Characterizing neck pain during headache among people with migraine: Multicountry results from the Chronic Migraine Epidemiology and Outcomes - International (CaMEO-I) cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the prevalence and impact of neck pain during headache among respondents with migraine in the multicountry Chronic Migraine Epidemiology and Outcomes - International (CaMEO-I) Study. BACKGROUND: Neck pain among individuals with migraine is highly prevalent and contributes to disability. METHODS: The CaMEO-I was a prospective, cross-sectional, web-based study conducted in Canada, France, Germany, Japan, United Kingdom, and the United States. A demographically representative sample of participants from each country completed a screening survey to evaluate headache characteristics. Respondents with headache were identified as having migraine or non-migraine headache based on modified International Classification of Headache Disorders, third edition, criteria; those with migraine completed a detailed survey with migraine-specific assessments. Results were stratified by the presence or absence of neck pain with headache (NPWH). For these analyses, data were pooled across the six countries. RESULTS: Of 51,969 respondents who reported headache within the past 12 months, 14,492 (27.9%) were classified as having migraine; the remaining 37,477 (72.1%) had non-migraine headache. Overall, 9896/14,492 (68.3%) of respondents with migraine headache reported NPWH, which was significantly higher (p < 0.001) than the proportion of respondents with non-migraine headache who reported NPWH (13,536/37,477 [36.1%]). Among respondents with migraine, moderate-to-severe disability was significantly more prevalent for those with NPWH versus without (47.7% [4718/9896] vs. 28.9%, p < 0.001). Respondents with NPWH versus without also had significantly greater work productivity losses, at a median (interquartile range [IQR]) of 50.0 (20.0, 71.3) vs. 30.0 (0.0, 60.0) (p < 0.001), lower quality of life (Migraine-Specific Quality of Life questionnaire version 2.1, median [IQR] Role Function-Restrictive domain score 60.0 [42.9, 74.3] vs. 68.6 [54.3, 82.9], p < 0.001), higher prevalence of depression and anxiety symptoms (depression, 40.2% [3982/9896] vs. 28.2% [1296/4596], p < 0.001); anxiety, 41.2% [4082/9896] vs. 29.2% [1343/4596], p < 0.001), higher prevalence of cutaneous allodynia during headache (54.0% [5345/9896] vs. 36.6% [1681/4596], p < 0.001), and higher prevalence of poor acute treatment optimization (61.1% [5582/9129] vs. 53.3% [2197/4122], p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Nearly 70% of respondents with migraine reported NPWH. Individuals with migraine with neck pain during their headaches had greater disability, depression, anxiety, and cutaneous allodynia (during headache) than those without neck pain during their headaches. They also had diminished quality of life and work productivity, and poorer response to acute treatment compared with those without neck pain.

Characterizing gaps in the preventive pharmacologic treatment of migraine: Multi-country results from the CaMEO-I study.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze data from the Chronic Migraine Epidemiology and Outcomes-International (CaMEO-I) Study in order to characterize preventive medication use and identify preventive usage gaps among people with migraine across multiple countries. BACKGROUND: Guidelines for the preventive treatment of migraine are available from scientific organizations in various countries. Although these guidelines differ among countries, eligibility for preventive treatment is generally based on monthly headache day (MHD) frequency and associated disability. The overwhelming majority of people with migraine who are eligible for preventive treatment do not receive it. METHODS: The CaMEO-I Study was a cross-sectional, observational, web-based panel survey study performed in six countries: Canada, France, Germany, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States. People were invited to complete an online survey in their national language(s) to identify those with migraine according to modified International Classification of Headache Disorders, 3rd edition, criteria. People classified with migraine answered questions about current and ever use of both acute and preventive treatments for migraine. Available preventive medications for migraine differed by country. MHD frequency and associated disability data were collected. The American Headache Society (AHS) 2021 Consensus Statement algorithm was used to determine candidacy for preventive treatment (i.e., ≥3 monthly MHDs with severe disability, ≥4 MHDs with some disability, or ≥6 MHDs regardless of level of disability). RESULTS: Among 90,613 valid completers of the screening survey, 14,492 met criteria for migraine and completed the full survey, with approximately 2400 respondents from each country. Based on the AHS consensus statement preventive treatment candidacy algorithm, averaging across countries, 36.2% (5246/14,492) of respondents with migraine qualified for preventive treatment. Most respondents (84.5% [4431/5246]) who met criteria for preventive treatment according to the AHS consensus statement were not using a preventive medication at the time of the survey. Moreover, 19.3% (2799/14,492) of respondents had ever used preventive medication (ever users); 58.1% (1625/2799) of respondents who reported ever using a preventive medication for migraine were still taking it. Of the respondents who were currently using a preventive medication, 50.2% (815/1625) still met the criteria for needing preventive treatment based on the AHS consensus statement. CONCLUSIONS: Most people with migraine who qualify for preventive treatment are not currently taking it. Additionally, many people currently taking preventive pharmacologic treatment still meet the algorithm criteria for needing preventive treatment, suggesting inadequate benefit from their current regimen.

