PMCC PMCC

Search tips
Search criteria

Advanced
Results 1-25 (855360)

Clipboard (0)
None

Related Articles

1.  Anatomical Alterations of the Visual Motion Processing Network in Migraine with and without Aura 
PLoS Medicine  2006;3(10):e402.
Background
Patients suffering from migraine with aura (MWA) and migraine without aura (MWoA) show abnormalities in visual motion perception during and between attacks. Whether this represents the consequences of structural changes in motion-processing networks in migraineurs is unknown. Moreover, the diagnosis of migraine relies on patient's history, and finding differences in the brain of migraineurs might help to contribute to basic research aimed at better understanding the pathophysiology of migraine.
Methods and Findings
To investigate a common potential anatomical basis for these disturbances, we used high-resolution cortical thickness measurement and diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) to examine the motion-processing network in 24 migraine patients (12 with MWA and 12 MWoA) and 15 age-matched healthy controls (HCs). We found increased cortical thickness of motion-processing visual areas MT+ and V3A in migraineurs compared to HCs. Cortical thickness increases were accompanied by abnormalities of the subjacent white matter. In addition, DTI revealed that migraineurs have alterations in superior colliculus and the lateral geniculate nucleus, which are also involved in visual processing.
Conclusions
A structural abnormality in the network of motion-processing areas could account for, or be the result of, the cortical hyperexcitability observed in migraineurs. The finding in patients with both MWA and MWoA of thickness abnormalities in area V3A, previously described as a source in spreading changes involved in visual aura, raises the question as to whether a “silent” cortical spreading depression develops as well in MWoA. In addition, these experimental data may provide clinicians and researchers with a noninvasively acquirable migraine biomarker.
A structural abnormality in the network of motion-processing areas could account for, or be the result of, the cortical hyperexcitability seen in people who have migraine.
Editors' Summary
Background.
Migraine is a disabling brain disorder that affects more than one in ten people during their lifetimes. It is characterized by severe, recurrent headaches, often accompanied by nausea, vomiting, and light sensitivity. In some migraineurs (people who have migraines), the headaches are preceded by neurological disturbances known as “aura.” These usually affect vision, causing illusions of flashing lights, zig-zag lines, or blind spots. There are many triggers for migraine attacks—including some foods, stress, and bright lights—and every migraineur has to learn what triggers his or her attacks. There is no cure for migraine, although over-the-counter painkillers can ease the symptoms and doctors can prescribe stronger remedies or drugs to reduce the frequency of attacks. Exactly what causes migraine is unclear but scientists think that, for some reason, the brains of migraineurs are hyperexcitable. That is, some nerve cells in their brains overreact when they receive electrical messages from the body. This triggers a local disturbance of brain function called “cortical spreading depression,” which, in turn, causes aura, headache, and the other symptoms of migraine.
Why Was This Study Done?
Researchers need to know more about what causes migraine to find better treatments. One clue comes from the observation that motion perception is abnormal in migraineurs, even between attacks—they can be very sensitive to visually induced motion sickness, for example. Another clue is that aura are usually visual. So could brain regions that process visual information be abnormal in people who have migraines? In this study, the researchers investigated the structure of the motion processing parts of the brain in people who have migraine with aura, in people who have migraine without aura, and in unaffected individuals to see whether there were any differences that might help them understand migraine.
What Did the Researchers Do and Find?
The researchers used two forms of magnetic resonance imaging—a noninvasive way to produce pictures of internal organs—to examine the brains of migraineurs (when they weren't having a migraine) and healthy controls. They concentrated on two brain regions involved in motion processing known as the MT+ and V3A areas and first measured the cortical thickness of these areas—the cortex is the wrinkled layer of gray matter on the outside of the brain that processes information sent from the body. They found that the cortical thickness was increased in both of these areas in migraineurs when compared to healthy controls. There was no difference in cortical thickness between migraineurs who had aura and those who did not, but the area of cortical thickening in V3A corresponded to the source of cortical spreading depression previously identified in a person who had migraine with aura. The researchers also found differences between the white matter (the part of the brain that transfers information between different regions of the gray matter) immediately below the V3A and MT+ areas in the migraineurs and the controls but again not between the two groups of migraineurs.
What Do These Findings Mean?
This study provides new information about migraine. First, it identifies structural changes in the brains of people who have migraines. Until now, it has been thought that abnormal brain function causes migraine but that migraineurs have a normal brain structure. The observed structural differences might either account for or be caused by the hyperexcitability that triggers migraines. Because migraine runs in families, examining the brains of children of migraineurs as they grow up might indicate which of these options is correct, although it is possible that abnormalities in brain areas not examined here actually trigger migraines. Second, the study addresses a controversial question about migraine: Is migraine with aura the same as migraine without aura? The similar brain changes in both types of migraine suggest that they are one disorder. Third, the abnormalities in areas MT+ and V3A could help to explain why migraineurs have problems with visual processing even in between attacks. Finally, this study suggests that it might be possible to develop a noninvasive test to help doctors diagnose migraine.
Additional Information.
Please access these Web sites via the online version of this summary at http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0030402.
The MedlinePlus encyclopedia has several pages on migraine
The US National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke offers patient information on migraine and other headaches
The NHS Direct Online contains patient information on migraine from the UK National Health Service
MAGNUM provides information from The US National Migraine Association
The Migraine Trust is a UK charity that supports research and provides support for patients
The Migraine Aura Foundation is a site about aura that includes a section on art and aura
doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0030402
PMCID: PMC1609120  PMID: 17048979
2.  Effect of preventive (β blocker) treatment, behavioural migraine management, or their combination on outcomes of optimised acute treatment in frequent migraine: randomised controlled trial 
Objective To determine if the addition of preventive drug treatment (β blocker), brief behavioural migraine management, or their combination improves the outcome of optimised acute treatment in the management of frequent migraine.
Design Randomised placebo controlled trial over 16 months from July 2001 to November 2005.
Setting Two outpatient sites in Ohio, USA.
Participants 232 adults (mean age 38 years; 79% female) with diagnosis of migraine with or without aura according to International Headache Society classification of headache disorders criteria, who recorded at least three migraines with disability per 30 days (mean 5.5 migraines/30 days), during an optimised run-in of acute treatment.
Interventions Addition of one of four preventive treatments to optimised acute treatment: β blocker (n=53), matched placebo (n=55), behavioural migraine management plus placebo (n=55), or behavioural migraine management plus β blocker (n=69).
