Top

Published in:

Open Access 01-12-2022 | Migraine | Research

Measuring interictal burden among people affected by migraine: a descriptive survey study

Authors: Lena T. Hubig, Timothy Smith, Emma Williams, Lauren Powell, Karissa Johnston, Linda Harris, Gilbert L’Italien, Vladimir Coric, Andrew J. Lloyd, Siu Hing Lo

Published in: The Journal of Headache and Pain | Issue 1/2022

Abstract

Background

Previous research has extensively documented the impact of migraine episodes (‘ictal’) on patients’ health-related quality of life. Few studies have looked at the impact of migraine on migraine-free days (‘interictal’). This study was designed to describe interictal burden of migraine in a mixed group of people affected by migraine and to explore patient characteristics associated with interictal burden.

Methods

People with migraine in the United States (US) and Germany were recruited for a cross-sectional online survey, including a subgroup treated with calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibody (mAb). The survey included the Migraine Interictal Burden Scale (MIBS-4), Headache Impact Test (HIT-6), and items measuring patient demographics, clinical and treatment background. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and linear regression.

Results

Five hundred six people with migraine completed the survey (US: n = 257; Germany: n = 249), of whom 195 had taken a CGRP mAb for three or more months. Participants had a mean of 8.5 (SD = 6.4) Monthly Migraine Days (MMD) and 10.4 (SD = 7.1) Monthly Headache Days (MHD). The mean MIBS-4 score was 6.3 (SD = 3.4), with 67% reporting severe interictal burden (MIBS-4: ≥5). The mean HIT-6 score was 65.3 (SD = 6.0), with 86% reporting severe migraine impact (HIT-6: ≥60). MIBS-4 was correlated with the HIT-6 (r = 0.37), MMD and MHD (both r = 0.27). The HIT-6, MMD, MHD, CGRP mAb treatment, and depression all had an independent positive association with the MIBS-4.

Conclusion

Two-thirds of the study sample reported substantial interictal burden. Whilst interictal burden was associated with migraine frequency and impact of migraine attacks, study results also show it represented a distinct aspect of the overall disease burden. Study findings further indicate unique associations between interictal burden and depression. A unique positive association between interictal burden and CGRP mAb treatment suggests a remaining unmet need among people affected by migraine treated with CGRP mAb.

Ashina M et al (2021) Migraine: epidemiology and systems of care. Lancet 397:1485–1495CrossRef

Headache Classification Committee of the International Headache Society (IHS) (2018) The International Classification of Headache Disorders, 3rd edition. Cephalalgia 38(1):1-211

Giffin NJ et al (2003) Premonitory symptoms in migraine: an electronic diary study. Neurology 60:935–940CrossRef

Kelman L (2006) The Postdrome of the acute migraine attack. Cephalalgia 26:214–220CrossRef

Giffin NJ, Lipton RB, Silberstein SD, Olesen J, Goadsby PJ (2016) The migraine postdrome. Neurology 87:309–313CrossRef

Goadsby PJ et al (2017) Pathophysiology of migraine: a disorder of sensory processing. Physiol Rev 97:553–622CrossRef

Shrewsbury SB, Ailani J, Ray S, Aurora SK, Hoekman J (2020) Impact and burden of episodic, acute migraine: a patient experience study. Headache 60:71CrossRef

Blumenfeld AM et al (2013) Patterns of use and reasons for discontinuation of prophylactic medications for episodic migraine and chronic migraine: results from the second international burden of migraine study (IBMS-II). Headache 53:644–655CrossRef

Alex A, Vaughn C, Rayhill M (2020) Safety and tolerability of 3 CGRP monoclonal antibodies in practice: a retrospective cohort study. Headache 60:2454–2462CrossRef

10.

Dodick DW et al (2018) ARISE: a phase 3 randomized trial of erenumab for episodic migraine. Cephalalgia 38:1026–1037CrossRef

11.

Ashina M et al (2020) Eptinezumab in episodic migraine: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study (PROMISE-1). Cephalalgia 40:241–254CrossRef

12.

Silberstein SD et al (2021) Treatment benefit among migraine patients taking fremanezumab: results from a post hoc responder analysis of two placebo-controlled trials. J Headache Pain 22:1–11CrossRef

13.

Ornello R et al (2020) Real-life data on the efficacy and safety of erenumab in the Abruzzo region, Central Italy. J Headache Pain 21:32CrossRef

14.

Robblee J et al (2020) Real-world patient experience with Erenumab for the preventive treatment of migraine. Headache 60:2014–2025CrossRef

15.

Mannix S et al (2016) Measuring the impact of migraine for evaluating outcomes of preventive treatments for migraine headaches. Health Qual Life Outcomes 14:143CrossRef

16.

Hareendran A et al (2018) Development of a new tool for evaluating the benefit of preventive treatments for migraine on functional outcomes – the migraine functional impact questionnaire (MFIQ). Headache 58:1612–1628CrossRef

17.

Doane MJ, Gupta S, Vo P, Laflamme AK, Fang J (2019) Associations between headache-free days and patient-reported outcomes among migraine patients: a cross-sectional analysis of survey data in Europe. Pain Ther 8:203–216CrossRef

18.

Leonardi M, Raggi A (2019) A narrative review on the burden of migraine: when the burden is the impact on people’s life. J Headache Pain 20:41CrossRef

19.

Houts CR et al (2020) Content validity of HIT-6 as a measure of headache impact in people with migraine: a narrative review. Headache 60:28–39CrossRef

20.

Speck RM, Collins EM, Lombard L, Ayer DW (2020) A qualitative study to assess the content validity of the 24-hour migraine quality of life questionnaire in patients with migraine. Headache 60:1982–1994CrossRef

21.

