Characterizing barriers to care in migraine: multicountry results from the Chronic Migraine Epidemiology and Outcomes - International (CaMEO-I) study.
Humans
Migraine Disorders
/ epidemiology
Cross-Sectional Studies
Female
Male
Adult
Canada
/ epidemiology
United States
/ epidemiology
Middle Aged
Health Services Accessibility
/ statistics & numerical data
Japan
/ epidemiology
Germany
/ epidemiology
France
/ epidemiology
United Kingdom
/ epidemiology
Barriers to care
Consultation
Headache
Headache-related disability
Migraine
Unmet needs
Journal
The journal of headache and pain
ISSN: 1129-2377
Titre abrégé: J Headache Pain
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100940562
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
19 Aug 2024
19 Aug 2024
Historique:
received:
06
03
2024
accepted:
25
07
2024
medline:
20
8
2024
pubmed:
20
8
2024
entrez:
19
8
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
To assess rates of traversing barriers to care to access optimal clinical outcomes in people with migraine internationally. People in need of medical care for migraine should consult a health care professional knowledgeable in migraine management, obtain an accurate diagnosis, and receive an individualized treatment plan, which includes scientific society guideline-recommended treatments where appropriate. The Chronic Migraine Epidemiology and Outcomes-International (CaMEO-I) Study was a cross-sectional, web-based survey conducted from July 2021 through March 2022 in Canada, France, Germany, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States (US). Respondents who met modified International Classification of Headache Disorders, 3rd edition, criteria for migraine and had Migraine Disability Assessment Scale (MIDAS) scores of ≥ 6 (i.e., mild, moderate, or severe disability) were deemed to need medical care and were included in this analysis. Minimally effective treatment required that participants were currently consulting a health care professional for headache (barrier 1), reported an accurate diagnosis (barrier 2), and reported use of minimally appropriate pharmacologic treatment (barrier 3; based on American Headache Society 2021 Consensus Statement recommendations). Proportions of respondents who successfully traversed each barrier were calculated, and chi-square tests were used to assess overall difference among countries. Among 14,492 respondents with migraine, 8,330 had MIDAS scores of ≥ 6, were deemed in need of medical care, and were included in this analysis. Current headache consultation was reported by 35.1% (2926/8330) of respondents. Compared with the US, consultation rates and diagnosis rates were statistically significantly lower in all other countries except France where they were statistically significantly higher. Total appropriate treatment rates were also statistically significantly lower in all other countries compared with the US except France, which did not differ from the US. All 3 barriers were traversed by only 11.5% (955/8330) of respondents, with differences among countries (P < 0.001). Of people with migraine in need of medical care for migraine, less than 15% traverse all 3 barriers to care. Although rates of consultation, diagnosis, and treatment differed among countries, improvements are needed in all countries studied to reduce the global burden of migraine. NA.
Sections du résumé
OBJECTIVE
OBJECTIVE
To assess rates of traversing barriers to care to access optimal clinical outcomes in people with migraine internationally.
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
People in need of medical care for migraine should consult a health care professional knowledgeable in migraine management, obtain an accurate diagnosis, and receive an individualized treatment plan, which includes scientific society guideline-recommended treatments where appropriate.
METHODS
METHODS
The Chronic Migraine Epidemiology and Outcomes-International (CaMEO-I) Study was a cross-sectional, web-based survey conducted from July 2021 through March 2022 in Canada, France, Germany, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States (US). Respondents who met modified International Classification of Headache Disorders, 3rd edition, criteria for migraine and had Migraine Disability Assessment Scale (MIDAS) scores of ≥ 6 (i.e., mild, moderate, or severe disability) were deemed to need medical care and were included in this analysis. Minimally effective treatment required that participants were currently consulting a health care professional for headache (barrier 1), reported an accurate diagnosis (barrier 2), and reported use of minimally appropriate pharmacologic treatment (barrier 3; based on American Headache Society 2021 Consensus Statement recommendations). Proportions of respondents who successfully traversed each barrier were calculated, and chi-square tests were used to assess overall difference among countries.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Among 14,492 respondents with migraine, 8,330 had MIDAS scores of ≥ 6, were deemed in need of medical care, and were included in this analysis. Current headache consultation was reported by 35.1% (2926/8330) of respondents. Compared with the US, consultation rates and diagnosis rates were statistically significantly lower in all other countries except France where they were statistically significantly higher. Total appropriate treatment rates were also statistically significantly lower in all other countries compared with the US except France, which did not differ from the US. All 3 barriers were traversed by only 11.5% (955/8330) of respondents, with differences among countries (P < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Of people with migraine in need of medical care for migraine, less than 15% traverse all 3 barriers to care. Although rates of consultation, diagnosis, and treatment differed among countries, improvements are needed in all countries studied to reduce the global burden of migraine.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
BACKGROUND
NA.
