Educational Intervention in Patients With Migraine (M01)

December 21, 2017 updated by: Iñaki Aguirrezabal Bazterrica, Basque Health Service

Effectiveness of a Group Educational Intervention in Patients With Migraine: a Randomised Controlled Trial

Introduction: Despite the numerous pharmacological treatment options available for migraine attacks and for the prevention of thereof, less than 30% of patients with migraine are highly satisfied with their current treatment.

In recent decades, there has been a radical change in the way we view pain, thanks to developments in neuroscience. It is currently considered that pain does not originate in the peripheral nociceptors, but rather in a network of brain regions (the pain neuromatrix), the synchronous activation of which is necessary and sufficient to generate the perception of pain. Migraine may be the expression of this exaggerated perception of threat, a perception that, from a cultural learning perspective, it may be possible to modify by adjusting beliefs and behaviours that favour the onset of an attack.

The aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness of a group educational intervention about concepts of pain neuroscience, in the management of migraine, compared to routine medical interventions, in primary care health centres of Alava.

Study Overview

Status

Completed

Conditions

Detailed Description

The aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness of a group educational intervention about concepts of pain neuroscience, in the management of migraine, compared to routine medical interventions, in primary care health centres of Alava.

After recruitment, patients were interviewed by the research team members in charge of the assessments. In these interviews, data were collected on the following: demographic characteristics, beliefs regarding migraine, coping strategies for migraine attacks, the MIDAS questionnaire (16), medication taken, work leave, emergency department attendances and limitation of daily activities due to migraine, during the previous 3 months.

Subsequently, we carried out further assessments over the telephone after 3, 6 and 12 months. Very few studies assessing preventive treatments for migraine have performed assessments 12 months after initiating prophylactic treatment, most having followed-up patients for 6 months at most. We believe, however, it is necessary to continue assessments for at least 1 year to properly test the efficacy of treatment for chronic illnesses like migraine. The individuals carrying out the assessment were blinded to group allocation. The clinical follow-up was the same for both groups, the only difference in their management being the educational intervention itself.

Study Type

Interventional

Enrollment (Actual)

116

Phase

  • Not Applicable

Contacts and Locations

This section provides the contact details for those conducting the study, and information on where this study is being conducted.

Study Locations

    • Alava
      • Vitoria-gasteiz, Alava, Spain
        • Iñaki Aguirrezabal Bazterrica

Participation Criteria

Researchers look for people who fit a certain description, called eligibility criteria. Some examples of these criteria are a person's general health condition or prior treatments.

Eligibility Criteria

Ages Eligible for Study

  • Child
  • Adult
  • Older Adult

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Genders Eligible for Study

All

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

  • Belong to one of these health centres of primary care: San Martín, Sansomendi, Lakuarriaga, Gazalbide and Zabalgana,
  • Diagnosed with migraine (ICD-9-CM Diagnosis Code 346) who had at least one migraine attack every month despite treatment.

Exclusion Criteria:

  • We excluded patients with mental illness, cognitive impairment or language deficits that might hinder completion of follow-up and patients that would not be able to attend to all the sessions of the intervention or had received training as part of the previous pilot study.

Study Plan

This section provides details of the study plan, including how the study is designed and what the study is measuring.

How is the study designed?

Design Details

  • Primary Purpose: Treatment
  • Allocation: Randomized
  • Interventional Model: Parallel Assignment
  • Masking: None (Open Label)

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm
Intervention / Treatment
Experimental: Intervention group
Neuroscience-based information on the neurophysiology of pain and migraine were provided with audio-visual support.
In each session, neuroscience-based information on the neurophysiology of pain and migraine were provided with audio-visual support.
Placebo Comparator: Control group
Routine clinical practice
Patients allocated to the control group will only receive the drugs used in the habitual clinical practice

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Migraine-related disability given by the MIDAS score
Time Frame: 12 months
The sum of responses to five questions on days missed or with reduced productivity at work/school, at home and in leisure activities.I If patients has reduced the score in MIDAS scale by at least the 50% of the baseline score, we consider that the patient has responded to the treatment.
12 months

Secondary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Intensity and frequency of the pain
Time Frame: 12 months
Measured using the two supplementary questions of the MIDAS, the two supplementary questions of the MIDAS. If patients has reduced the score in MIDAS scale by at least the 50% of the baseline score, we consider that the patient has responded to the treatment.
12 months
Degree to which activities of daily life were limited by migraine
Time Frame: 12 months
Measured using an ad hoc scale with six possible answers: not at all, very little, little, quite a lot, a lot, and totally.
12 months
costs associated with migraine-related treatment
Time Frame: 12 months
Both preventive medication and medication for treating migraine attacks
12 months

Collaborators and Investigators

This is where you will find people and organizations involved with this study.

Investigators

  • Principal Investigator: IÑAKI AGUIRREZABAL, Basque Health Service

Study record dates

These dates track the progress of study record and summary results submissions to ClinicalTrials.gov. Study records and reported results are reviewed by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) to make sure they meet specific quality control standards before being posted on the public website.

Study Major Dates

Study Start (Actual)

August 1, 2013

Primary Completion (Actual)

May 30, 2016

Study Completion (Actual)

May 30, 2016

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

December 14, 2017

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

December 21, 2017

First Posted (Actual)

December 22, 2017

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (Actual)

December 22, 2017

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

December 21, 2017

Last Verified

December 1, 2017

More Information

Terms related to this study

Drug and device information, study documents

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product

No

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product

No

This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.

Clinical Trials on Migraine

Clinical Trials on Educational programme

3
Subscribe