Main outcome measure The primary outcome was change in migraines/30 days; secondary outcomes included change in migraine days/30 days and change in migraine specific quality of life scores.
Results Mixed model analysis showed statistically significant (P≤0.05) differences in outcomes among the four added treatments for both the primary outcome (migraines/30 days) and the two secondary outcomes (change in migraine days/30 days and change in migraine specific quality of life scores). The addition of combined β blocker and behavioural migraine management (−3.3 migraines/30 days, 95% confidence interval −3.2 to −3.5), but not the addition of β blocker alone (−2.1 migraines/30 days, −1.9 to −2.2) or behavioural migraine management alone (−2.2 migraines migraines/30 days, −2.0 to −2.4), improved outcomes compared with optimised acute treatment alone (−2.1 migraines/30 days, −1.9 to −2.2). For a clinically significant (≥50% reduction) in migraines/30 days, the number needed to treat for optimised acute treatment plus combined β blocker and behavioural migraine management was 3.1 compared with optimised acute treatment alone, 2.6 compared with optimised acute treatment plus β blocker, and 3.1 compared with optimised acute treatment plus behavioural migraine management. Results were consistent for the two secondary outcomes, and at both month 10 (the primary endpoint) and month 16.
Conclusion The addition of combined β blocker plus behavioural migraine management, but not the addition of β blocker alone or behavioural migraine management alone, improved outcomes of optimised acute treatment. Combined β blocker treatment and behavioural migraine management may improve outcomes in the treatment of frequent migraine.
Trial registration Clinical trials NCT00910689.
doi:10.1136/bmj.c4871
PMCID: PMC2947621  PMID: 20880898
3.  A Randomized Trial of a Web-based Intervention to Improve Migraine Self-Management and Coping 
Headache  2012;52(2):244-261.
Objective
Test the clinical efficacy of a web-based intervention designed to increase patient self-efficacy to perform headache self-management activities and symptom management strategies; and reduce migraine-related psychological distress.
Background
In spite of their demonstrated efficacy, behavioral interventions are used infrequently as an adjunct in medical treatment of migraine. Little clinical attention is paid to the behavioral factors that can help manage migraine more effectively, improve the quality of care, and improve quality of life. Access to evidenced-based, tailored, behavioral treatment is limited for many people with migraine.
Design
The study is a parallel group design with two conditions, (1) an experimental group exposed to the web intervention, and (2) a no-treatment control group that was not exposed to the intervention. Assessments for both groups were conducted at baseline (T1), 1-month (T2), 3-months (T3), and 6-months (T4).
Results
Compared to controls, participants in the experimental group reported significantly: increased headache self-efficacy, increased use of relaxation, increased use of social support, decreased pain catastrophizing, decreased depression, and decreased stress. The hypothesis that the intervention would reduce pain could not be tested.
Conclusions
Demonstrated increases in self-efficacy to perform headache self-management, increased use of positive symptom management strategies, and reported decreased migraine-related depression and stress, suggest that the intervention may be a useful behavioral adjunct to a comprehensive medical approach to managing migraine.
PMCID: PMC3305283  PMID: 22413151
migraine; e-Health; self-management; psychosocial; coping; self-efficacy
4.  Psychological therapies for the management of chronic and recurrent pain in children and adolescents 
Background
Chronic pain affects many children, who report severe pain, distressed mood, and disability. Psychological therapies are emerging as effective interventions to treat children with chronic or recurrent pain. This update adds recently published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to the review published in 2009.
Objectives
To assess the effectiveness of psychological therapies, principally cognitive behavioural therapy and behavioural therapy, for reducing pain, disability, and improving mood in children and adolescents with recurrent, episodic, or persistent pain. We also assessed the risk of bias and methodological quality of the included studies.
Search methods
Searches were undertaken of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsycLIT. We searched for RCTs in references of all identified studies, meta-analyses and reviews. Date of most recent search: March 2012.
Selection criteria
RCTs with at least 10 participants in each arm post-treatment comparing psychological therapies with active treatment were eligible for inclusion (waiting list or standard medical care) for children or adolescents with episodic, recurrent or persistent pain.
Data collection and analysis
All included studies were analysed and the quality of the studies recorded. All treatments were combined into one class: psychological treatments; headache and non-headache outcomes were separately analysed on three outcomes: pain, disability, and mood. Data were extracted at two time points; post-treatment (immediately or the earliest data available following end of treatment) and at follow-up (at least three months after the post-treatment assessment point, but not more than 12 months).
Main results
Eight studies were added in this update of the review, giving a total of 37 studies. The total number of participants completing treatments was 1938. Twenty-one studies addressed treatments for headache (including migraine); seven for abdominal pain; four included mixed pain conditions including headache pain, two for fibromyalgia, two for pain associated with sickle cell disease, and one for juvenile idiopathic arthritis. Analyses revealed five significant effects. Pain was found to improve for headache and non-headache groups at post-treatment, and for the headache group at follow-up. Mood significantly improved for the headache group at follow-up, although, this should be interpreted with caution as there were only two small studies entered into the analysis. Finally, disability significantly improved in the non-headache group at post-treatment. There were no other significant effects.
Authors’ conclusions
Psychological treatments are effective in reducing pain intensity for children and adolescents (<18 years) with headache and benefits from therapy appear to be maintained. Psychological treatments also improve pain and disability for children with non-headache pain. There is limited evidence available to estimate the effects of psychological therapies on mood for children and adolescents with headache and non-headache pain. There is also limited evidence to estimate the effects on disability in children with headache. These conclusions replicate and add to those of the previous review which found psychological therapies were effective in reducing pain intensity for children with headache and non-headache pain conditions, and these effects were maintained at follow-up.
doi:10.1002/14651858.CD003968.pub3
PMCID: PMC3715398  PMID: 23235601
*Pain Management; Abdominal Pain [therapy]; Chronic Disease; Cognitive Therapy; Fibromyalgia [therapy]; Headache [therapy]; Hemoglobin SC Disease [complications]; Mood Disorders [therapy]; Pain [psychology]; Psychotherapy [*methods]; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Recurrence; Adolescent; Child; Humans
5.  Migraine headache in children 
Clinical Evidence  2011;2011:0318.