Identifiants
pubmed: 39160483
doi: 10.1186/s10194-024-01834-y
pii: 10.1186/s10194-024-01834-y
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
134Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
GBD 2016 Disease and Injury Incidence and Prevalence Collaborators (2017) Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for 328 diseases and injuries for 195 countries, 1990–2016: a systematic analysis for the global burden of Disease Study 2016. Lancet 390:1211–1259
doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)32154-2
(2016) Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for 310 diseases and injuries, 1990–2015: a systematic analysis for the global burden of Disease Study 2015. Lancet 388:1545–1602
Miller S, Matharu MS (2014) Migraine is underdiagnosed and undertreated. Practitioner 258:19–24
pubmed: 25588281
Cohen F, Lipton RB (2024) Prevalence and burden of migraine in the United States: a systematic review. Headache 64:516–532
pubmed: 38700185
doi: 10.1111/head.14709
Raffaelli B, Rubio-Beltrán E, Cho SJ, De Icco R, Labastida-Ramirez A, Onan D et al (2023) Health equity, care access and quality in headache—part 2. J Headache Pain 24:167
pubmed: 38087219
pmcid: 10717448
doi: 10.1186/s10194-023-01699-7
Lipton RB, Nicholson RA, Reed ML, Araujo AB, Jaffe DH, Faries DE et al (2022) Diagnosis, consultation, treatment, and impact of migraine in the US: results of the OVERCOME (US) study. Headache 62:122–140
pubmed: 35076091
pmcid: 9305407
doi: 10.1111/head.14259
Hutchinson S, Lipton RB, Ailani J, Reed ML, Fanning KM, Manack Adams A et al (2020) Characterization of acute prescription migraine medication use: results from the CaMEO study. Mayo Clin Proc 95:709–718
pubmed: 32247344
doi: 10.1016/j.mayocp.2019.11.025
Manack Adams A, Buse DC, Leroux E, Lanteri-Minet M, Sakai F, Matharu M et al (2023) Chronic migraine epidemiology and outcomes–international (CaMEO-I) study: methods and multi-country baseline findings for diagnosis rates and care. Cephalalgia 43:1–13
Lipton RB, Munjal S, Alam A, Buse DC, Fanning KM, Reed ML et al (2018) Migraine in America symptoms and treatment (MAST) study: baseline study methods, treatment patterns, and gender differences. Headache 58:1408–1426
pubmed: 30341895
doi: 10.1111/head.13407
Lipton RB, Bigal ME, Diamond M, Freitag F, Reed ML, Stewart WF (2007) Migraine prevalence, disease burden, and the need for preventive therapy. Neurology 68:343–349
pubmed: 17261680
doi: 10.1212/01.wnl.0000252808.97649.21
Buse DC, Armand CE, Charleston Lt, Reed ML, Fanning KM, Adams AM et al (2021) Barriers to care in episodic and chronic migraine: results from the chronic migraine epidemiology and outcomes study. Headache 61:628–641
pubmed: 33797078
doi: 10.1111/head.14103
Ailani J, Lipton RB, Goadsby PJ, Guo H, Miceli R, Severt L et al (2021) Atogepant for the preventive treatment of migraine. N Engl J Med 385:695–706
pubmed: 34407343
doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2035908
Stewart WF, Lipton RB, Whyte J, Dowson A, Kolodner K, Liberman JN et al (1999) An international study to assess reliability of the Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) score. Neurology 53:988–994
pubmed: 10496257
doi: 10.1212/WNL.53.5.988
Iigaya M, Sakai F, Kolodner KB, Lipton RB, Stewart WF (2003) Reliability and validity of the Japanese Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) Questionnaire. Headache 43:343–352
pubmed: 12656705
doi: 10.1046/j.1526-4610.2003.03069.x
Magnoux E, Freeman MA, Zlotnik G (2008) MIDAS and HIT-6 French translation: reliability and correlation between tests. Cephalalgia 28:26–34