Prevalence and burden of migraine in the United States: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: This study reviewed migraine prevalence and disability gathered through epidemiologic survey studies in the United States conducted over the past three decades. We summarized these studies and evaluated changing patterns of disease prevalence and disability. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of US studies addressing the prevalence, disability, and/or burden of migraine, including both episodic migraine (EM) and chronic migraine (CM). A Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) protocol was used in conjunction with the PubMed search engine. Eligible studies were published before February 2022, were conducted in the United States, included representative samples, and used a case definition of migraine based on the International Classification of Headache Disorders (ICHD). The primary measure of disease burden was the Migraine Disability Assessment Scale (MIDAS). The MIDAS measures days lost due to migraine over 3 months in three domains and defines groups with moderate (Grade III) or severe disability (Grade IV) using cut-scores. RESULTS: Of the 1609 identified records, 26 publications from 11 US population-based studies met eligibility criteria. The prevalence of migraine in the population has remained relatively consistent for the past 30 years: ranging from 11.7% to 14.7% overall, 17.1% to 19.2% in women, and 5.6% to 7.2% in men in the studies reviewed. CM prevalence is 0.91% (1.3% among women and 0.5% of men) in adults and 0.8% in adolescents. The proportion of people with migraine and moderate-to-severe MIDAS disability (Grades III-IV), has trended upward across studies from 22.0% in 2005 to 39.0% in 2012, to 43.2% in 2016, and 42.4% in 2018. A consistently higher proportion of women were assigned MIDAS Grades III/IV relative to men. CONCLUSION: The prevalence of migraine in the United States has remained stable over the past three decades while migraine-related disability has increased. The disability trend could reflect changes in reporting, study methodology, social and societal changes, or changes in exacerbating or remediating factors that make migraine more disabling, among other hypotheses. These issues merit further investigation.

Safety and Real-World Dosing of OnabotulinumtoxinA for the Treatment of Adult Spasticity: Post Hoc Analysis of the Adult Spasticity International Registry Study.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study is to evaluate the safety of onabotulinumtoxinA treatment for spasticity across dose ranges in real-world practice. DESIGN: Adult Spasticity International Registry was a multicenter, prospective, observational study (NCT01930786) of onabotulinumtoxinA treatment for adult spasticity over 2 yrs. Adverse events, serious adverse events, treatment-related adverse events, and serious treatment-related adverse events were sorted into five categories (≤200, 201-400, 401-600, 601-800, ≥801 U) based on cumulative dose per session. RESULTS: In 3103 treatment sessions ( T ), 730 patients received ≥1 dose of onabotulinumtoxinA. Dose categories included the following: ≤200 U ( n = 312, T = 811), 201-400 U ( n = 446, T = 1366), 401-600 U ( n = 244, T = 716), 601-800 U ( n = 69, T = 149), and ≥801 U ( n = 29, T = 61). Of these patients, 261 reported 827 adverse events, 94 reported 195 serious adverse events, 20 reported 23 treatment-related adverse events, and 2 patients treated with 201-400 U onabotulinumtoxinA reported 3 serious treatment-related adverse events. Treatment-related adverse events reported included ≤200 U (8/811, 0.9%), 201-400 U (7/1366, 0.5%), 401-600 U (6/716, 0.8%), 601-800 U (1/149, 0.7%), and ≥801 U (1/61, 1.6%). CONCLUSIONS: In this post hoc analysis, most treatment sessions were performed with 201-400 U onabotulinumtoxinA. Patients treated with 201-400 U onabotulinumtoxinA had an adverse event profile consistent with onabotulinumtoxinA package inserts globally (e.g., United States, European Union, United Kingdom, Canada). No new safety signals were identified.

Pre- and post-headache phases of migraine: multi-country results from the CaMEO - International Study.