Introduction
Diagnosis of migraine headache in children can be difficult as it depends on subjective symptoms; diagnostic criteria are broader than in adults. Migraine occurs in 3% to 10% of children and increases with age up to puberty. Migraine spontaneously remits after puberty in half of children, but if it begins during adolescence it may be more likely to persist throughout adulthood.
Methods and outcomes
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical question: What are the effects of treatments for acute attacks, and of prophylaxis for migraine headache in children? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to June 2010 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically; please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
Results
We found 22 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
Conclusions
In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: for acute symptom relief (antiemetics, codeine phosphate, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs [NSAIDs], paracetamol, and 5HT1 antagonists [such as triptans]) and for prophylaxis (beta-blockers, dietary manipulation, pizotifen, progressive muscle relaxation, stress management, thermal biofeedback, and topiramate).
Key Points
Diagnosis of migraine headache in children can be difficult as it depends on subjective symptoms; diagnostic criteria are broader than in adults. Migraine occurs in 3% to 10% of children and increases with age up to puberty.Migraine spontaneously remits after puberty in half of children, but if it begins during adolescence, it may be more likely to persist throughout adulthood.
We don't know whether paracetamol, NSAIDs, or codeine phosphate relieve the pain of migraine in children, as we found few good trials. Nevertheless, it is widely accepted good clinical practice that paracetamol, an NSAID such as ibuprofen, or both, should be the first-line agents for headache relief during acute attacks unless contraindicated.
There is increasing RCT evidence that nasal sumatriptan is likely to be beneficial in reducing pain at 2 hours in children aged 12 to 17 years with persisting headache. We found limited evidence that oral almotriptan may be more effective than placebo at reducing pain at 2 hours, but not at reducing recurrence. Oral rizatriptan may reduce nausea but it has not been shown to reduce pain compared with placebo.We don't know whether oral zolmitriptan or eletriptan are effective; data regarding zolmitriptan are conflicting and data regarding eletriptan are limited.
We don't know whether antiemetics are beneficial for treating acute attack of childhood migraine, as we found no trials.
Pizotifen is widely used as prophylaxis in children with migraine, but we found no trials assessing its efficacy. When used prophylactically, stress management programmes may improve headache severity and frequency in the short term compared with no stress management.Trials of beta-blockers as prophylaxis in children have given inconsistent results, and propranolol may even increase the duration of headaches compared with placebo.We don't know whether prophylactic dietary manipulation, thermal biofeedback, or progressive muscle relaxation can prevent recurrence of migraine in children.
There is some inconclusive RCT evidence that topiramate may be useful as prophylaxis in children with migraine.
PMCID: PMC3275150  PMID: 21481285
6.  Migraine headache in children 
Clinical Evidence  2009;2009:0318.
Introduction
Diagnosis of migraine headache in children can be difficult as it depends on subjective symptoms; diagnostic criteria are broader than in adults. Migraine occurs in 3-10% of children and increases with age up to puberty. Migraine spontaneously remits after puberty in half of children, but if it begins during adolescence it may be more likely to persist throughout adulthood.
Methods and outcomes
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical question: What are the effects of treatments for acute attacks, and of prophylaxis for migraine headache in children? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to May 2008 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically, please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
Results
We found 18 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
Conclusions
In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: for acute symptom relief (antiemetics, codeine phosphate, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs [NSAIDs], paracetamol, and 5HT1 antagonists [such as triptans]) and for prophylaxis (beta-blockers, dietary manipulation, pizotifen, progressive muscle relaxation, stress management, thermal biofeedback, and topiramate).
Key Points
Diagnosis of migraine headache in children can be difficult as it depends on subjective symptoms; diagnostic criteria are broader than in adults. Migraine occurs in 3-10% of children and increases with age up to puberty.Migraine spontaneously remits after puberty in half of children, but if it begins during adolescence, it may be more likely to persist throughout adulthood.
We don't know whether paracetamol, NSAIDs, or codeine phosphate relieve the pain of migraine in children, as few studies have been found. Nevertheless, it is widely accepted good clinical practice that paracetamol, an NSAID such ibuprofen, or both should be the first-line agents for headache relief during acute attacks unless contraindicated.
There is increasing evidence that nasal sumatriptan is likely to be beneficial in reducing pain at 2 hours compared with placebo in children aged 12-17 years with persisting headache. Oral rizatriptan may reduce nausea but has not been shown to reduce pain compared with placebo.We don't know whether oral zolmitriptan or eletriptan are effective compared with placebo; data regarding zolmitriptan are conflicting and data regarding eletriptan are limited.
We don't know whether antiemetics are beneficial for treating acute attack of childhood migraine, as we found no studies.
Pizotifen is widely used as prophylaxis in children with migraine, but we found no studies assessing its efficacy. When used prophylactically, stress management programmes may improve headache severity and frequency in the short term compared with no stress management.Studies of beta-blockers as prophylaxis in children have given inconsistent results, and propranolol may even increase the duration of headaches compared with placebo.We don't know whether prophylacticdietary manipulation, thermal biofeedback, or progressive muscle relaxation can prevent recurrence of migraine in children.
There is some inconclusive evidence that topiramate may be useful as prophylaxis in children with migraine.
PMCID: PMC2907773  PMID: 19445776
7.  Pediatric migraine and episodic syndromes that may be associated with migraine 
Importance
Migraine is a common disorder and a frequent cause of medical consultation in children. Many childhood episodic syndromes have been described as common precursors of migraine.
Objective
To review current knowledge on migraine and childhood episodic syndromes, and to discuss future directions for research and clinical practice.
Findings
For most children it is difficult to describe a headache and fully verbalize symptoms such as photophobia and phonophobia that must be inferred from behaviour. Classical migraine features are rare before the age of 6 years, but some migraine-related syndromes have been described. Benign paroxysmal torticollis of infancy, benign paroxysmal vertigo of childhood, cyclic vomiting syndrome and abdominal migraine are currently classified as childhood episodic syndromes, and therefore common precursors of migraine. A strong association between infantile colic and migraine has recently been reported. There are similarities between children with episodic syndromes and children with migraine, regarding social and demographic factors, precipitating and relieving factors, and accompanying gastrointestinal, neurologic, and vasomotor features. The real pathophysiological mechanisms of migraine are not fully understood. Current data obtained through molecular and functional studies provide a complex model in which vascular and neurologic events cooperate in the pathogenesis of migraine attacks. Genetic factors causing disturbances in neuronal ion channels, make a migraineur more sensitive to multiple trigger factors that activate the nociception cascade. The expanding knowledge on migraine genetics and pathophysiology may be applicable to childhood episodic syndromes. Migraine preventive strategies are particularly important in children, and could be beneficial in childhood episodic syndromes. Nonspecific analgesics like ibuprofen and acetaminophen are widely used in pediatrics to control pain and have been found to be effective also in the treatment of acute migraine attacks. Triptans are the specific fist-line drugs for acute migraine treatment.
