Explore the vast range of titles available.

BackgroundThe burden of headache disorders, and of migraine in particular, is multifaceted and fragmented. The aim of this narrative review is to provide a description the main topics underlying the concepts of burden and impact of migraine disorders.Main resultsMedLine has been searched for publications covering the period 1990–2018 dealing with the terms burden or impact of migraine, including both episodic and chronic migraine. The main results and themes are reported in a descriptive way, and were grouped by similarity of content into overarching categories. A total of 49 papers, published over 25 years (1994–2018), were retained for the qualitative analysis. Six main themes were identified: prevalence of migraine disorders, overall impact of migraine disorders, impact on work or school activities, family impact, interictal burden, and disease costs. Majority of included studies concluded that patients with migraine reported an higher burden or impact in one or more of the six main themes herein identified, compared to non-headache patients or to patients with tension-type headache, with a tendency towards worse outcomes consistently with higher headache frequency.ConclusionsThe results of this narrative review show that the meaning of a sentence like “migraine is a burdensome condition” is not univocal: rather, it may refer to different concepts and meanings. In our opinion, future research should focus on understanding and facing the impact of migraine on work-related activities and on everyday life activities, as these aspects are highly connected to some tangible (i.e. cost) and less tangible (i.e. interictal burden and reduced quality of life) facets of migraine burden. Disease-specific measures have been implemented and should be exploited to enhance our understanding of migraine burden. This approach would allow to better understand the real impact on people’s life of such a burdensome disease.

Migraine is a complex condition in which genetic predisposition interacts with other biological and environmental factors determining its course. A hyperresponsive brain cortex, peripheral and central alterations in pain processing, and comorbidities play a role from an individual biological standpoint. Besides, dysfunctional psychological mechanisms, social and lifestyle factors may intervene and impact on the clinical phenotype of the disease, promote its transformation from episodic into chronic migraine and may increase migraine-related disability.Thus, given the multifactorial origin of the condition, the application of a biopsychosocial approach in the management of migraine could favor therapeutic success. While in chronic pain conditions the biopsychosocial approach is already a mainstay of treatment, in migraine the biomedical approach is still dominant. It is instead advisable to carefully consider the individual with migraine as a whole, in order to plan a tailored treatment. In this review, we first reported an analytical and critical discussion of the biological, psychological, and social factors involved in migraine. Then, we addressed the management implications of the application of a biopsychosocial model discussing how the integration between non-pharmacological management and conventional biomedical treatment may provide advantages to migraine care.

Chronic pain, such as low-back pain, can be a highly disabling condition degrading people's quality of life (QoL). Not every patient responds to pharmacological therapies, thus alternative treatments have to be developed. The chronicity of pain can lead to a somatic dysperception, meaning a mismatch between patients' own body perception and its actual physical state. Since clinical evaluation of pain relies on patients' subjective reports, a body image disruption can be associated with an incorrect pain rating inducing incorrect treatment and a possible risk of drug abuse. Our aim was to reduce chronic low-back pain through a multimodal neurorehabilitative strategy using innovative technologies to help patients regain a correct body image. Twenty patients with chronic low-back pain were included. Before and after treatment, patients underwent: a neurological exam; a neuro-psychological evaluation testing cognitive functions (memory, attention, executive functions) and personality traits, QoL and mood; pain ratings; sensorimotor functional abilities' testing. Patients underwent a 6 week-neurorehabilitative treatment (total 12 sessions) using virtual reality (VRRS system, Khymeia, Italy). Treatment consisted on teaching patients to execute correct movements with the painful body parts to regain a correct body image, based on the augmented multisensory feedback (auditory, visual) provided by the VRRS. Our data showed significant reductions in all pain rating scale scores (p<0.05); significant improvements of QoL in the domains of physical functioning, physical role functioning, bodily pain, vitality, and social role functioning; improvements in cognitive functions (p<0.05); improvements in functional scales (p<0.05) and mood (p = 0.04). This non-pharmacological approach was able to act on the multi-dimensional aspects of pain and improved patients' QoL, pain intensity, mood and patient's functional abilities.

The International Classification of Functioning Disability and Health (ICF) was approved in 2001 and, since then, several studies reported the increased interest about its use in different sectors. A recent overview that summarizes its applications is lacking. This study aims to provide an updated overview about 20 years of ICF application through an international online questionnaire, developed by the byline authors, and sent to each World Health Organization Collaborating Centers of the Family of International Classifications (WHO-FIC CCs). Data was collected during October 2020 and December 2021 and descriptive content analyses were used to report main results. Results show how, in most of the respondent countries represented by WHO-FIC CCs, ICF was mainly used in clinical practice, policy development and social policy, and in education areas. Despite its applications in different sectors, ICF use is not mandatory in most countries but, where used, it provides a biopsychosocial framework for policy development in health, functioning and disability. The study provides information about the needs related to ICF applications, that can be useful to organize targeted intervention plans. Furthermore, this survey methodology can be re-proposed periodically to monitor the use of the ICF in the future.