BACKGROUND: Individuals with migraine frequently experience pre- and post-headache symptoms. This analysis aimed to characterize the relative frequency and burden of pre- and post-headache symptoms in people with migraine using data collected through the Chronic Migraine Epidemiology and Outcomes - International Study. METHODS: This cross-sectional, observational, web-based survey was conducted in 2021-2022 in Canada, France, Germany, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Respondents who met modified International Classification of Headache Disorders, 3rd edition, criteria were offered the opportunity to participate. Information collected included migraine-related disability, depression/anxiety symptoms, cutaneous allodynia, activity limitations, and acute treatment optimization. Respondents indicated how often they had pre- or post-headache symptoms using a 5-point scale, ranging from 0 to 4, with a rating of 2 or higher classified as a pre- or post-headache symptom case. Modeling was used to examine relationships with monthly headache days (MHDs) and activity limitations during pre-headache and post-headache phases. RESULTS: Among a total of 14,492 respondents, pre-headache symptoms were reported by 66.9%, while post-headache symptoms were reported by 60.2%. Both pre-headache and post-headache symptoms were reported by 49.5% of respondents, only pre-headache by 17.4%, only post-headache by 10.7%, and neither pre- nor post-headache symptoms by 22.4%. Compared with respondents who experienced only pre- or post-headache symptoms, respondents who experienced both pre- and post-headache symptoms had the highest rates of 4-7, 8-14, and ≥ 15 monthly headache days (23.1%, 14.1%, and 10.9%, respectively). Of respondents with both pre- and post-headache symptoms, 58.5% reported moderate-to-severe disability, 47.7% reported clinically significant symptoms of depression, 49.0% reported clinically significant symptoms of anxiety, and 63.8% reported cutaneous allodynia with headache (ASC-12). Moderate-to-severe activity limitations were reported during the pre-headache (29.5%) and post-headache phases (27.2%). For all outcomes modeled, after controlling for covariates, having pre-headache symptoms, post-headache symptoms, or both were associated with worse outcomes than having neither. CONCLUSIONS: Pre- and post-headache phases of migraine are common, carry unrecognized burden, and may be a target for treatment.

Impact of monthly headache days on migraine-related quality of life: Results from the Chronic Migraine Epidemiology and Outcomes (CaMEO) study.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize the direct impact of monthly headache days (MHDs) on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in people with migraine and the potential mediating effects of anxiety, depression, and allodynia. BACKGROUND: Although the general relationship between increased migraine frequency (i.e., MHDs) and reduced HRQoL is well established, the degree to which reduced HRQoL is due to a direct effect of increased MHDs or attributable to mediating factors remains uncertain. METHODS: Cross-sectional baseline data from participants with migraine who completed the Core and Comorbidities/Endophenotypes modules in the 2012-2013 US Chronic Migraine Epidemiology and Outcomes (CaMEO) study, a longitudinal web-based survey study, were analyzed. The potential contribution of depression, anxiety, and/or allodynia to the observed effects of MHDs on HRQoL as measured by the Migraine-Specific Quality-of-Life Questionnaire version 2.1 (MSQ) was evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 12,715 respondents were included in the analyses. The MSQ domain scores demonstrated progressive declines with increasing MHD categories (B = -1.23 to -0.60; p < 0.001). The observed HRQoL decrements associated with increasing MHDs were partially mediated by the presence of depression, anxiety, and allodynia. The MHD values predicted 24.0%-32.4% of the observed variation in the MSQ domains. Depression mediated 15.2%-24.3%, allodynia mediated 9.6%-16.1%, and anxiety mediated 2.3%-6.0% of the observed MHD effects on the MSQ. CONCLUSIONS: Increased MHD values were associated with lower MSQ scores; the impact of MHDs on the MSQ domain scores was partially mediated by the presence of depression, anxiety, and allodynia. MHDs remain the predominant driver of the MSQ variation; moreover, most of the variation in the MSQ remains unexplained by the variables we analyzed. Future longitudinal analyses and studies may help clarify the contribution of MHDs, comorbidities, and other factors to changes in HRQoL.

Chronic Migraine Epidemiology and Outcomes - International (CaMEO-I) Study: Methods and multi-country baseline findings for diagnosis rates and care.

BACKGROUND: The Chronic Migraine Epidemiology and Outcomes-International study provides insight into people with migraine in multiple countries. METHODS: This cross-sectional, observational, web-based cohort study was conducted in Canada, France, Germany, Japan, United Kingdom, and United States. An initial Screening Module survey solicited general healthcare information from a representative sample and identified participants with migraine based on modified International Classification of Headache Disorders-3 criteria; those with migraine completed a detailed survey based on validated migraine-specific assessments. RESULTS: Among 90,613 people who correctly completed the screening surveys, 76,121 respondents did not meet the criteria for migraine, while 14,492 did. Among respondents with migraine, mean age ranged from 40 to 42 years. The median number of monthly headache days ranged from 2.33 to 3.33 across countries, while the proportion of respondents with moderate-to-severe disability (measured by Migraine Disability Assessment) ranged from 30% (Japan) to 52% (Germany). The proportion of respondents with ≥15 monthly headache days ranged from 5.4% (France) to 9.5% (Japan). Fewer than half of respondents with migraine in each country reported having received a migraine diagnosis. CONCLUSION: These results demonstrated high rates of migraine-related disability and underdiagnosis of migraine across six countries. This study will characterize country-level burden, treatment patterns, and geographical differences in care.

Predictors of treatment-response to caffeine combination products, acetaminophen, acetylsalicylic acid (aspirin), and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in acute treatment of episodic migraine.