pubmed: 17970768
doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2982.2007.01461.x
Benz T, Lehmann S, Gantenbein AR, Sandor PS, Stewart WF, Elfering A et al (2018) Translation, cross-cultural adaptation and reliability of the German version of the migraine disability assessment (MIDAS) questionnaire. Health Qual Life Outcomes 16:42
pubmed: 29523138
pmcid: 5845367
doi: 10.1186/s12955-018-0871-5
Eigenbrodt AK, Ashina H, Khan S, Diener HC, Mitsikostas DD, Sinclair AJ et al (2021) Diagnosis and management of migraine in ten steps. Nat Rev Neurol 17:501–514
pubmed: 34145431
pmcid: 8321897
doi: 10.1038/s41582-021-00509-5
Pringsheim T, Davenport W, Mackie G, Worthington I, Aube M, Christie SN et al (2012) Canadian Headache Society guideline for migraine prophylaxis. Can J Neurol Sci 39:S1–59
pubmed: 22683887
Ailani J, Burch RC, Robbins MS (2021) The American Headache Society consensus statement: update on integrating new migraine treatments into clinical practice. Headache 61:1021–1039
pubmed: 34160823
doi: 10.1111/head.14153
Dodick DW, Loder EW, Manack Adams A, Buse DC, Fanning KM, Reed ML et al (2016) Assessing barriers to chronic migraine consultation, diagnosis, and treatment: results from the Chronic Migraine Epidemiology and Outcomes (CaMEO) study. Headache 56:821–834
pubmed: 27143127
pmcid: 5084794
doi: 10.1111/head.12774
Lipton RB, Serrano D, Holland S, Fanning KM, Reed ML, Buse DC (2013) Barriers to the diagnosis and treatment of migraine: effects of sex, income, and headache features. Headache 53:81–92
pubmed: 23078241
doi: 10.1111/j.1526-4610.2012.02265.x
Lipton RB, Stewart WF, Simon D (1998) Medical consultation for migraine: results from the American Migraine Study. Headache 38:87–96
pubmed: 9529763
doi: 10.1046/j.1526-4610.1998.3802087.x
Groth M, Katsarava Z, Ehrlich M (2022) Results of the gErman migraine PatIent survey on medical care and prOPhylactic treatment experience (EPISCOPE). Sci Rep 12:4589
pubmed: 35301435
pmcid: 8931117
doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-08716-w
Andrée C, Stovner LJ, Steiner TJ, Barré J, Katsarava Z, Lainez JM et al (2011) The Eurolight project: the impact of primary headache disorders in Europe. Description of methods. J Headache Pain 12:541–549
pubmed: 21660430
pmcid: 3173626
doi: 10.1007/s10194-011-0356-y
Lucas C, Géraud G, Valade D, Chautard MH, Lantéri-Minet M (2006) Recognition and therapeutic management of migraine in 2004, in France: results of FRAMIG 3, a French nationwide population-based survey. Headache 46:715–725
pubmed: 16643573
doi: 10.1111/j.1526-4610.2006.00430.x
Do TP, Dømgaard M, Stefansen S, Steiner TJ, Ashina M (2023) Characterizing healthcare utilization patterns in a Danish population with headache: results from the nationwide headache in Denmark (HINDER) panel. J Headache Pain 24:18
pubmed: 36829124
pmcid: 9951480
doi: 10.1186/s10194-023-01553-w
Gross E, de la Ruiz E, Martelletti P (2023) The migraine stigma kaleidoscope view. Neurol Ther 12:703–709
pubmed: 36871256
pmcid: 10195931
doi: 10.1007/s40120-023-00456-x
Corrigan P (2004) How stigma interferes with mental health care. Am Psychol 59:614–625
pubmed: 15491256
doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.59.7.614
Seng EK, Shapiro RE, Buse DC, Robbins MS, Lipton RB, Parker A (2022) The unique role of stigma in migraine-related disability and quality of life. Headache 62:1354–1364
pubmed: 36321956
doi: 10.1111/head.14401