Background and aim Migraine is a common disabling conditions which, globally, affects 15.2% of the population. It is the second cause of health loss in terms of years lived with disability, the first among women. Despite being so common, it is poorly recognised and too often undertreated. Specialty centres and neurologists with specific expertise on headache disorders have the knowledge to provide specific care: however, those who do not regularly treat patients with migraine will benefit from a synopsis on the most relevant and updated information about this condition. This paper presents a comprehensive view on the hallmarks of migraine, from genetics and diagnostic markers, up to treatments and societal impact, and reports the elements that identify migraine specific features. Main results The most relevant hallmark of migraine is that it has common and individual features together. Besides the known clinical manifestations, migraine presentation is heterogeneous with regard to frequency of attacks, presence of aura, response to therapy, associated comorbidities or other symptoms, which likely reflect migraine heterogeneous genetic and molecular basis. The amount of therapies for acute and for prophylactic treatment is really wide, and one of the difficulties is with finding the best treatment for the single patient. In addition to this, patients carry out different daily life activities, and might show lifestyle habits which are not entirely adequate to manage migraine day by day. Education will be more and more important as a strategy of brain health promotion, because this will enable reducing the amount of subjects needing specialty care, thus leaving it to those who require it in reason of refractory condition or presence of comorbidities. Conclusions Recognizing the hallmarks of migraine and the features of single patients enables prescribing specific pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments. Medical research on headaches today particularly suffers from the syndrome of single-disease approach, but it is important to have a cross-sectional and joint vision with other close specialties, in order to treat our patients with a comprehensive approach that a heterogeneous condition like migraine requires.

BackgroundPrimary headache disorders are common and burdensome conditions. They are associated to several comorbidities, such as cardiovascular or psychiatric ones, which, in turn, contribute to the global burden of headache. The aim of this study is to provide a comprehensive description of the pooled prevalence of comorbidities of primary headache disorders using a meta-analytical approach based on studies published between 2000 and 2020.MethodsScopus was searched for primary research (clinical and population studies) in which medical comorbidities were described in adults with primary headache disorders. Comorbidities were extracted using a taxonomy derived from the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) study. We compared prevalence of comorbidities among headache sufferers against general population using GBD-2019 estimates, and compared comorbidities’ proportions in clinical vs. population studies, and by age and gender.ResultsA total of 139 studies reporting information on 4.19 million subjects with primary headaches were included: in total 2.75 million comorbidities were reported (median per subject 0.64, interquartile range 0.32–1.07). The most frequently addressed comorbidities were: depressive disorders, addressed in 51 studies (pooled proportion 23 %, 95 % CI 20–26 %); hypertension, addressed in 48 studies (pooled proportion 24 %, 95 % CI 22–26 %); anxiety disorders addressed in 40 studies (pooled proportion 25 %, 95 % CI 22–28 %). For conditions such as anxiety, depression and back pain, prevalence among headache sufferers was higher than in GBD-2109 estimates. Associations with average age and female prevalence within studies showed that hypertension was more frequent in studies with higher age and less females, whereas fibromyalgia, restless leg syndrome, and depressive disorders were more frequent in studies with younger age and more female.ConclusionsSome of the most relevant comorbidities of primary headache disorders – back pain, anxiety and depression, diabetes, ischemic heart disease and stroke – are among the most burdensome conditions, together with headache themselves, according to the GBD study. A joint treatment of headaches and of these comorbidities may positively impact on headache sufferers’ health status and contribute to reduce the impact of a group of highly burdensome diseases.

BackgroundMindfulness gained considerable attention for migraine management, but RCTs are lacking. We aimed to assess the efficacy of a six-sessions mindfulness-based treatment added to treatment as usual (TaU) in patients with Chronic Migraine (CM) and Medication Overuse Headache (MOH) on headache frequency, medication intake, quality of life, disability, depression and anxiety, cutaneous allodynia, awareness of inner states, work-related difficulties, and disease cost.MethodsIn this Phase-III single-blind RCT carried out in a specialty Italian headache center, 177 patients with CM and MOH were randomized 1:1 to either TaU (withdrawal from overused drugs, education on proper medication use and lifestyle issues, and tailored prophylaxis) or mindfulness-based intervention added to TaU (TaU + MIND). The mindfulness-based intervention consisted of six group session of mindfulness practice and 7–10 min daily self-practice. The primary endpoint was the achievement of ≥ 50% headache frequency reduction at 12 months compared to baseline, and was analyzed on an intention-to-treat principle using Pearson’s Chi-Squared test. Secondary endpoints included medication intake, quality of life (QoL), disability, depression and anxiety, cutaneous allodynia, awareness of inner states, work-related difficulties, and disease cost. The secondary endpoints were analyzed using per-protocol linear mixed models.ResultsOut of the 177 participants 89 were randomized to TaU and 88 to TaU + MIND. Patients in the TaU + MIND group outperformed those in TaU for the primary endpoint (78.4% vs. 48.3%; p < 0.0001), and showed superior improvement in headache frequency, QoL and disability, headache impact, loss of productive time, medication intake, and in total, indirect and direct healthcare costs.ConclusionsA mindfulness-based treatment composed of six-week session and 7–10 min daily self-practice added on to TaU is superior to TaU alone for the treatment of patients with CM and MOH.Trial registrationMIND-CM was registered on clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03671681) on14/09/2018.

