Impact of comorbidity on headache-related disability. Neurology
Center for Health Studies, Group Health Cooperative, 1730 Minor Ave., Suite 1600, Seattle, WA 98101, USA. Neurology
(Impact Factor: 8.29).
03/2008; 70(7):538-47. DOI: 10.1212/01.wnl.0000297192.84581.21
To assess and compare the extent to which comorbid conditions explain the role disability associated with migraine and other severe headaches.
A probability sample of US adults (n = 5,692) was interviewed. Presence of headaches, other chronic pain conditions, and chronic physical conditions was assessed in a structured interview administered by trained interviewers. Diagnostic criteria for migraine were based on the International Headache Society classification. Mental disorders were ascertained with the Composite International Diagnostic Interview that collected diagnostic criteria according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fourth edition. Role disability was assessed with World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule questions about days out of role and days with impaired role functioning.
Eighty-three percent of migraineurs and 79% of persons with other severe types of headache had some form of comorbidity. Compared with headache-free subjects, migraineurs were at significantly increased risk for mental disorders (odds ratio [OR] 3.1), other pain conditions (OR 3.3), and physical diseases (OR 2.1). Compared with headache-free subjects, persons with nonmigraine headache were also at significantly increased risk for mental disorders (OR 2.0), other pain conditions (OR 3.5), and physical diseases (OR 1.7). Migraineurs experienced role disability on 25.2% of the last 30 days compared with 17.6% of the days for persons with nonmigraine headaches and 9.7% of the days for persons without headache. Comorbid conditions explained 65% of the role disability associated with migraine and all of the role disability associated with other severe headaches.
Comorbidity is an important factor in understanding disability among persons with headache.
Available from: Knut Hagen
- "It is still under debate whether the pain might be considered the cause or the consequence of psychological symptoms
, and results from longitudinal studies among adults suggest that the association between depression and migraine may be bi-directional
[10-12] with possibly shared genetic factors
. Whether depression as well as anxiety and other psychological symptoms are more specifically related to migraine than to TTH is, however, not clarified
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
It is well documented that both anxiety and depression are associated with headache, but there is limited knowledge regarding the relation between recurrent primary headaches and symptoms of anxiety and depression as well as behavioral problems among adolescents. Assessment of co-morbid disorders is important in order to improve the management of adolescents with recurrent headaches. Thus the main purpose of the present study was to assess the relationship of recurrent headache with anxiety and depressive symptoms and behavioral problems in a large population based cross-sectional survey among adolescents in Norway.
A cross-sectional, population-based study was conducted in Norway from 1995 to 1997 (Young-HUNT1). In Young-HUNT1, 4872 adolescents aged 12 to 17 years were interviewed about their headache complaints and completed a comprehensive questionnaire that included assessment of symptoms of anxiety and depression and behavioral problems, i.e. conduct and attention difficulties.
In adjusted multivariate analyses among adolescents aged 12–14 years, recurrent headache was associated with symptoms of anxiety and depression (OR: 2.05, 95% CI: 1.61-2.61, p < 0.001), but not with behavioral problems. A significant association with anxiety and depressive symptoms was evident for all headache categories; i.e. migraine, tension-type headache and non-classifiable headache. Among adolescents aged 15–17 years there was a significant association between recurrent headache and symptoms of anxiety and depression (OR: 1.64, 95% CI: 1.39-1.93, p < 0,001) and attention difficulties (OR: 1.25, 95% CI: 1.09-1.44, p =0.001). For migraine there was a significant association with both anxiety and depressive symptoms and attention difficulties, while tension-type headache was significantly associated only with symptoms of anxiety and depression. Non-classifiable headache was associated with attention difficulties and conduct difficulties, but not with anxiety and depressive symptoms. Headache frequency was significantly associated with increasing symptoms scores for anxiety and depressive symptoms as well as attention difficulties, evident for both age groups.
