Clinic-based headache registries collect data for a wide variety of purposes including delineating disease characteristics, longitudinal natural disease courses, headache management approaches,... Show moreClinic-based headache registries collect data for a wide variety of purposes including delineating disease characteristics, longitudinal natural disease courses, headache management approaches, quality of care, treatment safety and effectiveness, factors that predict treatment response, health care resource utilization, clinician adherence to guidelines, and cost-effectiveness. Registry data are valuable for numerous stakeholders, including individuals with headache disorders and their caregivers, healthcare providers, scientists, healthcare systems, regulatory authorities, pharmaceutical companies, employers, and policymakers. This International Headache Society document may serve as guidance for developing clinic-based headache registries. Use of registry data requires a formal research protocol that includes: 1) research aims; 2) methods for data collection, harmonization, analysis, privacy, and protection; 3) methods for human subject protection; and 4) publication and dissemination plans. Depending upon their objectives, headache registries should include validated headache-specific questionnaires, patient reported outcome measures, data elements that are used consistently across studies (i.e., "common data elements"), and medical record data. Amongst other data types, registries may be linked to healthcare and pharmacy claims data, biospecimens, and neuroimaging data. Headache diagnoses should be made according to the International Classification of Headache Disorders diagnostic criteria. The data from well-designed headache registries can provide wide-ranging and novel insights into the characteristics, burden, and treatment of headache disorders and ultimately lead to improvements in the management of patients with headache. Show less
Migraine is a common headache disorder. This Primer by Ferrari and colleagues summarizes the epidemiology, pathophysiology, diagnosis and treatment of migraine. Moreover, quality of life issues... Show moreMigraine is a common headache disorder. This Primer by Ferrari and colleagues summarizes the epidemiology, pathophysiology, diagnosis and treatment of migraine. Moreover, quality of life issues faced by patients with migraine and future research avenues are discussed.Migraine is a common, chronic, disorder that is typically characterized by recurrent disabling attacks of headache and accompanying symptoms, including aura. The aetiology is multifactorial with rare monogenic variants. Depression, epilepsy, stroke and myocardial infarction are comorbid diseases. Spreading depolarization probably causes aura and possibly also triggers trigeminal sensory activation, the underlying mechanism for the headache. Despite earlier beliefs, vasodilation is only a secondary phenomenon and vasoconstriction is not essential for antimigraine efficacy. Management includes analgesics or NSAIDs for mild attacks, and, for moderate or severe attacks, triptans or 5HT(1B/1D) receptor agonists. Because of cardiovascular safety concerns, unreliable efficacy and tolerability issues, use of ergots to abort attacks has nearly vanished in most countries. CGRP receptor antagonists (gepants) and lasmiditan, a selective 5HT1(F) receptor agonist, have emerged as effective acute treatments. Intramuscular onabotulinumtoxinA may be helpful in chronic migraine (migraine on >= 15 days per month) and monoclonal antibodies targeting CGRP or its receptor, as well as two gepants, have proven effective and well tolerated for the preventive treatment of migraine. Several neuromodulation modalities have been approved for acute and/or preventive migraine treatment. The emergence of new treatment targets and therapies illustrates the bright future for migraine management. Show less
Migraine is a common, chronic, disorder that is typically characterized by recurrent disabling attacks of headache and accompanying symptoms, including aura. The aetiology is multifactorial with... Show moreMigraine is a common, chronic, disorder that is typically characterized by recurrent disabling attacks of headache and accompanying symptoms, including aura. The aetiology is multifactorial with rare monogenic variants. Depression, epilepsy, stroke and myocardial infarction are comorbid diseases. Spreading depolarization probably causes aura and possibly also triggers trigeminal sensory activation, the underlying mechanism for the headache. Despite earlier beliefs, vasodilation is only a secondary phenomenon and vasoconstriction is not essential for antimigraine efficacy. Management includes analgesics or NSAIDs for mild attacks, and, for moderate or severe attacks, triptans or 5HT1B/1D receptor agonists. Because of cardiovascular safety concerns, unreliable efficacy and tolerability issues, use of ergots to abort attacks has nearly vanished in most countries. CGRP receptor antagonists (gepants) and lasmiditan, a selective 5HT1F receptor agonist, have emerged as effective acute treatments. Intramuscular onabotulinumtoxinA may be helpful in chronic migraine (migraine on ≥15 days per month) and monoclonal antibodies targeting CGRP or its receptor, as well as two gepants, have proven effective and well tolerated for the preventive treatment of migraine. Several neuromodulation modalities have been approved for acute and/or preventive migraine treatment. The emergence of new treatment targets and therapies illustrates the bright future for migraine management. Show less
Meier, K.; Glatz, T.; Guijt, M.C.; Piccininni, M.; Meulen, M. van der; Atmar, K.; ... ; COVID 19 Survey Study Grp 2020
BackgroundThe extent to which people implement government-issued protective measures is critical in preventing further spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by coronavirus SARS-CoV-2... Show moreBackgroundThe extent to which people implement government-issued protective measures is critical in preventing further spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by coronavirus SARS-CoV-2. Our study aimed to describe the public belief in the effectiveness of protective measures, the reported implementation of these measures, and to identify communication channels used to acquire information on COVID-19 in European countries during the early stage of the pandemic.Methods and findingsAn online survey available in multiple languages was disseminated starting on March 19th, 2020. After five days, we computed descriptive statistics for countries with more than 500 respondents. Each day, we assessed enacted community containment measures by stage of stringency (I-IV). In total, 9,796 adults responded, of whom 8,611 resided in the Netherlands (stage III), 604 in Germany (stage III), and 581 in Italy (stage IV). To explore possible dynamics as containment strategies intensified, we also included 1,365 responses submitted during the following week. Participants indicated support for governmental measures related to avoiding social gatherings, selective closure of public places, and hand hygiene and respiratory measures (range for all measures: 95.0%-99.7%). Respondents from the Netherlands less frequently considered a complete social lockdown effective (59.2%), compared to respondents in Germany (76.6%) or Italy (87.2%). Italian residents applied enforced social distancing measures more frequently (range: 90.2%-99.3%, German and Dutch residents: 67.5%-97.0%) and self-initiated hygienic and social distancing behaviors (range: 36.3%-96.6%, German and Dutch residents: 28.3%-95.7%). Respondents reported being sufficiently informed about the outbreak and behaviors to avoid infection (range: 90.2%-91.1%). Information channels most commonly reported included television newspapers, official health websites, and social media. One week later, we observed no major differences in submitted responses.ConclusionsDuring the early stage of the COVID-19 pandemic, belief in the effectiveness of protective measures among survey respondents from three European countries was high and participants reported feeling sufficiently informed. In March 2020, implementation of measures differed between countries and were highest among respondents from Italy, who were subjected to the most stringent lockdown measures and greatest COVID-19 burden in Europe during this period. Show less