OBJECTIVE: To identify predictors of acute treatment optimization for migraine with "over-the-counter" (OTC) or prescription nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) as well as other widely used OTCs including acetaminophen, caffeine combination products (CCP), and acetylsalicylic acid (ASA, aspirin) among people with episodic migraine and to develop models that predict treatment response to each class of OTCs. BACKGROUND: Efficacy of acute OTC medications for migraine varies greatly. Identifying predictors of treatment response to particular classes of medication is a step toward evidence-based personalized therapy. METHODS: For this prediction model development study, we used data from 2224 participants from the American Migraine Prevalence and Prevention (AMPP) study who were aged ≥18 years, met criteria for migraine, had <15 monthly headache days, and reported being on monotherapy for acute migraine attacks with one of the following classes medications: CCP (N = 711), acetaminophen (N = 643), ASA (N = 110), and prescription or OTC NSAIDs (N = 760). The primary outcome measures of treatment optimization were adequate 2-h pain freedom (2hPF) and adequate 24-h pain relief (24hPR), which were defined by responses of half the time or more to the relevant items on the Migraine Treatment Optimization Questionnaire-6. RESULTS: The mean (SD) age of the participants was 46.2 (13.1) years, 79.4% (1765/2224) were female, 43.7% (972/2224) reported adequate 2hPF, and 46.1% (1025/2224) reported adequate 24hPR. Those taking CCP had better 2hPF and 24PR outcomes. For those taking NSAIDs, better outcomes were associated with lower average pain intensity (2hPF: odds ratio [OR] 0.89, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.80-0.99; 24PR: OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.77-0.96), cutaneous allodynia (2hPF: OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.89-0.96; 24PR: OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.87-0.95), depressive symptoms (2hPF: OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.92-0.98; 24PR: OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.91-0.99), and Migraine Disability Assessment Scale (MIDAS) grade (2hPF: OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.64-0.90; 24PR: OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.65-0.95). Adequate 2hPF for those taking CCP was associated with male gender (OR 1.83, 95% CI 1.21-2.77), lower average pain intensity (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.70-0.91), lower cutaneous allodynia (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.90-0.97), and lower Migraine Symptom Severity Scale Score (MSSS; OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.86-0.97). Adequate 24hPR for those taking CCP was associated with lower average pain intensity (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.75-0.96), lower cutaneous allodynia (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.89-0.96), and lower MIDAS grade (OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.68-0.96). Participants who were married (OR 1.51, 95% CI 1.05-2.19), had lower average pain intensity (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.70-0.89), lower MSSS (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.88-0.99), less depression (OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.93-0.99), and lower MIDAS grade (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.59-0.87) had adequate 2hPF after taking acetaminophen. Participants who were married (OR 1.50, 95% CI 1.02-2.21), had lower pain intensity (OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.69-0.88), less depression (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.91-0.98) and lower MIDAS grade (OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.42-0.67) had higher 24hPR following use of acetaminophen. A lower MSSS was the only factor associated with higher 2hPF and 24PR after using ASA (OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.67-0.92 and OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.67-0.93). Predictive models had modest performance in identifying responders to each class of OTC. CONCLUSION: A large subgroup of people with migraine had an inadequate response to their usual acute OTC migraine treatment 2- and 24-h after dosing. These findings suggest a need to improve OTC treatment for some and to offer prescription acute medications for others. Predictive models identified several factors associated with better treatment-response in each OTC class. Selecting OTC treatment based on factors predictive of treatment optimization might improve patient outcomes.

Optimized Acute Treatment of Migraine Is Associated With Greater Productivity in People With Migraine: Results From the Chronic Migraine Epidemiology and Outcomes (CaMEO) Study.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to ascertain whether level of optimization of acute treatment of migraine is related to work productivity across the spectrum of migraine. METHODS: Data were from the Chronic Migraine Epidemiology and Outcomes (CaMEO) Study, an internet-based longitudinal survey. Respondents with migraine who reported full-time employment and use of ≥1 acute prescription medication for migraine were included. We determined relationships among lost productive time (LPT; measured with the Migraine Disability Assessment Scale), acute treatment optimization (Migraine Treatment Optimization Questionnaire- ), and monthly headache days (MHDs). RESULTS: There was a direct relationship between LPT and MHD category. Greater acute treatment optimization was associated with lower total LPT, less absenteeism, and less presenteeism within each MHD category. CONCLUSIONS: Optimizing acute treatment for migraine may reduce LPT in people with migraine and reduce indirect costs.

Psychiatric Characteristics of Students Who Make Threats Toward Others at School.