The results from the present study indicate that both anxiety and depressive symptoms and behavioral problems are associated with recurrent headache, and should accordingly be considered a part of the clinical assessment of children and adolescents with headache. Identification of these associated factors and addressing them in interventions may improve headache management.
The Journal of Headache and Pain 06/2014; 15(1):38. DOI:10.1186/1129-2377-15-38 · 2.80 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Over the last 10 years an increasing amount of data regarding the prevalence of chronic daily headache (CDH) has been published. The economic implications of chronic daily headache have now grown in importance in view of the increasingly limited financial resources in the health care system. In addition to recording data regarding the prevalence of this disease, epidemiological studies have also dealt with analysing and evaluating the quality of life of the afflicted patients. According to population-based data from the USA, Europe and Asia, approx. 4-5% of the population suffer from chronic daily headache. These have been equated up until now with chronic tension-type headache (CTTH). More recent epidemiological studies have resulted in an adaptation of this point of view. Currently it is assumed that approx. 2-3% of the population suffer CTTH, which preferably affects females (approximately twice as frequently); approx. 2 % suffer chronic migraine (transformed migraine = TM) and 0.2 % are afflicted with a so-called new daily persistent headache or very rarely a hemicrania continua.
European journal of medical research 07/2003; 8(6):236-40. · 1.50 Impact Factor
Available from: Andrea M Trescot
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Opioid abuse has continued to increase at an alarming rate since our last opioid guidelines were published in 2005. Available evidence suggests a continued wide variance in the use of opioids, as documented by different medical specialties, medical boards, advocacy groups, and the Drug Enforcement Administration.
The objectives of opioid guidelines by the American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP) are to provide guidance for the use of opioids for the treatment of chronic non-cancer pain, to bring consistency in opioid philosophy among the many diverse groups involved, to improve the treatment of chronic non-cancer pain, and to reduce the incidence of abuse and drug diversion.
A broadly based policy committee of recognized experts in the field evaluated the available literature regarding opioid use in managing chronic non-cancer pain. This resulted in the formulation of the review and update of the guidelines published in 2006, a series of potential evidence linkages representing conclusions, followed by statements regarding the relationships between clinical interventions and outcomes.
The elements of the guideline preparation process included literature searches, literature synthesis, consensus evaluation, open forum presentations, formal endorsement by the Board of Directors of the American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians, and peer review. Based on the criteria of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, the quality of evidence was designated as Level I, II, and III, with 3 subcategories in Level II, with Level I described as strong and Level III as indeterminate. The recommendations were provided from 1A to 2C, varying from strong recommendation with high quality evidence to weak recommendation with low-quality or very low-quality evidence.
After an extensive review and analysis of the literature, which included systematic reviews and all of the available literature, the evidence for the effectiveness of long-term opioids in reducing pain and improving functional status for 6 months or longer is variable. The evidence for transdermal fentanyl and sustained-release morphine is Level II-2, whereas for oxycodone the level of evidence is II-3, and the evidence for hydrocodone and methadone is Level III. There is also significant evidence of misuse and abuse of opioids. The recommendation is 2A - weak recommendation, high-quality evidence: with benefits closely balanced with risks and burdens; with evidence derived from RCTs without important limitations or overwhelming evidence from observational studies, with the implication that with a weak recommendation, best action may differ depending on circumstances or patients' or societal values.
Opioids are commonly prescribed for chronic non-cancer pain and may be effective for short-term pain relief. However, long-term effectiveness of 6 months or longer is variable with evidence ranging from moderate for transdermal fentanyl and sustained-release morphine with a Level II-2, to limited for oxycodone with a Level II-3, and indeterminate for hydrocodone and methadone with a Level III. These guidelines included the evaluation of the evidence for the use of opioids in the management of chronic non-cancer pain and the recommendations for that management. These guidelines are based on the best available evidence and do not constitute inflexible treatment recommendations. Because of the changing body of evidence, this document is not intended to be a "standard of care."
Pain physician 04/2008; 11(2 Suppl):S5-S62. · 3.54 Impact Factor
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.