Outcome measures for assessing the effectiveness of non-pharmacological interventions in frequent episodic or chronic migraine: a Delphi study

Kerstin Luedtke, Annika Basener, Stephanie Bedei, Rene Castien, Aleksander Chaibi, Deborah Falla, Cesar Fernández-de-Las-Peñas, Mirja Gustafsson, Toby Hall, Gwen Jull, Peter Kropp, Bjarne K Madsen, Benjamin Schaefer, Elizabeth Seng, Claudia Steen, Peter Tuchin, Harry von Piekartz, Bettina Wollesen, Kerstin Luedtke, Annika Basener, Stephanie Bedei, Rene Castien, Aleksander Chaibi, Deborah Falla, Cesar Fernández-de-Las-Peñas, Mirja Gustafsson, Toby Hall, Gwen Jull, Peter Kropp, Bjarne K Madsen, Benjamin Schaefer, Elizabeth Seng, Claudia Steen, Peter Tuchin, Harry von Piekartz, Bettina Wollesen

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of this Delphi survey was to establish an international consensus on the most useful outcome measures for research on the effectiveness of non-pharmacological interventions for migraine. This is important, since guidelines for pharmacological trials recommend measuring the frequency of headaches with 50% reduction considered a clinically meaningful effect. It is unclear whether the same recommendations apply to complementary (or adjunct) non-pharmacological approaches, whether the same cut-off levels need to be considered for effectiveness when used as an adjunct or stand-alone intervention, and what is meaningful to patients.

Setting: University-initiated international survey.

Participants: The expert panel was chosen based on publications on non-pharmacological interventions in migraine populations and from personal contacts. 35 eligible researchers were contacted, 12 agreed to participate and 10 completed all 3 rounds of the survey. To further explore how migraine patients viewed potential outcome measures, four migraine patients were interviewed and presented with the same measurement tools as the researchers.

Procedures: The initial Delphi round was based on a systematic search of the literature for outcome measures used in non-pharmacological interventions for headache. Suggested outcome measures were rated by each expert, blinded towards the other members of the panel, for its usefulness on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from definitely not useful to extremely useful. Results were combined using median values and IQRs. Tools rated overall as definitely or probably not useful were excluded from subsequent rounds. Experts further suggested additional outcome measures that were presented to the panel in subsequent rounds. Additionally, experts were asked to rank the most useful tools and provide information on feasible cut-off levels for effectiveness for the three highest ranked tools.

Results: Results suggest the use of the Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS), Headache Impact Test (HIT-6) and headache frequency as primary outcome measures. Patient experts suggested the inclusion of a measure of quality of life and evaluation of associated symptoms and fear of attacks.

Conclusions: Recommendations are for the use of the MIDAS, the HIT-6 and headache frequency, in combination with an outcome measure for quality of life. Associated symptoms and fear of attacks should also be considered as secondary outcomes, if relevant for the individual target population. The cut-off level for effectiveness should be lower for non-pharmacological interventions, especially when used as an adjunct to medication.

Trial registration number: German Register of Clinical Trials (DRKS00011777).

Keywords: consensus; evaluation; headache; migraine; research.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: None declared.

© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Results from the initial survey round. HDI, Henry Ford disability index; HIT-6, Headache impact test; McGill, McGill Pain Questionnaire; MIDAS, Migraine Disability Assessment Scale; NRS, Numerical Rating Scale; PDI, Pain Disability Index; SF-36, Short Form 36.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Results from the second survey round. BPI, Brief Pain Inventory; CF_PDI, Craniofacial Pain and Disability Inventory; FDI, Functional Disability Inventory; FKMS, Fragebogen zu Kopfschmerzmanagement und Selbstwirksamkeit; MSQ, Migraine Specific Quality of Life; RoKoKo, Rostocker Kopfschmerz-Fragenkomplex; VR-12, Veterans RAND 12 Item Health Survey.