OBJECTIVE: While studies have focused on identifying potential school shooters, little is known about the mental health and other characteristics of students who make threats. This study aimed to describe these students and factors prompting psychiatric interventions and treatment recommendations. METHOD: Child and adolescent psychiatry threat assessment evaluations of 157 consecutive school-referred youths in grades K-12 between 1998 and 2019 were reviewed for demographics, reasons for referral, nature of threat, psychiatric diagnosis, and psychiatric and educational recommendations. Predictors of recommendations for psychiatric interventions were modeled using multivariable logistic regression as a function of above-mentioned covariates. RESULTS: Mean (SD) age of referred students was 13.37 (2.79) years; 88.5% were male; 79.7%, White; 11.6%, Hispanic; 10.1%, Black; 2.5%, Asian. Of students, 51.6% were receiving special education services. Verbal threat was made by 80%, and 29.3% brought a weapon to school. History included being bullied in 43.4%, traumatic family events in 52.2%, physical abuse in 5.1%, sexual abuse in 5.7%, and verbal abuse in 36.3%. Frequently encountered psychiatric diagnoses were attention-deficit/hyperactivity, learning, depressive, anxiety, and autism spectrum disorders, usually in combinations. History of medication treatment was reported in 79 (50.3%) and psychotherapeutic interventions in 57 (36.3%). Recommendations to return the student to their prior schools were made for 63.1%. Recommendations for psychotherapy were made for 79.9%, medication for 88.5%, and both for 70.1%. Therapeutic school setting or psychiatric hospitalization was more likely recommended (with statistical significance) with a prior threat history (odds ratio [OR] 5.47, 95% CI 1.91-15.70), paranoid symptoms (OR 5.72, 95% CI 1.55-21.14, p = .009), autism spectrum disorders (OR 3.45, 95% CI 1.32-9.00), mood disorder (OR 5.71, 95% CI 1.36-23.96), personality disorder (OR 9.47, 95% CI 1.78-50.55), or with psychotherapy recommendation (OR 4.84, 95% CI 1.08-21.75). CONCLUSION: Students who make threats have diverse psychiatric profiles and warrant treatments. A trauma and/or abuse history is common. Evaluations of youths who make threats need to go beyond simply assessing the threat itself and should include identifying underlying psychiatric problems. Psychiatric evaluation of students who issue threats of any type can lead to revelations about psychiatric diagnoses and crucial treatment and educational recommendations. DIVERSITY & INCLUSION STATEMENT: The author list of this paper includes contributors from the location and/or community where the research was conducted who participated in the data collection, design, analysis, and/or interpretation of the work.

Predictors of treatment-response to acute prescription medications in migraine: Results from the American Migraine Prevalence and Prevention (AMPP) Study.

OBJECTIVE: To identify predictors of acute treatment optimization with prescription drugs among people with episodic migraine. METHODS: A total of 2896 individuals from the American Migraine Prevalence and Prevention study were included in this study. The primary outcome measures of treatment optimization were 2-h pain freedom (2hPF) and 24-h pain relief (24hPR), which were defined by responses to the Migraine Treatment Optimization Questionnaire-6 (mTOQ-6). We identified predictors of 2hPF and 24hPR in response to triptans, butalbital combination medications (BCMs), and opioids. RESULTS: PARTICIPANTS: were on average 47.3 years old (SD=12.0), 85.6 % were female, and 88.4 % were white, 46.9 % of participants reported 2hPF and 49.5 % reported 24hPR with their "usual acute treatment". The odds of adequate 2hPF response were reduced in men and those with higher average headache pain intensity, higher migraine symptom severity scores, presence of cutaneous allodynia, and depression. Adequate 24hPR was associated with being married, but declined in those with higher-than-average average headache pain intensity and frequency, greater disability, presence of cutaneous allodynia, and depression. Among participants reporting acute monotherapy, individuals taking triptans were more likely to have adequate treatment response in comparison with those taking BCMs (2hPF: OR=1.86, 95 %CI 1.42-2.42; 24hPR: OR=2.26, 95 %CI 1.73-2.96) and opioids (2hPF: OR=2.39, 95 %CI 1.94-2.96; 24hPR: OR=2.78, 95 %CI 2.24-3.44). There was no significant difference in response to treatment between the subsample taking BCMs and opioid users. CONCLUSION: Almost half of study respondents were not optimized on their usual prescription acute migraine treatment(s). Predictive models identified several features associated with treatment optimization.

Predictive models for determining treatment response to nonprescription acute medications in migraine: Results from the American Migraine Prevalence and Prevention Study.