Shapiro RE, Nicholson RA, Seng EK, Buse DC, Reed ML, Zagar AJ et al (2024) Migraine-related stigma and its relationship to disability, interictal burden, and quality of life: results of the OVERCOME (US) study. Neurology 102:e208074
pubmed: 38232340
pmcid: 11097761
doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000208074
Waliszewska-Prosół M, Straburzyński M, Czapińska-Ciepiela EK, Nowaczewska M, Gryglas-Dworak A, Budrewicz S (2023) Migraine symptoms, healthcare resources utilization and disease burden in a large Polish migraine cohort: results from Migraine in Poland—a nationwide cross-sectional survey. J Headache Pain 24:40
pubmed: 37041492
pmcid: 10091674
doi: 10.1186/s10194-023-01575-4
Lipton RB, Stewart WF, Celentano DD, Reed ML (1992) Undiagnosed migraine headaches. A comparison of symptom-based and reported physician diagnosis. Arch Intern Med 152:1273–1278
pubmed: 1599358
doi: 10.1001/archinte.1992.00400180125021
Bigal ME, Serrano D, Reed M, Lipton RB (2008) Chronic migraine in the population: burden, diagnosis, and satisfaction with treatment. Neurology 71:559–566
pubmed: 18711108
doi: 10.1212/01.wnl.0000323925.29520.e7
Katsarava Z, Mania M, Lampl C, Herberhold J, Steiner TJ (2018) Poor medical care for people with migraine in Europe - evidence from the Eurolight study. J Headache Pain 19:10
pubmed: 29392600
pmcid: 5794675
doi: 10.1186/s10194-018-0839-1
Mansfield C, Gebben DJ, Sutphin J, Tepper SJ, Schwedt TJ, Sapra S et al (2019) Patient preferences for preventive migraine treatments: a discrete-choice experiment. Headache 59:715–726
pubmed: 30861110
doi: 10.1111/head.13498
Lipton RB, Amatniek JC, Ferrari MD, Gross M (1994) Migraine. Identifying and removing barriers to care. Neurology 44:S63–68
pubmed: 8008228
Lipton RB, Dodick D, Sadovsky R, Kolodner K, Endicott J, Hettiarachchi J et al (2003) A self-administered screener for migraine in primary care: the ID Migraine validation study. Neurology 61:375–382
pubmed: 12913201
doi: 10.1212/01.WNL.0000078940.53438.83
Lipton RB, Serrano D, Buse DC, Pavlovic JM, Blumenfeld AM, Dodick DW et al (2016) Improving the detection of chronic migraine: development and validation of Identify Chronic Migraine (ID-CM). Cephalalgia 36:203–215
pubmed: 26002700
doi: 10.1177/0333102415583982
Pavlovic JM, Yu JS, Silberstein SD, Reed ML, Kawahara SH, Cowan RP et al (2019) Development of a claims-based algorithm to identify potentially undiagnosed chronic migraine patients. Cephalalgia 39:465–476
pubmed: 30854881
pmcid: 6604052
doi: 10.1177/0333102418825373
Lipton RB, Sico J, Seng EK (2023) Migraine screening in English and Spanish. Headache 63:843–845
pubmed: 37140197
doi: 10.1111/head.14520
Lim JH, Karimi L, Wijeratne T (2021) An evaluation of medication prescribing patterns for acute migraine in the emergency department: a scoping review. J Clin Med 10:1191
pubmed: 33809194
pmcid: 7998873
doi: 10.3390/jcm10061191
Minen MT, Zhou K, Miller L (2020) A brief look at urgent care visits for migraine: the care received and ideas to guide migraine care in this proliferating medical setting. Headache 60:542–552
pubmed: 31802490
doi: 10.1111/head.13717
Lipton RB, Stewart WF, Ryan RE Jr., Saper J, Silberstein S, Sheftell F (1998) Efficacy and safety of acetaminophen, aspirin, and caffeine in alleviating migraine headache pain: three double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials. Arch Neurol 55:210–217
pubmed: 9482363
doi: 10.1001/archneur.55.2.210
Charles A (2024) The role of caffeine in headache disorders. Curr Opin Neurol 37:289–294
pubmed: 38327229
doi: 10.1097/WCO.0000000000001249