Responsiveness of Migraine‐ACT and MIDAS Questionnaires for Assessing Migraine Therapy
Migraine is frequently undertreated. The 4-item Migraine Assessment of Current Therapy (Migraine-ACT) questionnaire is a simple and reliable tool to identify patients requiring a change in current acute migraine treatment. Objective: To investigate the responsiveness of the Migraine-ACT tool, and compare it with that of the Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) questionnaire, for patients with migraine at 1100 primary care sites in Spain.
Patients eligible for this open-label, 2-visit prospective study reported migraine for >1 year and >or=1 migraine attack per month and were new to the clinic or on follow-up care for <6 months. Validated Spanish versions of the Migraine-ACT and MIDAS questionnaires were administered, and patient satisfaction with treatment was recorded, at baseline and at 3 months.
A total of 3272 patients, 78% female, were enrolled, and 2877 (88%) returned for the 3-month visit. Investigators changed baseline migraine treatment for 72% of returning patients; 85% and 80% of these patients had improved Migraine-ACT and MIDAS scores at 3 months, respectively. Patients who reported being completely or very satisfied with migraine treatment numbered 492 (15%) at baseline and 1406 (49%) at 3 months. Migraine-ACT and MIDAS score agreement for improvement at 3 months was poor (kappa = 0.339). Both the mean MIDAS score and the distribution of Migraine-ACT scores improved over the course of 3 months; however, Migraine-ACT scores were significantly (P < .001) more sensitive (83% vs 75%) and specific (72% vs 58%) than MIDAS scores. The area under the curve in the receiver-operating characteristic analysis was significantly (P < .0001) greater for Migraine-ACT (0.82) as compared with the MIDAS (0.70) questionnaire.
These results suggest that the Migraine-ACT questionnaire can be used more reliably than the MIDAS questionnaire for detecting improvements in treatment of new and follow-up patients with migraine.
Figures in this publication
Available from: Richard Lipton
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Barriers to optimal migraine care have traditionally been divided into a number of categories: under-recognition and underconsultation by migraine sufferers; underdiagnosis and undertreatment by health care professionals; lack of follow-up and treatment optimization. These "traditional" barriers have been recognized and addressed for at least 15 years. Epidemiologic studies suggest that consultation, diagnosis, and treatment rates for migraine have improved although many migraine sufferers still do not get optimal treatment. Herein, we revisit the problem, review areas of progress, and expand the discussion of barriers to migraine care. We hypothesize that the subjective nature of pain and difficulty in communicating it contributes to clinical and societal barriers to care. We then revisit some of the traditional barriers to care, contrasting rates of recognition, diagnosis, and treatment over the past 15 years. We follow by addressing new barriers to migraine care that have emerged as a function of the knowledge gained in this process.
Headache The Journal of Head and Face Pain 05/2009; 49(7):1028-41. DOI:10.1111/j.1526-4610.2009.01410.x · 2.71 Impact Factor
Available from: Jon Schommer
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: To compare didactic migraine education in doctor of pharmacy (PharmD) programs in the United States with the Headache Consortium's evidence-based migraine treatment recommendations.
A self-administered survey instrument was mailed to all 90 Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education (ACPE) approved PharmD programs in the United States.
Seventy-seven programs responded (86%) and 69 useable survey instruments were analyzed. Fifty-five percent of programs discussed the Consortium's guidelines, 49% discussed the selection of nonprescription versus prescription agents, 45% recommended a butalbital-containing product as migraine treatment, and 20% educated students about tools for assessing migraine-related debilitation. At least 50% of programs taught information consistent with the remaining Consortium recommendations.
Approximately half of the PharmD programs teach concepts about migraine headache treatment consistent with the US Headache Consortium's recommendations.
American journal of pharmaceutical education 02/2010; 74(1):4. DOI:10.5688/aj740104 · 1.08 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: To estimate the proportion of individuals with migraine using triptan therapy as a function of their cardiovascular (CV) profile and disease severity.
As a part of the American Migraine Prevalence and Prevention study, we identified migraineurs representative of the U.S. adult population. Triptan use was estimated as a function of presence of CV disease (CVD), of CV risk factors, and by level of migraine-related disability.
Our sample consists of 6102 individuals with migraine. Compared with migraineurs without risk factors for CVD, triptans were significantly less likely to be used in individuals with diabetes (11.5% vs 18.3%, OR = 0.6, 95% CI = 0.5-0.7), hypertension (14.8%, OR = 0.8, 0.7-0.9) and by smokers (12.9%, OR = 0.7, 0.6-0.8). Similar findings were seen for individuals with established CVD. As contrasted to individuals without CVD, those with myocardial infarct (8.5% vs 18.5%, OR = 0.4, 0.3-0.7), stroke (7%, OR = 0.6, 0.3-0.9) and heart surgery (9.3%, OR = 0.5, 0.4-0.7) were less likely to use triptans. Use of triptan increased as a function of disability regardless of CVD status or presence of CV risk factors.
Triptan use is lower in those with vs without CV risk, suggesting that doctors and/or patients fear using triptans in individuals at risk to CVD. Furthermore, triptan use in those with established CVD increases with headache-related disability, suggesting that patients and providers balance risks and benefits. Additional and analytical data are needed on the safety of triptans in the setting of CVD risk. This study has not assessed adequacy of care.
Headache The Journal of Head and Face Pain 02/2010; 50(2):256-63. DOI:10.1111/j.1526-4610.2009.01595.x · 2.71 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.