OBJECTIVE: To identify predictors of acute treatment response for nonprescription (over-the-counter [OTC]) medications among people with migraine and develop improved models for predicting treatment response. BACKGROUND: Pain freedom and sustained pain relief are important priorities in the acute treatment of migraine. OTC medications are widely used for migraine; however, it is not clear which treatment works best for each patient without going through the trial and error process. METHODS: A prediction model development study was completed using the 2006 American Migraine Prevalence and Prevention Study survey, from participants who were aged ≥18, met criteria and headache day frequency for episodic migraine, did not take prescription medication for migraine, and used ≥1 of the following acute migraine medication classes: acetaminophen, aspirin, NSAIDs, or caffeine containing combination products (CCP). Two items from the Migraine Treatment Optimization Questionnaire were used to evaluate treatment response, adequate 2-h pain freedom (2hPF) and 24-h pain relief (24hPR), which were defined by a response to treatment ≥half the time at 2 h and 24 h post treatment, respectively. We identified predictors of adequate treatment response and developed models to predict probability of treatment response to each medication class. RESULTS: The sample included 3852 participants (3038 [79.0%] females) with an average age of 45.0 years (SD = 12.8). Only 1602/3852 (41.6%) and 1718/3852 (44.6%) of the participants reported adequate 2hPF and 24hPR, respectively. Adequate treatment-response was significantly predicted by lower average headache pain intensity, less cutaneous allodynia, and lower depressive symptom scores. Lower migraine symptom severity was predictive of adequate 2hPF and fewer monthly headache days was predictive of adequate 24hPR. Among participants reporting OTC monotherapy (n = 2168, 56.3%) individuals taking CCP were more likely to have adequate 2hPF (OR = 1.55, 95% CI 1.23-1.95) and 24hPR (OR = 1.79, 95% CI 1.18-1.88) in comparison with those taking acetaminophen. Predictive models were modestly predictive of responders to OTC medications (c-statistics = 0.65; 95% CI 0.62-0.68). CONCLUSION: These results show that response to acute migraine treatments is not optimized in the majority of people with migraine treating with OTC medications. Predictive models can improve our ability to choose the best therapeutic option for individuals with episodic migraine and increase the proportion of patients with optimized response to treatments.

Medication Overuse and Headache Burden: Results From the CaMEO Study.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the relative frequency of acute medication overuse (AMO) among people with episodic migraine and chronic migraine, to characterize the types of acute medications overused for migraine, and to identify factors associated with AMO. METHODS: We analyzed data from the Chronic Migraine Epidemiology and Outcomes (CaMEO) Study (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01648530), a cross-sectional and longitudinal internet study that included a systematic sampling of the US population. From September 2012 to November 2013, the CaMEO Study respondents participated in different modules to collect data on the clinical course of migraine, family burden, barriers to care, endophenotypes, and comorbidities. Among people who met the criteria for migraine consistent with the International Classification of Headache Disorders, third edition (ICHD-3), we evaluated types and frequency of medications used for headache/migraine, selected comorbidities, and emergency department (ED) and urgent care (UC) use. AMO was defined by days per month of medication use as specified by ICHD-3 criteria for medication overuse headache (MOH) without the requirement for ≥15 monthly headache days (MHDs). Nested, multivariable binary logistic regression modeling was used to identify factors associated with an increased risk of AMO. RESULTS: Of 16,789 CaMEO respondents with migraine, 2,975 (17.7%) met the AMO criteria. Approximately 67.9% (2,021/2,975) of AMO respondents reported <15 MHDs. Simple analgesics, combination analgesics, and opioids were the medication classes most commonly overused. Factors associated with AMO in the final multivariable logistic regression model included ≥15 MHDs, moderate to severe disability, severe migraine interictal burden, use of preventive medication, and an ED/UC visit for headache within 6 months. CONCLUSIONS: Approximately two-thirds of respondents with AMO reported <15 MHDs and therefore did not meet the criteria for MOH. Those with AMO had greater disease burden and increased ED/UC utilization relative to people with migraine but not AMO.

Real-World Adherence to OnabotulinumtoxinA Treatment for Spasticity: Insights From the ASPIRE Study.

OBJECTIVE: To identify baseline characteristics and treatment-related variables that affect adherence to onabotulinumtoxinA treatment from the Adult Spasticity International Registry (ASPIRE) study. DESIGN: Prospective, observational registry (NCT01930786). SETTING: International clinical sites. PARTICIPANTS: Adults with spasticity (N=730). INTERVENTIONS: OnabotulinumtoxinA at clinician's discretion. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Clinically meaningful thresholds used for treatment adherent (≥3 treatment sessions during 2-year study) and nonadherent (≤2 sessions). Data analyzed using logistic regression and presented as odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Treatment-related variables assessed at sessions 1 and 2 only. RESULTS: Of the total population, 523 patients (71.6%) were treatment adherent with 5.3±1.6 sessions and 207 (28.4%) were nonadherent with 1.5±0.5 sessions. In the final model (n=626/730), 522 patients (83.4%) were treatment adherent and 104 (16.6%) were nonadherent. Baseline characteristics associated with adherence: treated in Europe (OR=1.84; CI, 1.06-3.21; P=.030) and use of orthotics (OR=1.88; CI, 1.15-3.08; P=.012). Baseline characteristics associated with nonadherence: history of diplopia (OR=0.28; CI, 0.09-0.89; P=.031) and use of assistive devices (OR=0.51; CI, 0.29-0.90; P=.021). Treatment-related variables associated with nonadherence: treatment interval ≥15 weeks (OR=0.43; CI, 0.26-0.72; P=.001) and clinician dissatisfaction with onabotulinumtoxinA to manage pain (OR=0.18; CI, 0.05-0.69; P=.012). Of the population with stroke (n=411), 288 patients (70.1%) were treatment adherent with 5.3±1.6 sessions and 123 (29.9%) were nonadherent with 1.5±0.5 session. In the final stroke model (n=346/411), 288 patients (83.2%) were treatment adherent and 58 (16.8%) were nonadherent. Baseline characteristics associated with adherence: treated in Europe (OR=2.99; CI, 1.39-6.44; P=.005) and use of orthotics (OR=3.18; CI, 1.57-6.45; P=.001). Treatment-related variables associated with nonadherence: treatment interval ≥15 weeks (OR=0.42; CI, 0.21-0.83; P=.013) and moderate/severe disability on upper limb Disability Assessment Scale pain subscale (OR=0.40; CI, 0.19-0.83; P=.015). CONCLUSIONS: These ASPIRE analyses demonstrate real-world patient and clinical variables that affect adherence to onabotulinumtoxinA and provide insights to help optimize management strategies to improve patient care.