Conclusions and relevance
Migraine phenotype differs somewhat in the developing brain, and childhood episodic syndromes may arise before typical migraine headache. Diagnosing pediatric migraine may be difficult because of children’s language and cognitive abilities. The risk of underestimating migraine in pediatric age is high. An adequate diagnosis is important to maintain a good quality of life and to avoid inappropriate therapy.
doi:10.1186/s13052-014-0092-4
PMCID: PMC4239406  PMID: 25407042
Infantile colic; Migraine; Cyclic vomiting; Recurrent abdominal pain; Functional abdominal pain; Torticollis
8.  Stress and psychological factors before a migraine attack: A time-based analysis 
Background
The objective of this study is to examine the stress and mood changes of Japanese subjects over the 1–3 days before a migraine headache.
Methods
The study participants were 16 patients with migraines who consented to participate in this study. Each subject kept a headache diary four times a day for two weeks. They evaluated the number of stressful events, daily hassles, domestic and non-domestic stress, anxiety, depressive tendency and irritability by visual analog scales. The days were classified into migraine days, pre-migraine days, buffer days and control days based on the intensity of the headaches and accompanying symptoms, and a comparative study was conducted for each factor on the migraine days, pre-migraine days and control days.
Results
The stressful event value of pre-migraine days showed no significant difference compared to other days. The daily hassle value of pre-migraine days was the highest and was significantly higher than that of buffer days. In non-domestic stress, values on migraine days were significantly higher than on other days, and there was no significant difference between pre-migraine days and buffer days or between pre-migraine days and control days. There was no significant difference in the values of domestic stress between the categories. In non-domestic stress, values on migraine days were significantly higher than other days, and there was no significant difference between pre-migraine days and buffer days or between pre-migraine days and control days.
There was little difference in sleep quality on migraine and pre-migraine days, but other psychological factors were higher on migraine days than on pre-migraine days.
Conclusion
Psychosocial stress preceding the onset of migraines by several days was suggested to play an important role in the occurrence of migraines. However, stress 2–3 days before a migraine attack was not so high as it has been reported to be in the United States and Europe. There was no significant difference in the values of psychological factors between pre-migraine days and other days.
doi:10.1186/1751-0759-2-14
PMCID: PMC2556692  PMID: 18799013
9.  Migraine management: How do the adult and paediatric migraines differ? 
Migraine is one of the common causes of severe and recurring headache. It may be difficult to manage in primary care settings, where it is under diagnosed and medically treated. Migraine can occur in children as well as in adults and it is three times more common in women than in men. Migraine in children is different from adults in various ways. Migraine management depends on the various factors like duration and severity of pain, associated symptoms, degree of disability, and initial response to treatment. The therapy of children and adolescents with migraines includes treatment modalities for acute attacks, prophylactic medications when the attacks are frequent, and biobehavioural modes of treatment to aid long-term management of the disorder. The long lasting outcome of childhood headaches and progression into adult headaches remains largely unknown. However, it has been suggested that adult migraine may represent a progressive disorder. In children, the progressive nature is uncertain and further investigations into longitudinal outcome and phenotypic changes in childhood headaches have yet to be recognized. Even though paediatric and adult migraines seem to be slightly different from one another, but not enough to categorize either as sole.
doi:10.1016/j.jsps.2011.07.001
PMCID: PMC3745030  PMID: 23960771
Adult; Headache; Migraine; Paediatrics
10.  Optimal management of severe nausea and vomiting in migraine: improving patient outcomes 
Migraine is a common and potentially disabling disorder for patients, with wide-reaching implications for health care services, society, and the economy. Nausea and vomiting during migraine attacks are common symptoms that affect at least 60% of patients suffering from migraines. These symptoms are often more disabling than the headache itself, causing a great burden on the patient’s life. Nausea and vomiting may delay the use of oral abortive medication or interfere with oral drug absorption. Therefore, they can hinder significantly the management and treatment of migraine (which is usually given orally). The main treatment of pain-associated symptoms of migraine (such as nausea and vomiting) is to stop the migraine attack itself as soon as possible, with the effective drugs at the effective doses, seeking if necessary alternative routes of administration. In some cases, intravenous antiemetic drugs are able to relieve a migraine attack and associated symptoms like nausea and vomiting. We performed an exhaustive PubMed search of the English literature to find studies about management of migraine and its associated symptoms. Search terms were migraine, nausea, and vomiting. We did not limit our search to a specific time period. We focused on clinical efficacy and tolerance of the various drugs and procedures based on data from human studies. We included the best available studies for each discussed drug or procedure. These ranged from randomized controlled trials for some treatments to small case series for others. Recently updated books and manuals on neurology and headache were also consulted. We herein review the efficacy of the different approaches in order to manage nausea and vomiting for migraine patents.
doi:10.2147/PROM.S31392
PMCID: PMC3798203  PMID: 24143125
migraine; nausea; vomiting; management; treatment
11.  Selectivity in Genetic Association with Sub-classified Migraine in Women 
PLoS Genetics  2014;10(5):e1004366.
Migraine can be sub-classified not only according to presence of migraine aura (MA) or absence of migraine aura (MO), but also by additional features accompanying migraine attacks, e.g. photophobia, phonophobia, nausea, etc. all of which are formally recognized by the International Classification of Headache Disorders. It remains unclear how aura status and the other migraine features may be related to underlying migraine pathophysiology. Recent genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have identified 12 independent loci at which single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) are associated with migraine. Using a likelihood framework, we explored the selective association of these SNPs with migraine, sub-classified according to aura status and the other features in a large population-based cohort of women including 3,003 active migraineurs and 18,108 free of migraine. Five loci met stringent significance for association with migraine, among which four were selective for sub-classified migraine, including rs11172113 (LRP1) for MO. The number of loci associated with migraine increased to 11 at suggestive significance thresholds, including five additional selective associations for MO but none for MA. No two SNPs showed similar patterns of selective association with migraine characteristics. At one extreme, SNPs rs6790925 (near TGFBR2) and rs2274316 (MEF2D) were not associated with migraine overall, MA, or MO but were selective for migraine sub-classified by the presence of one or more of the additional migraine features. In contrast, SNP rs7577262 (TRPM8) was associated with migraine overall and showed little or no selectivity for any of the migraine characteristics. The results emphasize the multivalent nature of migraine pathophysiology and suggest that a complete understanding of the genetic influence on migraine may benefit from analyses that stratify migraine according to both aura status and the additional diagnostic features used for clinical characterization of migraine.