References

    1. Smitherman TA, Burch R, Sheikh H, et al. . The prevalence, impact, and treatment of migraine and severe headaches in the United States: a review of statistics from national surveillance studies. Headache 2013;53:427–36. 10.1111/head.12074
    1. Lyngberg AC, Rasmussen BK, Jørgensen T, et al. . Has the prevalence of migraine and tension-type headache changed over a 12-year period? A Danish population survey. Eur J Epidemiol 2005;20:243–9. 10.1007/s10654-004-6519-2
    1. Raggi A, Leonardi M, Bussone G, et al. . A 3-month analysis of disability, quality of life, and disease course in patients with migraine. Headache 2013;53:297–309. 10.1111/j.1526-4610.2012.02279.x
    1. Berg J, Stovner LJ. Cost of migraine and other headaches in Europe. Eur J Neurol 2005;12 Suppl 1:59–62. 10.1111/j.1468-1331.2005.01192.x
    1. Bloudek LM, Stokes M, Buse DC, et al. . Cost of healthcare for patients with migraine in five European countries: results from the International burden of migraine study (IBMS). J Headache Pain 2012;13:361–78. 10.1007/s10194-012-0460-7
    1. Burton WN, Conti DJ, Chen C-Y, et al. . The economic burden of lost productivity due to migraine headache: a specific worksite analysis. J Occup Environ Med 2002;44:523–9. 10.1097/00043764-200206000-00013
    1. Lanteri-Minet M. Economic burden and costs of chronic migraine. Curr Pain Headache Rep 2014;18:385 10.1007/s11916-013-0385-0
    1. Pradalier A, Auray J-P, El Hasnaoui A, et al. . Economic impact of migraine and other episodic headaches in France: data from the GRIM2000 study. Pharmacoeconomics 2004;22:985–99. 10.2165/00019053-200422150-00003
    1. Steiner TJ, Stovner LJ, Katsarava Z, et al. . The impact of headache in Europe: principal results of the Eurolight project. J Headache Pain 2014;15:31 10.1186/1129-2377-15-31
    1. International Headache Society Headache classification Committee of the International headache Society (IHS) the International classification of headache disorders, 3rd edition. Cephalalgia 2018;38:1–211. 10.1177/0333102417738202
    1. Pryse-Phillips WE, Dodick DW, Edmeads JG, et al. . Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of migraine in clinical practice. Canadian headache Society. CMAJ 1997;156:1273–87.
    1. Pryse-Phillips WE, Dodick DW, Edmeads JG, et al. . Guidelines for the nonpharmacologic management of migraine in clinical practice. Canadian headache Society. CMAJ 1998;159:47–54.
    1. Pringsheim T, Davenport WJ, Mackie G, et al. . Canadian headache Society guideline for migraine prophylaxis. Can J Neurol Sci J Can Sci Neurol 2012;39:S1–59.
    1. AWMF , 2014. Available:
    1. Mauskop A, Holland S, Silberstein SD. Evidence-Based guideline update: NSAIDs and other complementary treatments for episodic migraine prevention in adults: report of the Quality Standards Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology and the American headache Society. Neurology 2013;80:868–9. 10.1212/WNL.0b013e318287d94b
    1. Silberstein SD, Rosenberg J. Multispecialty consensus on diagnosis and treatment of headache. Neurology 2000;54:1553 10.1212/WNL.54.8.1553
    1. Gaul C, Eismann R, Schmidt T, et al. . Use of complementary and alternative medicine in patients suffering from primary headache disorders. Cephalalgia 2009;29:1069–78. 10.1111/j.1468-2982.2009.01841.x
    1. Gaul C, Schmidt T, Czaja E, et al. . Attitudes towards complementary and alternative medicine in chronic pain syndromes: a questionnaire-based comparison between primary headache and low back pain. BMC Complement Altern Med 2011;11:89 10.1186/1472-6882-11-89
    1. Diener H-C, Charles A, Goadsby PJ, et al. . New therapeutic approaches for the prevention and treatment of migraine. Lancet Neurol 2015;14:1010–22. 10.1016/S1474-4422(15)00198-2