Palacios-Ceña D et al (2017) Living with chronic migraine: a qualitative study on female patients’ perspectives from a specialised headache clinic in Spain. BMJ Open 7:e017851CrossRef

22.

Kawata AK et al (2019) Evaluating the psychometric properties of the migraine functional impact questionnaire (MFIQ). Headache 59:1253–1269CrossRef

23.

Lampl C et al (2016) Interictal burden attributable to episodic headache: findings from the Eurolight project. J Headache Pain 17:1–10

24.

Lo SH et al (2022) Real-world experience of interictal burden and treatment in migraine: a qualitative interview study. J Headache Pain 23:65CrossRef

25.

Buse DC, Rupnow MFT, Lipton RB (2009) Assessing and managing all aspects of migraine: migraine attacks, migraine-related functional impairment, common comorbidities, and quality of life. Mayo Clin Proc 84:422–435CrossRef

26.

Buse DCC et al (2007) The migraine interictal burden scale (MIBS): Results of a population-based validation study. Headache 47:778

27.

Matsumori Y et al (2022) Burden of migraine in Japan: results of the ObserVational survey of the epidemiology, tReatment, and care of MigrainE (OVERCOME [Japan]) study. Neurol Ther 11:205–222CrossRef

28.

Sandoe C et al (2021) Interictal burden of migraine: correlations with other measures of migraine burden and effects of Galcanezumab migraine-preventive treatment. Neurology 96 (15 Supplement) 1914

29.

Kosinski M et al (2003) A six-item short-form survey for measuring headache impact: the HIT-6™. Qual Life Res 12:963–974CrossRef

30.

Malmberg-Ceder K et al (2019) The role of psychosocial risk factors in the burden of headache. J Pain Res 12:1733–1741CrossRef

31.

Usai S, Grazzi L, D’Amico D, Andrasik F, Bussone G (2008) Reduction in the impact of chronic migraine with medication overuse after day-hospital withdrawal therapy. Neurol Sci 29:176–178CrossRef

32.

Sauro KM et al (2010) HIT-6 and MIDAS as measures of headache disability in a headache referral population. Headache 50:383–395CrossRef

33.

Buse D et al (2007) Development and validation of the migraine Interictal burden scale (MIBS): a self-administered instrument for measuring the burden of migraine between attacks. Neurology 68:A89

34.

Hubig LT et al (in press) A stated preference survey to explore patient preferences for novel preventive migraine treatments. Headache

35.

Ailani J, Burch RC, Robbins MS (2021) The American headache society consensus statement: update on integrating new migraine treatments into clinical practice. Headache 61:1021–1039CrossRef

36.

Martin M, Blaisdell B, Kwong JW, Bjorner JB (2004) The short-form headache impact test (HIT-6) was psychometrically equivalent in nine languages. J Clin Epidemiol 57:1271–1278CrossRef

37.

Gaus W (2015) Interpretation of statistical significance - exploratory versus confirmative testing in clinical trials, epidemiological studies, Meta-analyses and toxicological screening (using Ginkgo biloba as an example). Clin Exp Pharmacol 05

38.

R Core Team (2021). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria https://www.R-project.org/

39.

Lipton, R. B. et al. Migraine diagnosis, disability, and work productivity impact in migraine: results of the OVERCOME (international) Study. Presented at The International Headache Congress (2021)

40.

Diener H-C, May A (2019) Prophylaxe der Migräne mit monoklonalen Antikörpern gegen CGRP oder den CGRP-Rezeptor. Ergänzung der Leitlinie 030/057 Therapie der Migräneattacke und Prophylaxe der Migräne. In: Leitlinien für Diagnostik und Therpie in der Neurologie (ed. Deutsche Gesellschaft für Neurologie)

41.

The American Headache Society (2018) The American headache society position statement on integrating new migraine treatments into clinical practice. Headache 13456. https://doi.org/10.1111/head.13456

42.

Shimizu T et al (2021) Disability, quality of life, productivity impairment and employer costs of migraine in the workplace. J Headache Pain 22:29CrossRef

43.

Gil-Gouveia R, Miranda R (2022) Indirect costs attributed to headache: a nation-wide survey of an active working population. Cephalalgia 42:317–325CrossRef

44.

Stronks D, Tulen J, Bussmann J, Mulder L, Passchier J (2004) Interictal daily functioning in migraine. Cephalalgia 24:271–279CrossRef

Title: Measuring interictal burden among people affected by migraine: a descriptive survey study
Authors: Lena T. Hubig
Timothy Smith
Emma Williams
Lauren Powell
Karissa Johnston
Linda Harris
Gilbert L’Italien
Vladimir Coric
Andrew J. Lloyd
Siu Hing Lo
Publication date: 01-12-2022
Publisher: Springer Milan
Keywords: Migraine
Headache
Published in: The Journal of Headache and Pain / Issue 1/2022
Print ISSN: 1129-2369
Electronic ISSN: 1129-2377
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s10194-022-01467-z

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Measuring interictal burden among people affected by migraine: a descriptive survey study

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2022

Imaging the inflammatory phenotype in migraine

Real-world effectiveness after initiating fremanezumab treatment in US patients with episodic and chronic migraine or difficult-to-treat migraine

Persistent headache after first-ever ischemic stroke: clinical characteristics and factors associated with its development

Involvement of adenosine signaling pathway in migraine pathophysiology: a systematic review of preclinical studies

Post-traumatic headache after mild traumatic brain injury in a one-year follow up study – risk factors and return to work

Alterations in metabolic flux in migraine and the translational relevance