Author Summary
Migraine is among the most common and debilitating neurological disorders. Diagnostic criteria for migraine recognize a variety of symptoms including a primary dichotomous classification for the presence or absence of aura, typically a visual disturbance phenomenon, as well as others such as sensitivity to light or sound, and nausea, etc. We explored whether any of 12 recently discovered genetic variants associated with common migraine might have selective association for migraine sub-classified by aura status or nine additional migraine features in a population of middle-aged women including 3,003 migraineurs and 18,180 non-migraineurs. Five of the 12 genetic variants met the most stringent significance criterion for association with migraine, among which four had selective association with sub-classified migraine, including one that was selective for migraine without aura. At suggestive significance, all of the remaining genetic variants were selective for sub-classifications of migraine although no two variants showed the same pattern of selectivity. The selectivity patterns suggest very different contributions to migraine pathophysiology among the 12 loci and their implicated genes. Further, the results suggest that future discovery efforts for new migraine susceptibility loci would benefit by considering associations with sub-classified migraine toward the ultimate goals of more specific diagnosis and personalized treatment.
doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1004366
PMCID: PMC4031047  PMID: 24852292
12.  Enhancing cognitive-behavioural therapy for recurrent headache: design of a randomised controlled trial 
BMC Neurology  2014;14(1):233.
Background
We have argued against the traditional approach of counselling avoidance of all triggers of headaches and migraine. Problems with this approach include the impossibility of avoiding all triggers and the high costs associated with trying to do so, and that avoidance could lead to reduced tolerance for the triggers. We have developed an alternative approach called Learning to Cope with Triggers (LCT) that encourages avoidance of triggers that are detrimental to health and wellbeing, but uses exposure to other triggers to desensitise headache sufferers to the triggers. This approach has been shown to be more effective than advising avoidance of all triggers. Trigger management is only one component of a comprehensive treatment program and the current study is designed to evaluate a new approach to treating headaches in which LCT has been integrated into an established cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) package (LCT/CBT).
Methods/Design
A target sample of 120 adult participants who suffer from migraine or tension-type headache, at least six days per month, and have done so for at least 12 months will be recruited. Participants will be randomly assigned to one of three groups: LCT/CBT; Avoid/CBT (CBT combined with instructions to avoid all triggers); and waiting-list control. Measures will include: daily diaries for recording headaches, triggers and medication consumption; headache disability and quality of life; trigger avoidance; locus of control and self-efficacy; and coping strategies. Treatment will involve 12 60-minute sessions scheduled weekly. Assessment will be completed before and after treatment, and at 4 and 12 month follow-up. The data will be analysed to determine which approach is most effective, and predictors of response to treatment.
Discussion
Migraine and tension-type headache are common and can be disabling. CBT has been demonstrated to be an efficacious treatment for both disorders. However, there is room for improvement. This study aims to increase the efficacy of behavioural approaches and identify factors predictive of a positive response.
Trial registration
Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12614000435684.
doi:10.1186/s12883-014-0233-9
PMCID: PMC4285632  PMID: 25496514
Headache; Migraine; Cognitive behaviour therapy; Coping; Desensitisation
13.  A proactive approach to migraine in primary care: a pragmatic randomized controlled trial 
Background:
Migraine is a common, disabling headache disorder that leads to lost quality of life and productivity. We investigated whether a proactive approach to patients with migraine, including an educational intervention for general practitioners, led to a decrease in headache and associated costs.
Methods:
We conducted a pragmatic randomized controlled trial. Participants were randomized to one of two groups: practices receiving the intervention and control practices. Participants were prescribed two or more doses of triptan per month. General practitioners in the intervention group received training on treating migraine and invited participating patients for a consultation and evaluation of the therapy they were receiving. Physicians in the control group continued with usual care. Our primary outcome was patients’ scores on the Headache Impact Test (HIT-6) at six months. We considered a reduction in score of 2.3 points to be clinically relevant. We used the Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K10) questionnaire to determine if such distress was a possible effect modifier. We also examined the interventions’ cost-effectiveness.
Results:
We enrolled 490 patients in the trial (233 to the intervention group and 257 to the control group). Of the 233 patients in the intervention group, 192 (82.4%) attended the consultation to evaluate the treatment of their migraines. Of these patients, 43 (22.3%) started prophylaxis. The difference in change in score on the HIT-6 between the intervention and control groups was 0.81 (p = 0.07, calculated from modelling using generalized estimating equations). For patients with low levels of psychological distress (baseline score on the K10 ≤ 20) this change was −1.51 (p = 0.008), compared with a change of 0.16 (p = 0.494) for patients with greater psychological distress. For patients who were not using prophylaxis at baseline and had two or more migraines per month, the mean HIT-6 score improved by 1.37 points compared with controls (p = 0.04). We did not find the intervention to be cost-effective.
Interpretation:
An educational intervention for general practitioners and a proactive approach to patients with migraine did not result in a clinically relevant improvement of symptoms. Psychological distress was an important confounder of success. (Current Controlled Trials registration no. ISRCTN72421511.)