    1. Schulte LH, May A. Headache research in 2014: advancing migraine therapy. Lancet Neurol 2015;14:6–7. 10.1016/S1474-4422(14)70295-9
    1. Chaibi A, Russell MB. Manual therapies for primary chronic headaches: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. J Headache Pain 2014;15:67 10.1186/1129-2377-15-67
    1. Luedtke K, Allers A, Schulte LH, et al. . Efficacy of interventions used by physiotherapists for patients with headache and migraine—systematic review and meta-analysis. Cephalalgia 2016;36:474–92. 10.1177/0333102415597889
    1. Silberstein S, Tfelt-Hansen P, Dodick DW, et al. . Guidelines for controlled trials of prophylactic treatment of chronic migraine in adults. Cephalalgia 2008;28:484–95. 10.1111/j.1468-2982.2008.01555.x
    1. Penzien DB, Andrasik F, Freidenberg BM, et al. . Guidelines for trials of behavioral treatments for recurrent headache, first edition: American headache Society behavioral clinical trials Workgroup. Headache 2005;45:S110–32. 10.1111/j.1526-4610.2005.4502004.x
    1. Hasson F, Keeney S, McKenna H. Research guidelines for the Delphi survey technique. J Adv Nurs 2000;32:1008–15.
    1. Luedtke K, Boissonnault W, Caspersen N, et al. . International consensus on the most useful physical examination tests used by physiotherapists for patients with headache: a Delphi study. Man Ther 2016;23:17–24. 10.1016/j.math.2016.02.010
    1. Hsu and Sandford The Delphi technique: making sense of consensus. Pract Assess Res Eval 2007;12:1–8.
    1. Askham J, Marteau T, et al. . Consensus development methods, and their use in clinical Guideline development. Health Technol Assess 1998;2:1–88. 10.3310/hta2030
    1. Gibbs GR, Data AQ, Publications S, 2008. Available:
    1. Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol 2006;3:77–101. 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
    1. Zandifar A, Asgari F, Haghdoost F, et al. . Reliability and validity of the migraine disability assessment scale among migraine and tension type headache in Iranian patients. Biomed Res Int 2014;2014:1–7. 10.1155/2014/978064
    1. Ertaş M, Siva A, Dalkara T, et al. . Validity and reliability of the Turkish migraine disability assessment (MIDAS) questionnaire. Headache 2004;44:786–93. 10.1111/j.1526-4610.2004.04146.x
    1. Iigaya M, Sakai F, Kolodner KB, et al. . Reliability and validity of the Japanese migraine disability assessment (MIDAS) questionnaire. Headache 2003;43:343–52. 10.1046/j.1526-4610.2003.03069.x
    1. Magnoux E, Freeman MA, Zlotnik G. Midas and HIT-6 French translation: reliability and correlation between tests. Cephalalgia 2008;28:26–34. 10.1111/j.1468-2982.2007.01461.x
    1. Benz T, Lehmann S, Gantenbein AR, et al. . Translation, cross-cultural adaptation and reliability of the German version of the migraine disability assessment (MIDAS) questionnaire. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2018;16:42 10.1186/s12955-018-0871-5
    1. Juyal R, Verma R, Garg RK, et al. . Reliability and validity of Hindi translation of the migraine disability assessment and headache impact test-6 questionnaires. Ann Indian Acad Neurol 2010;13:276–83. 10.4103/0972-2327.74201
    1. Oikonomidi T, Vikelis M, Artemiadis A, et al. . Reliability and validity of the Greek migraine disability assessment (MIDAS) questionnaire. Pharmacoecon Open 2018;2:77–85. 10.1007/s41669-017-0034-3
    1. Stewart WF, Lipton RB, Dowson AJ, et al. . Development and testing of the migraine disability assessment (MIDAS) questionnaire to assess headache-related disability. Neurology 2001;56:S20–8. 10.1212/WNL.56.suppl_1.S20
    1. Stewart WF, Lipton RB, Kolodner KB, et al. . Validity of the migraine disability assessment (MIDAS) score in comparison to a diary-based measure in a population sample of migraine sufferers. Pain 2000;88:41–52. 10.1016/S0304-3959(00)00305-5
