written informed consent is obtained from all participants before inclusion in the study.

Pain sensitivity in relation to frequency of migraine and tension-type headache with or without coexistent neck pain: an exploratory secondary analysis of the population study.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to investigate whether coexistent self-reported neck pain influences cephalic and extracephalic pain sensitivity in individuals with migraine and tension-type headache (TTH) in relation to diagnosis and headache frequency. METHODS: A population of 496 individuals completed a headache interview based on ICHD criteria, providing data collected by self-administered questionnaires, assessments of pericranial total tenderness score (TTS) and pressure pain thresholds (PPT). Stimulus-response (SR) functions for pressure vs. pain were recorded. Presence of neck pain in the past year was assessed by the self-administered questionnaire. We categorized participants by primary headache type. We also categorized participants into 3 groups by headache frequency: chronic (≥15) or episodic (<15 headache days/month) headache and controls. TTS, PPTs and the area under the SR curve were compared between subgroups using Generalized Linear Models with pairwise comparisons controlling for age and sex. RESULTS: Individuals with chronic followed by episodic headache had higher TTS than controls (overall p≤0.001). The difference between chronic and episodic headache subgroups was significant in the group with neck pain (p≤0.001) but not in the group without neck pain. In individuals with neck pain, mean TTS was higher in coexistent headache (migraine and TTH), 23.2 ± 10.7, and pure TTH, 17.8 ± 10.3, compared to pure migraine, 15.9 ± 10.9 and no headache 11.0 ± 8.3 (overall p<0.001). Temporal and finger PPTs did not statistically differ among the chronic headache, the episodic headache and controls in individuals with and without neck pain. Temporalis and trapezius SR-functions showed that tenderness was increased in individuals with chronic headache to higher degree than in those with episodic headache, and more so in those with neck pain. CONCLUSIONS: Coexistent neck pain is associated with greater pericranial tenderness in individuals with chronic headache and to a lesser degree in those with episodic headache. Sensitization may be a substrate or consequence of neck pain and primary headache, but a longitudinal study would be needed for further clarification.

Baseline demographics and disease characteristics of patients with episodic or chronic cluster headache: data from two phase 3 randomized clinical trials in Europe and North America.

Objective: Two phase 3 galcanezumab trials were conducted in Europe and North America to analyze the reduction of weekly cluster headache (CH) attack frequency in populations with episodic and chronic CH. The current study aims to illustrate prospectively recorded baseline clinical data from these trials and to identify possible predictors of response. Methods: Patients (aged 18-65 years) met The International Classification of Headache Disorders 3rd edition-beta criteria for CH. Attacks were evaluated using an electronic headache diary for 7-day (episodic) or 14-day (chronic) eligibility assessments before patients were randomized 1:1 to monthly subcutaneous galcanezumab 300 mg or placebo. Results: Data were collected from 106 patients with episodic and 237 with chronic CH. Overall, the mean age [standard deviation] was 45.4 [11.0] years; patients were predominantly White (84.5%), male (75.8%), and European (77.6%). Patients with episodic CH reported 17.5 [10.0] attacks/week; patients with chronic CH reported 18.8 [10.2] attacks/week. The average pain severity score (range 0-4) was 2.5 [0.7] for episodic CH and 2.7 [0.7] for chronic CH. Higher attack frequency was a possible predictor of response to galcanezumab; potential negative predictors of response were greater attack severity and duration. Conclusion: This large dataset of patients with CH provides reliable systematically and prospectively collected information on disease characteristics. The analysis in episodic CH underscores potential predictors of response worth considering for future CH trial design. Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, identifiers: NCT02397473 and NCT02438826.

Preclinical update on regulation of intracranial pressure in relation to idiopathic intracranial hypertension.

BACKGROUND: Elevated intracranial pressure (ICP) is observed in association with a range of brain disorders. One of these challenging disorders is idiopathic intracranial hypertension (IIH), characterized by raised ICP of unknown cause with significant morbidity and limited therapeutic options. In this review, special focus is put on the preclinical research performed in order to understand the pathophysiology behind ICP regulation and IIH. This includes cerebrospinal fluid dynamics, molecular mechanisms underlying disturbances in brain fluids leading to elevated ICP, role of obesity in IIH, development of an IIH model and ICP measurements in rodents. The review also discusses existing and new drug targets for IIH that have been evaluated in vivo. CONCLUSIONS: ICP monitoring in rodents is challenging and different methods have been applied. Some of these methods are invasive, depend on use of anesthesia and only allow short-term monitoring. Long-term ICP recordings are needed to study IIH but existing methods are hampered by several limitations. As obesity is one of the most common risk factors for IIH, a rodent obese model has been developed that mimics some key aspects of IIH. The most commonly used drugs for IIH have been evaluated in vivo for their efficacy at lowering ICP in the existing animal models. These studies suggest these drugs, including acetazolamide, might have limited or no reducing effect on ICP. Two drug targets that can impact ICP in healthy rodents are topiramate and a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor (GLP-1R) agonist. However, it remains to evaluate their effect in an IIH model with more precise and valid ICP monitoring system. Therefore, continued evaluation in the preclinical research with refined tools is of great importance to further understand the pathophysiology behind disorders with raised ICP and to explore new drug targets.

Pathophysiology, prevention, and treatment of medication overuse headache.

Regular or frequent use of analgesics and acute antimigraine drugs can increase the frequency of headache, and induce the transition from episodic to chronic headache or medication overuse headache. The 1-year prevalence of this condition in the general population is between 1% and 2%. Medication overuse headache is more common in women and in people with comorbid depression, anxiety, and other chronic pain conditions. Treatment of medication overuse headache has three components. First, patients need education and counselling to reduce the intake of medication for acute headache attacks. Second, some patients benefit from drug withdrawal (discontinuation of the overused medication). Finally, preventive drug therapy and non-medical prevention might be necessary in patients at onset of treatment or in patients who do not respond to the first two steps. The optimal therapeutic approach requires validation in controlled trials.

The DoloTest® in a specialized headache center among patients receiving psychological treatment. A pilot study.

Background The DoloTest is a newer health-related quality of life (HRQoL) monitoring instrument for pain, not yet validated for headache. Aims To examine the usefulness of the DoloTest in a specialized headache center. Methods The sample consisted of patients referred to psychologists from the Danish Headache Center (DHC) for whom the test was carried out at start of, end of, and 6 months after treatment. Points on eight scales of the test were measured (values ranged from 0 to 100), then totaled (0 to 800). Scores were analyzed using Wilcoxon Signed Ranks test. The correlation between headache days and DoloTest scores were computed using linear regression adjusted for age. Qualitative feedback on usefulness of the test were gathered from psychologists. Results Of 135 patients included, 105 completed treatment. On average, headache days decreased from 22 days per month at start of treatment (SD 9.0, median 29) to 18 days at end of treatment (SD 10.8, median 19) (p<0.001). At end of treatment, DoloTest scores improved for pain (p=0.015) and reduced energy and strength (p=0.034). At 6 months' follow-up, total scores improved (p=0.034), as well as component scores for pain (p=0.010), problems with strenuous activity (p=0.045) and reduced energy and strength (p=0.012). Correlation between reduced headache days and improved DoloTest scores was 0.303 (p=0.028). Psychologists found the test useful in monitoring and evaluating patients. Conclusions The DoloTest was useful for psychoeducation and for monitoring the effect of headache treatment. Implications The DoloTest is a potential HRQoL monitoring instrument for headache patients. We recommend further validation studies.