doi:10.1503/cmaj.110908
PMCID: PMC3291695  PMID: 22231680
14.  Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of migraine in clinical practice 
OBJECTIVE: To provide physicians and allied health care professionals with guidelines for the diagnosis and management of migraine in clinical practice. OPTIONS: The full range and quality of diagnostic and therapeutic methods available for the management of migraine. OUTCOMES: Improvement in the diagnosis and treatment of migraine, which will lead to a reduction in suffering, increased productivity and decreased economic burden. EVIDENCE AND VALUES: The creation of the guidelines followed a needs assessment by members of the Canadian Headache Society and included a statement of objectives; development of guidelines by multidisciplinary working groups using information from literature reviews and other resources; comparison of alternative clinical pathways and description of how published data were analysed; definition of the level of evidence for data in each case; evaluation and revision of the guidelines at a consensus conference held in Ottawa on Oct. 27-29, 1995; redrafting and insertion of tables showing key variables and data from various studies and tables of data with recommendations; and reassessment by all conference participants. BENEFITS, HARMS AND COSTS: Accuracy in diagnosis is a major factor in improving therapeutic effectiveness. Improvement in the precise diagnosis of migraine, coupled with a rational plan for the treatment of acute attacks and for prophylactic therapy, is likely to lead to substantial benefits in both human and economic terms. RECOMMENDATIONS: The diagnosis of migraine can be improved by using modified criteria of the International Headache Society as well as a semistructured patient interview technique. Appropriate treatment of symptoms should take into account the severity of the migraine attack, since most patients will have attacks of differing severity and can learn to use medication appropriate for each attack. When headaches are frequent or particularly severe, prophylactic therapy should be considered. Both the avoidance of migraine trigger factors and the application of nonpharmacological therapies play important roles in overall migraine management and will be addressed at a later date. VALIDATION: The guidelines are based on consensus of Canadian experts in neurology, emergency medicine, psychiatry, psychology, family medicine and pharmacology, and consumers. Previous guidelines did not exist. Field testing of the guidelines is in progress.
PMCID: PMC1227329  PMID: 9145054
15.  Clinical features, anger management and anxiety: a possible correlation in migraine children 
Background
Psychological factors can increase severity and intensity of headaches. While great attention has been placed on the presence of anxiety and/or depression as a correlate to a high frequency of migraine attacks, very few studies have analyzed the management of frustration in children with headache. Aim of this study was to analyze the possible correlation between pediatric migraine severity (frequency and intensity of attacks) and the psychological profile, with particular attention to the anger management style.
Methods
We studied 62 migraineurs (mean age 11.2 ± 2.1 years; 29 M and 33 F). Patients were divided into four groups according to the attack frequency (low, intermediate, high frequency, and chronic migraine). Pain intensity was rated on a 3-levels graduate scale (mild, moderate and severe pain). Psychological profile was assessed by Picture Frustration Study test for anger management and SAFA-A scale for anxiety.
Results
We found a relationship between IA/OD index (tendency to inhibit anger expression) and both attack frequency (r = 0.328, p = 0.041) and intensity (r = 0.413, p = 0.010). When we analyzed the relationship between anxiety and the headache features, a negative and significant correlation emerged between separation anxiety (SAFA-A Se) and the frequency of attacks (r = −0.409, p = 0.006). In our patients, the tendency to express and emphasize the presence of the frustrating obstacle (EA/OD index) showed a positive correlation with anxiety level (“Total anxiety” scale: r = 0.345; p = 0.033).
Conclusions
Our results suggest that children suffering from severe migraine tend to inhibit their angry feelings. On the contrary, children with low migraine attack frequency express their anger and suffer from separation anxiety.
doi:10.1186/1129-2377-14-39
PMCID: PMC3653764  PMID: 23651123
Migraine; Anger; Anxiety; Children
16.  Real-Time Sharing and Expression of Migraine Headache Suffering on Twitter: A Cross-Sectional Infodemiology Study 
Background
Although population studies have greatly improved our understanding of migraine, they have relied on retrospective self-reports that are subject to memory error and experimenter-induced bias. Furthermore, these studies also lack specifics from the actual time that attacks were occurring, and how patients express and share their ongoing suffering.
Objective
As technology and language constantly evolve, so does the way we share our suffering. We sought to evaluate the infodemiology of self-reported migraine headache suffering on Twitter.
Methods
Trained observers in an academic setting categorized the meaning of every single “migraine” tweet posted during seven consecutive days. The main outcome measures were prevalence, life-style impact, linguistic, and timeline of actual self-reported migraine headache suffering on Twitter.
Results
From a total of 21,741 migraine tweets collected, only 64.52% (14,028/21,741 collected tweets) were from users reporting their migraine headache attacks in real-time. The remainder of the posts were commercial, re-tweets, general discussion or third person’s migraine, and metaphor. The gender distribution available for the actual migraine posts was 73.47% female (10,306/14,028), 17.40% males (2441/14,028), and 0.01% transgendered (2/14,028). The personal impact of migraine headache was immediate on mood (43.91%, 6159/14,028), productivity at work (3.46%, 486/14,028), social life (3.45%, 484/14,028), and school (2.78%, 390/14,028). The most common migraine descriptor was “Worst” (14.59%, 201/1378) and profanity, the “F-word” (5.3%, 73/1378). The majority of postings occurred in the United States (58.28%, 3413/5856), peaking on weekdays at 10:00h and then gradually again at 22:00h; the weekend had a later morning peak.
Conclusions
Twitter proved to be a powerful source of knowledge for migraine research. The data in this study overlap large-scale epidemiological studies, avoiding memory bias and experimenter-induced error. Furthermore, linguistics of ongoing migraine reports on social media proved to be highly heterogeneous and colloquial in our study, suggesting that current pain questionnaires should undergo constant reformulations to keep up with modernization in the expression of pain suffering in our society. In summary, this study reveals the modern characteristics and broad impact of migraine headache suffering on patients’ lives as it is spontaneously shared via social media.
doi:10.2196/jmir.3265
PMCID: PMC4004155  PMID: 24698747
migraine; headache; epidemiology; social media; Twitter
17.  Migraine and cerebrovascular disease 
The Journal of Headache and Pain  2004;5(Suppl 2):s78-s80.
Migraine and cerebrovascular disease are linked in different ways: migraine may be a potential cause of stroke as in migrainous infarction, headache may be a symptom of cerebrovascular disease and also a risk factor for stroke, the association of migraine and stroke may constitute specific syndromes such as CADASIL and MELAS. The new IHS 2003 criteria, though preserving their main structure, have changed the terminology regarding secondary headaches, now described as “attributed to” another disease rather than “associated with” it. The more detailed knowledge of causal links between the underlying disorder and headache, has allowed to strengthen the terminology. Many cerebrovascular disorders as cerebral haemorrhage, venous sinus thrombosis, carotid or vertebral dissections and ischaemic stroke may present with a headache or be followed by it. In subarachnoid haemorrhage (SAH) headache may constitute an important warning sign before the bleeding. An interesting issue is the hypothesis that migraine may be a potential risk factor for stroke. Recent studies have underlined the increased relative risk of ischemic stroke in female migraineurs. Many potential mechanisms have been hypothesized: (1) alterations of vasoreactivity due to vessel wall dysfunction, (2) release of vasoactive substances during migraine, (3) platelet hyperactivity as expression of serotoninergic dysfunction in migraineurs, (4) intriguing studies have described a high prevalence of migraine with aura in stroke patients with patent foramen ovale (PFO). Differential diagnosis between migraine and stroke remains fundamental: some types of migraine can mimic cerebrovascular disease such as familial hemiplegic migraine, and basilar migraine. Migraine and stroke may be part of syndromic complexes as in CADASIL and MELAS. In conclusion migraine is a risk factor for cerebrovascular disease, it may be the cause of stroke as in migrainous infarctions, stroke may induce headache which may be a relevant symptom of cerebrovascular disease, yet migraine remains an essentially benign condition.