    1. Kawata AK, Coeytaux RR, DeVellis RF, et al. . Psychometric properties of the HIT‐6 among patients in a Headache‐Specialty practice. Headache 2005;45:638–43. 10.1111/j.1526-4610.2005.05130.x
    1. Martin M, Blaisdell B, Kwong JW, et al. . The short-form headache impact test (HIT-6) was psychometrically equivalent in nine languages. J Clin Epidemiol 2004;57:1271–8. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2004.05.004
    1. Smelt AFH, Assendelft WJJ, Terwee CB, et al. . What is a clinically relevant change on the HIT-6 questionnaire? an estimation in a primary-care population of migraine patients. Cephalalgia 2014;34:29–36. 10.1177/0333102413497599
    1. Zandifar A, Banihashemi M, Haghdoost F, et al. . Reliability and validity of the Persian HIT-6 questionnaire in migraine and tension-type headache. Pain Practice 2014;14:625–31. 10.1111/papr.12120
    1. Raggi A, Giovannetti AM, Schiavolin S, et al. . Validating the migraine-specific quality of life questionnaire v2.1 (MSQ) in Italian inpatients with chronic migraine with a history of medication overuse. Qual Life Res 2014;23:1273–7. 10.1007/s11136-013-0556-9
    1. Jhingran P, Davis SM, LaVange LM, et al. . MSQ: migraine-specific quality-of-life questionnaire. Further investigation of the factor structure. Pharmacoeconomics 1998;13:707–17. 10.2165/00019053-199813060-00007
    1. Jhingran P, Osterhaus JT, Miller DW, et al. . Development and validation of the migraine-specific quality of life questionnaire. Headache 1998;38:295–302. 10.1046/j.1526-4610.1998.3804295.x
    1. Cole JC, Lin P, Rupnow MFT. Minimal important differences in the migraine-specific quality of life questionnaire (MSQ) version 2.1. Cephalalgia 2009;29:1180–7. 10.1111/j.1468-2982.2009.01852.x
    1. Bagley CL, Rendas-Baum R, Maglinte GA, et al. . Validating migraine-specific quality of life questionnaire v2.1 in episodic and chronic migraine. Headache 2012;52:409–21. 10.1111/j.1526-4610.2011.01997.x
    1. Rendas-Baum R, Bloudek LM, Maglinte GA, et al. . The psychometric properties of the migraine-specific quality of life questionnaire version 2.1 (MSQ) in chronic migraine patients. Quality of Life Research 2013;22:1123–33. 10.1007/s11136-012-0230-7
    1. Seo J-G, Park S-P. Validation of the Korean migraine-specific quality of life questionnaire version 2.1 in episodic and chronic migraine. J Oral Facial Pain Headache 2017;31:251–6. 10.11607/ofph.1769
    1. Giannini G, Zanigni S, Grimaldi D, et al. . Cephalalgiaphobia as a feature of high-frequency migraine: a pilot study. J Headache Pain 2013;14:49 10.1186/1129-2377-14-49
    1. Wang J, Zhang B, Shen C, et al. . Headache symptoms from migraine patients with and without aura through structure-validated self-reports. BMC Neurol 2017;17:193 10.1186/s12883-017-0973-4
    1. Tfelt-Hansen P, Pascual J, Ramadan N, et al. . Guidelines for controlled trials of drugs in migraine: third edition. A guide for Investigators. Cephalalgia Int J Headache 2012;32:6–38.
    1. Chaibi A, Benth Jūratė Šaltytė, Tuchin PJ, et al. . Adverse events in a chiropractic spinal manipulative therapy single-blinded, placebo, randomized controlled trial for migraineurs. Musculoskeletal Science and Practice 2017;29:66–71. 10.1016/j.msksp.2017.03.003
    1. Probyn K, Bowers H, Mistry D, et al. . Non-Pharmacological self-management for people living with migraine or tension-type headache: a systematic review including analysis of intervention components. BMJ Open 2017;7:e016670 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-016670

Source: PubMed

Sponsorer och medarbetare

Medicinska tillstånd

Läkemedelsinterventioner

3
Prenumerera