Barriers to care in episodic and chronic migraine: Results from the Chronic Migraine Epidemiology and Outcomes Study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess rates of and factors associated with traversing fundamental barriers to good medical outcomes and pharmacologic care in individuals with episodic migraine (EM) and chronic migraine (CM), including socioeconomic status and race. BACKGROUND: Barriers to good outcomes in migraine include the lack of appropriate medical consultation, failure to receive an accurate diagnosis, not being offered a regimen with acute and preventive pharmacologic treatments (if indicated), and not avoiding medication overuse. METHODS: The Chronic Migraine Epidemiology and Outcomes (CaMEO) Study was a longitudinal Internet-based survey. Respondents who met criteria for migraine consistent with the International Classification of Headache Disorders, 3rd edition, had a Migraine Disability Assessment score ≥ 6, and provided health insurance coverage status were included in this analysis. Successfully traversing each barrier to care and the effects of sociodemographic characteristics were examined. RESULTS: Among 16,789 respondents with migraine, 9184 (54.7%; EM: 7930; CM: 1254) were eligible. Current headache consultation was reported by 27.6% (2187/7930) of EM and 40.8% (512/1254) of CM respondents. Among consulters, 75.7% (1655/2187) with EM and 32.8% (168/512) with CM were accurately diagnosed. Among diagnosed consulters, 59.9% (992/1655) with EM and 54.2% (91/168) with CM reported minimally appropriate acute and preventive pharmacologic treatment. Among diagnosed and treated consulters, in the EM group 31.8% (315/992) and in the CM group 74.7% (68/91) met medication overuse criteria. Only 8.5% (677/7930) of EM and 1.8% (23/1254) of CM respondents traversed all four barriers. Higher income was positively associated with likelihood of traversing each barrier. Blacks and/or African Americans had higher rates of consultation than other racial groups. Blacks and/or African Americans and multiracial people had higher rates of acute medication overuse. CONCLUSIONS: Efforts to improve care should focus on increasing consultation and diagnosis rates, improving the delivery of all appropriate guideline-based treatment, and avoidance of medication overuse.

Burden of increasing opioid use in the treatment of migraine: Results from the Migraine in America Symptoms and Treatment Study.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to assess factors associated with the frequency of self-reported prescription opioid use in persons with migraine, including demographic variables, comorbidities, headache characteristics, and patterns of consultation. BACKGROUND: Despite the dose-dependent effect of opioids on migraine progression and the association with negative outcomes, migraine treatment often includes opioids. The Migraine in America Symptoms and Treatment Study focuses on individuals with migraine who receive prescription acute medications, including those receiving and those not receiving opioids. METHODS: This web-based panel survey identified people in the United States with migraine using a validated screener. This analysis stratified people with migraine into 4 groups based on days of monthly opioid use: non-opioid users, ≤3 days, 4-9 days, and ≥10 days per month. RESULTS: Of 15,133 respondents with migraine, 4701 (31%) reported acute prescription medication use for headache/migraine in the previous 3 months (mean age 45 years, 71.6% [3367/4701] female), of whom 32.5% (1528/4701) reported opioid use. About one-third of respondents with primary care or neurology consults in the prior 6 months reported receiving an opioid, and more than half of respondents (209/391, 53.5%) with a pain clinic consultation did so. Models compared those using opioids ≤3 days/month (879/4701, 18.7%), 4-9 days/month (304/4701, 6.5%), ≥10 days/month (345/4701, 7.3%) to non-opioid users (3173/4701, 67.5%). Compared to non-opioid users, infrequent users (≤3 days/month) were more likely to be male and less likely to have chronic migraine or to screen positive for anxiety and depression; and frequent opioid users (the 4-9 days/month and the ≥10 days/month groups) were more likely to be male, to smoke, to be obese, to report greater pain interference, to have moderate to severe disability, to have symptoms of anxiety and depression, to use fewer triptans and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and to have poor acute treatment optimization. CONCLUSION: Among prescription medication users, this cross-sectional analysis shows that increasing use of prescription opioids is associated with male gender, chronic migraine, more severe disability, anxiety and depression, poor acute treatment optimization, and treatment in a pain clinic.