doi:10.1007/s10194-004-0114-5
PMCID: PMC3451598
Migraine; Cerebrovascular disease; IHS criteria
18.  An integrated approach to cephalalgic patients. Preliminary results on 64 adult patients with migraine without aura 
The Journal of Headache and Pain  2004;5(Suppl 2):s103-s108.
The importance of the neuropsychological aspect in patients affected by tension headache is highlighted by different data in the literature as well as the results of a multicentric Italian study on comorbidity linked to consistent pathologies, from psychiatric to psychopathologies, in cephalalgic subjects. The need for an integrated approach to the treatment of migraine comes from the assumption, which has recently been confirmed by research, that cephalalgic patients, depending on their emotional condition, have difficulty in dealing with anxiety or other forms of stress in their everyday life. An integrated intervention is extremely useful both in the diagnostic and in the therapeutical approach. For 6 months, 64 patients with migraine without aura were subjected to an integrated therapeutical approach (the median age was 39 years). A number of exclusion criteria were used. The first group comprised 34 patients with migraine without aura having fewer than 4 attacks per month, while the second group comprised 30 patients with migraine without aura having more than four attacks per month. The psychological intervention involved clinical colloquia, such as Jacobson’s muscle relaxation technique as well as tests and clinical questionnaires (follow-up and discussion). The follow-up assessed parameters relative to the attacks: frequency, length, and intensity. The reduction in the frequency and the length of migraine was more evident in the groups undergoing an integrated approach than in the group undergoing pharmacological therapy. This reduction was more significant in the group (8 patients) with more than four episodes per month, whose treatment involved an integrated approach and Jacobson’s relaxation technique. The integrated approach yielded better results in patients with higher frequency, length, and elevated intensity of attacks (>4 attacks/month).
doi:10.1007/s10194-004-0121-6
PMCID: PMC3451597
Migraine without aura; Tension headache; Integrated approach; PMR Jacobson; Neuropsychology
19.  Studies on the Pathophysiology and Genetic Basis of Migraine 
Current Genomics  2013;14(5):300-315.
Migraine is a neurological disorder that affects the central nervous system causing painful attacks of headache. A genetic vulnerability and exposure to environmental triggers can influence the migraine phenotype. Migraine interferes in many facets of people’s daily life including employment commitments and their ability to look after their families resulting in a reduced quality of life. Identification of the biological processes that underlie this relatively common affliction has been difficult because migraine does not have any clearly identifiable pathology or structural lesion detectable by current medical technology. Theories to explain the symptoms of migraine have focused on the physiological mechanisms involved in the various phases of headache and include the vascular and neurogenic theories. In relation to migraine pathophysiology the trigeminovascular system and cortical spreading depression have also been implicated with supporting evidence from imaging studies and animal models. The objective of current research is to better understand the pathways and mechanisms involved in causing pain and headache to be able to target interventions. The genetic component of migraine has been teased apart using linkage studies and both candidate gene and genome-wide association studies, in family and case-control cohorts. Genomic regions that increase individual risk to migraine have been identified in neurological, vascular and hormonal pathways. This review discusses knowledge of the pathophysiology and genetic basis of migraine with the latest scientific evidence from genetic studies.
doi:10.2174/13892029113149990007
PMCID: PMC3763681  PMID: 24403849
Migraine; Migraine with aura; Migraine without aura; Familial hemiplegic migraine; Molecular genetics; Genes
20.  Examination of migraine management in emergency departments 
BACKGROUND:
Despite advances in treatment, patients with migraine have been underdiagnosed and undertreated, specifically in emergency departments. In addition, great variability exists with respect to the diagnosis, management and treatment of migraine patients in emergency departments. In particular, migraine-specific treatments, including serotonin receptor agonists, appear to be rarely used.
OBJECTIVE:
To examine the diagnosis and management of migraine patients within Ontario emergency departments.
METHODS:
A prospective survey was designed to inquire how emergency physicians diagnose and manage patients with migraine. Questions focused on the use of serotonin receptor agonists, the rationale behind their use or nonuse, and acute headache protocols. The survey also inquired about the use of International Classification Of Headache Disorders-2 criteria in diagnosing migraine by emergency physicians, medication prescribed on discharge, and referrals made to outpatient specialists. These surveys were distributed to and anonymously completed by emergency physicians in several departments in Ontario.
RESULTS:
Migraine-specific treatments were underused in emergency departments. Furthermore, many departments lacked headache protocols and, often, migraine-specific treatment was not included in the few departments with protocols.
CONCLUSIONS:
Diagnosis and management of migraines can be improved within emergency departments, and patients can be more effectively channelled toward appropriate outpatient care.
PMCID: PMC3198111  PMID: 21766068
Emergency department; Migraine; Triptans
21.  Assessing and Managing All Aspects of Migraine: Migraine Attacks, Migraine-Related Functional Impairment, Common Comorbidities, and Quality of Life 
Mayo Clinic Proceedings  2009;84(5):422-435.
Migraine can be characterized as a chronic disorder with episodic attacks and the potential for progression to chronic migraine. We conducted a PubMed literature search (January 1, 1970 through May 31, 2008) for studies on the impact of migraine, including disability, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), comorbidities, and instruments used by health care professionals to treat patients with migraine. Numerous studies have shown that migraine substantially impairs a person's functions during attacks and diminishes HRQoL during and between attacks. Despite its impact, migraine remains underestimated, underdiagnosed, and undertreated. Several tools are available to help physicians assess the impact of migraine on the daily activities and HRQoL of their patients, such as the 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey and the Headache Impact Test. Improving communication during the office visit through active listening, use of open-ended questions, and use of the “ask-tell-ask” strategy can also help in assessing migraine-related impairment. Together, these tools and communication techniques can lead to a more complete assessment of how migraine affects patients' lives and can aid in the development of the optimal treatment plan for each patient. Both pharmacotherapy (acute and preventive treatment strategies) and nonpharmacological therapies play important roles in the management of migraine.