The World Health Organization (WHO) Intersectoral Global Action Plan on Epilepsy and Other Neurological Disorders was developed by WHO to address the worldwide challenges and gaps in provision of care and services for people with epilepsy and other neurological disorders and to ensure a comprehensive, coordinated response across sectors to the burden of neurologic diseases and to promote brain health across life-course. Headache disorders constitute the second most burdensome of all neurological diseases after stroke, but the first if young and midlife adults are taken into account. Despite the availability of a range of treatments, disability associated with headache disorders, and with migraine, remains very high. In addition, there are inequalities between high-income and low and middle income countries in access to medical care. In line with several brain health initiatives following the WHOiGAP resolution, herein we tailor the main pillars of the action plan to headache disorders: (1) raising policy prioritization and strengthen governance; (2) providing effective, timely and responsive diagnosis, treatment and care; (3) implementing strategies for promotion and prevention; (4) fostering research and innovation and strengthen information systems. Specific targets for future policy actions are proposed. The Global Action Plan triggered a revolution in neurology, not only by increasing public awareness of brain disorders and brain health but also by boosting the number of neurologists in training, raising research funding and making neurology a public health priority for policy makers. Reducing the burden of headache disorders will not only improve the quality of life and wellbeing of people with headache but also reduce the burden of neurological disorders increasing global brain health and, thus, global population health.

Background The burden and disability associated with headaches are conceptualized and measured differently at patients’ and populations’ levels. At the patients’ level, through patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs); at population level, through disability weights (DW) and years lived with a disability (YLDs) developed by the Global Burden of Disease Study (GBD). DW are 0–1 coefficients that address health loss and have been defined through lay descriptions. With this literature review, we aimed to provide a comprehensive analysis of disability in headache disorders, and to present a coefficient referring to patients’ disability which might inform future GBD definitions of DW for headache disorders. Methods We searched SCOPUS and PubMed for papers published between 2015 and 2023 addressing disability in headache disorders. The selected manuscript included a reference to headache frequency and at least one PROM. A meta-analytic approach was carried out to address relevant differences for the most commonly used PROMs (by headache type, tertiles of medication intake, tertiles of females’ percentage in the sample, and age). We developed a 0–1 coefficient based on the MIDAS, on the HIT-6, and on MIDAS + HIT-6 which was intended to promote future DW iterations by the GBD consortium. Results A total of 366 studies, 596 sub-samples, and more than 133,000 single patients were available, mostly referred to cases with migraine. Almost all PROMs showed the ability to differentiate disability severity across conditions and tertiles of medication intake. The indexes we developed can be used to inform future iterations of DW, in particular considering their ability to differentiate across age and tertiles of medication intake. Conclusions Our review provides reference values for the most commonly used PROMS and a data-driven coefficient whose main added value is its ability to differentiate across tertiles of age and medication intake which underlie on one side the increased burden due to aging (it is likely connected to the increased impact of common comorbidities), and by the other side the increased burden due to medication consumption, which can be considered as a proxy for headache severity. Both elements should be considered when describing disability of headache disorders at population levels.

To comprehensively identify the determinants of quality of life (QoL) in a population study sample of persons aged 18-50 and 50+. In this observational, cross-sectional study, QoL was measured with the WHOQOL-AGE, a brief instrument designed to measure QoL in older adults. Eight hierarchical regression models were performed to identify determinants of QoL. Variables were entered in the following order: Sociodemographic; Health Habits; Chronic Conditions; Health State description; Vision and Hearing; Social Networks; Built Environment. In the final model, significant variables were retained. The final model was re-run using data from the three countries separately. Complete data were available for 5639 participants, mean age 46.3 (SD 18.4). The final model accounted for 45% of QoL variation and the most relevant contribution was given by sociodemographic data (particularly age, education level and living in Finland: 17.9% explained QoL variation), chronic conditions (particularly depression: 4.6%) and a wide and rich social network (4.6%). Other determinants were presence of disabling pain, learning difficulties and visual problems, and living in usable house that is perceived as non-risky. Some variables were specifically associated to QoL in single countries: age in Poland, alcohol consumption in Spain, angina in Finland, depression in Spain, and self-reported sadness both in Finland and Poland, but not in Spain. Other were commonly associated to QoL: smoking status, bodily aches, being emotionally affected by health problems, good social network and home characteristics. Our results highlight the importance of modifiable determinants of QoL, and provide public health indications that could support concrete actions at country level. In particular, smoking cessation, increasing the level of physical activity, improving social network ties and applying universal design approach to houses and environmental infrastructures could potentially increase QoL of ageing population.