Demographics, Headache Features, and Comorbidity Profiles in Relation to Headache Frequency in People With Migraine: Results of the American Migraine Prevalence and Prevention (AMPP) Study.

BACKGROUND: Migraine is typically divided into 2 headache frequency denominated categories, episodic migraine (EM) and chronic migraine (CM). Characterizing more narrow headache day frequency groups may be of value for better understanding the broad range of migraine experience and making treatment decisions. OBJECTIVE: To characterize the impact and burden of migraine in 4 monthly headache day (MHD) categories. METHODS: Respondents to the American Migraine Prevalence and Prevention Study 2005 survey who met criteria for migraine were categorized into low frequency episodic migraine (LFEM) 0-3, moderate frequency episodic migraine (MFEM) 4-7, high frequency episodic migraine (HFEM) 8-14, and CM with ≥15 headache days per month. Data including sociodemographics, headache features and symptomology, comorbidities, cutaneous allodynia, and severe migraine-related disability were compared among groups. We combined the low- and medium-frequency EM groups (L/MFEM) and compared them with the HFEM group in 1 set of models and compared the HFEM and CM groups in a second set of models. Binary logistic regression, linear regression, and ordered logistic regression were used depending upon the variable type and adjusted for sociodemographics. RESULTS: Among 11,603 eligible respondents with migraine, 67.7% (7860/11,603) were categorized with LFEM, 17.7% (2051/11,603) with MFEM, 7.8% (898/11,603) with HFEM, and 6.8% (794/11,603) with CM. The mean age was 46 (SD 13.7), 80.2% (9301/11,603) were female, and 90.0% (10,187/11,323) were White, 6.9% were Black (784/11,323), and 3.1% (352/11,323) were identified as Other race(s). Individuals with HFEM differed from L/MFEM on a wide range of sociodemographic variables in the categories of headache features, disability, and comorbidities while few differences were found when modeling HFEM vs CM. In comparison with L/MFEM and HFEM, the HFEM group was more likely to have severe disability (P < .001 OR = 1.74 [1.42, 2.15]), chronic pain (P ≤ .007 OR = 1.35 [1.09, 1.69]), arthritis (P = .001 OR = 1.44 [1.15, 1.80]), high cholesterol (P = .005, OR = 1.37 [1.10, 1.70]), ulcers (P = .016, OR = 1.44 [1.07, 1.93]), and depression (Patient Health Questionnaire [PHQ-9]) (P < .001 OR = 1.50 [1.22, 1.84]). CONCLUSION: While rates of migraine symptoms, headache impact and disability, and comorbidities generally increased with increases in MHD frequency, respondents with HFEM and CM were remarkably similar on a broad range of variables including sociodemographics, disability/impact, and comorbidities. There were many more significant differences between the HFEM and L/MFEM groups on the same variables. Future work should use empirical strategies to identify naturally occurring groups and possibly reconsider the boundary between CM and HFEM.

Characterizing opioid use in a US population with migraine: Results from the CaMEO study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence of and risk factors associated with opioid use in the treatment of migraine, we examined demographics and clinical characteristics of 867 individuals who reported using opioids for the treatment of migraine. METHODS: We analyzed data from the CaMEO study (Chronic Migraine Epidemiology and Outcomes), a cross-sectional, longitudinal, Internet study, to compare sociodemographics, clinical characteristics, and migraine burden/disability of opioid users vs nonusers. Covariates were entered as categorical or continuous variables. Factors associated with opioid use were identified using nested, multivariable binary logistic regression models. RESULTS: Of 2,388 respondents with migraine using prescription medications for acute treatment, 36.3% reported that they currently used or kept on hand opioid medications to treat headaches. Current opioid users had significantly more comorbidities, greater headache-related burden, and poorer quality of life than nonusers. Regression models revealed factors significantly associated with opioid use, including male sex, body mass index, allodynia, increasing monthly headache frequency, Total Pain Index score (excluding head, face, neck/shoulder), anxiety, depression, ≥1 cardiovascular comorbidity, and emergency department/urgent care use for headache in the past 6 months. Self-reported physician-diagnosed migraine/chronic migraine was associated with significantly decreased likelihood of opioid use. CONCLUSIONS: Of respondents who were using acute prescription medications for migraine, more than one-third used or kept opioids on hand, contrary to guidance. This analysis could not distinguish risk factors from consequences of opioid use; thus further research is needed to guide the development of strategies for reducing the inappropriate use of opioids in migraine.