PMCID: PMC2676125  PMID: 19411439
22.  Migraine and Obesity: Epidemiology, Possible Mechanisms, and the Potential Role of Weight Loss Treatment 
Migraine and obesity are two public health problems of enormous scope that are responsible for significant quality of life impairment and financial cost. Recent research suggests that these disorders may be directly related, with obesity exacerbating migraine in the form of greater headache frequency and severity, or possibly increasing the risk for having migraine. The relationship between migraine and obesity may be explained through a variety of physiological, psychological, and behavioral mechanisms, many of which are affected by weight loss. Given that weight loss might be a viable approach for alleviating migraine in obese individuals, randomized controlled trials are needed to test the effect of weight loss interventions in obese migraineurs. Large-scale weight loss trials have shown that behavioral interventions, in particular, can produce sustained weight losses and related cardiovascular improvements in patients who are diverse in body weight, age, and ethnicity. Consequently, these interventions may provide a useful treatment model for showing whether weight loss reduces headache frequency and severity in obese migraineurs, and offering further insight into pathways through which weight loss might exert an effect.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-789X.2010.00791.x
PMCID: PMC2974024  PMID: 20673279
migraine; obesity; mechanisms; weight loss
23.  Can weight loss improve migraine headaches in obese women? Rationale and design of the WHAM randomized controlled trial 
Contemporary clinical trials  2013;35(1):133-144.
Background
Research demonstrates a link between migraine and obesity. Obesity increases the risk of frequent migraines and is associated with migraine prevalence among reproductive-aged women. These findings are substantiated by several plausible mechanisms and emerging evidence of migraine improvements after surgical and non-surgical weight loss. However, no previous study has examined the effect of weight loss on migraine within a treatment-controlled framework. The WHAM trial is a RCT to test the efficacy of behavioral weight loss as a treatment for migraine.
Study design
Overweight/obese women (n=140; BMI=25.0–49.9 kg/m2) who meet international diagnostic criteria for migraine and record ≥3 migraines and 4–20 migraine days using a smartphone-based headache diary during a 4-week baseline period, will be randomly assigned to 4 months of either group-based behavioral weight loss (intervention) or migraine education (control). Intervention participants will be taught strategies to increase physical activity and consume fewer calories in order to lose weight. Control participants will receive general education on migraine symptoms/triggers and various treatment approaches. Both groups will use smartphones to record their headaches for 4 weeks at baseline, after the 16-week treatment period, and at the end of a 16-week follow-up period. Changes in weight and other potential physiological (inflammation), psychological (depression), and behavioral (diet and physical activity) mediators of the intervention effect will also be assessed.
Conclusion
The WHAM trial will evaluate the efficacy of a standardized behavioral weight loss intervention for reducing migraine frequency, and the extent to which weight loss and other potential mediators account for intervention effects.
doi:10.1016/j.cct.2013.03.004
PMCID: PMC3640582  PMID: 23524340
migraine; headache; obesity; weight loss; randomized controlled trial
24.  Physical and psychological correlates of primary headache in young adulthood: A 26 year longitudinal study 
Objectives: To determine if physical and/or psychological risk factors could differentiate between subtypes of primary headache (migraine, tension-type headache (TTH), and coexisting migraine and TTH (combined)) among members of a longitudinal birth cohort study.
Methods: At age 26, the headache status of members of the Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health and Development Study (DMHDS) was determined using International Headache Society criteria. Headache history and potential physical and psychological correlates of headache were assessed. These factors included perinatal problems and injuries sustained to age 26; and behavioural, personality, and psychiatric disorders assessed between ages 5 to 21.
Results: The 1 year prevalences for migraine, TTH, and combined headache at the age of 26 were 7.2%, 11.1%, and 4.3%, respectively. Migraine was related to maternal headache, anxiety symptoms in childhood, anxiety disorders during adolescence and young adulthood, and the stress reactivity personality trait at the age of 18. TTH was significantly associated with neck or back injury in childhood (before the age of 13). Combined headache was related to maternal headache and anxiety disorder at 18 and 21 only among women with a childhood history of headache. Headache status at the age of 26 was unrelated to a history of perinatal complication, neurological disorder, or mild traumatic head injury.
Conclusions: Migraine and TTH seem to be distinct disorders with different developmental characteristics. Combined headache may also have a distinct aetiology.
doi:10.1136/jnnp.72.1.86
PMCID: PMC1737678  PMID: 11784831
25.  Migraine predicts physical and pain symptoms among psychiatric outpatients 
Background
No study has been performed to compare the impacts of migraine and major depressive episode (MDE) on depression, anxiety and somatic symptoms, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) among psychiatric outpatients. The aim of this study was to investigate the above issue.
Methods
This study enrolled consecutive psychiatric outpatients with mood and/or anxiety disorders who undertook a first visit to a medical center. Migraine was diagnosed according to the International Classification of Headache Disorders, 2nd edition. Three psychometric scales and the Short-Form 36 were administered. General linear models were used to estimate the difference in scores contributed by either migraine or MDE. Multiple linear regressions were employed to compare the variance of these scores explained by migraine or MDE.
Results
Among 214 enrolled participants, 35.0% had migraine. Bipolar II disorder patients (70.0%) had the highest percentage of migraine, followed by major depressive disorder (49.1%) and only anxiety disorder (24.5%). Patients with migraine had worse depression, anxiety, and somatic symptoms and lower SF-36 scores than those without. The estimated differences in the scores of physical functioning, bodily pain, and somatic symptoms contributed by migraine were not lower than those contributed by MDE. The regression model demonstrated the variance explained by migraine was significantly greater than that explained by MDE in physical and pain symptoms.
Conclusions
Migraine was common and the impact of migraine on physical and pain symptoms was greater than MDE among psychiatric outpatients. Integration of treatment strategies for migraine into psychiatric treatment plans should be considered.
doi:10.1186/1129-2377-14-19
PMCID: PMC3620433  PMID: 23565902
Depression; Anxiety; Headache; Pain; Quality of life; Somatization

Results 1-25 (855360)