Underuse of Prophylactic Treatment Among Portuguese Patients with Primary Headache: A Retrospective Observational Study

Aims: To evaluate prescription of prophylactic treatment before and after consultation in a neurology headache clinic and to determine predictors for prophylactic treatment and clinical improvement. Methods: Clinical records of consecutive patients assessed in a neurologic headache clinic in Portugal and diagnosed with acute or chronic migraine and/or tension-type headache were assessed. Prescription of prophylaxis before and after the first visit to the clinic were compared. Logistic regression was used to evaluate predictors of the need for therapeutic intervention and clinical improvement. Results: Among 409 patients (86.8% women; mean age 41.6 years), 315 (77%) had indication for prophylaxis, and 70 (22%) of these patients were already on prophylactic treatment. Among the 265 patients with information for follow-up, prophylactic treatment was added in 178 (67.2%), and there was a significant change in the number of treated patients between the first and second visits. Ongoing treatment was switched or the dose increased in 21 patients. Multivariate logistic regression revealed that women (odds ratio [OR] = 2.09, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.1 to 3.97] and patients with medication overuse headache (MOH) (OR = 6.97, 95% CI 1.60 to 30.39) were more likely to need therapeutic intervention, whereas patients referred from the emergency room were less likely to need it (OR = 0.44, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.89). Of the 265 patients, 185 (69.8%) had improved at a follow-up. Having prophylactic treatment at the time of the second visit was associated with improvement (OR = 2.39, 95% CI 1.23 to 4.63; P = .01). Conclusion: Women and medication overuse headache patients were more likely to need therapeutic intervention. However, only a minority of patients with treatment indication were treated before their first visit to the headache clinic. Prophylaxis prescription was associated with clinical improvement at follow-up.

chronic headache;headache;migraine;outpatient clinic;prophylaxis;referrals

1. GBD 2015 DALYs and HALE Collaborators. Global, regional, and national disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) for 315 dis- eases and injuries and healthy life expectancy (HALE), 1990– 2015: A systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2015. Lancet 2016;388:1603–1658.

2. GBD 2015 Neurological Disorders Collaborator Group. Global, regional, and national burden of neurological disor- ders during 1990–2015: A systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2015. Lancet Neurol 2017;16: 877–897.

3. Steiner T, Stovner LJ, Vos T. GBD 2015: Migraine is the third cause of disability in under 50s. J Headache Pain 2016;17:104.

4. Burton WN, Landy SH, Downs KE, Runken MC. The impact of migraine and the effect of migraine treatment on workplace productivity in the United States and suggestions for future re- search. Mayo Clin Proc 2009;84:436–445.

5. Lipton RB, Bigal ME, Diamond M, et al. Migraine preva- lence, disease burden, and the need for preventive therapy. Neurology 2007;68:343–349.

6. Pedraza MI, Mulero P, Ruíz M, de la Cruz C, Herrero S, Guerrero AL. Characteristics of the first 2000 patients registered in a specialist headache clinic. Neurologia 2015;30:208–213.

7. Herrero-Velazquez S, Pedraza MI, Ruiz-Pinero M, et al. Referrals from primary care to a dedicated headache clinic: Analysis of the first 1000 patients [in Spanish]. Rev Neurol 2014;58:487–492.

8. Jelinski SE, Becker WJ, Christie SN, et al. Clinical features and pharmacological treatment of migraine patients referred to headache specialists in Canada. Cephalalgia 2006;26: 578–588.

9. Ferrari A, Pasciullo G, Savino G, et al. Headache treatment be- fore and after the consultation of a specialized centre: A phar- macoepidemiology study. Cephalalgia 2004;24:356–362.

10. Cevoli S, D’Amico D, Martelletti P, et al. Underdiagnosis and undertreatment of migraine in Italy: A survey of patients attend- ing for the first time 10 headache centres. Cephalalgia 2009; 29:1285–1293.

11. Lipton RB, Bigal ME, Diamond M, et al. Migraine preva- lence, disease burden, and the need for preventive therapy. Neurology 2007;68:343–349.

12. de Almeida Simões J, Augusto GF, Fronteira I, Hernandez- Quevedo C. Portugal: Health System Review. Health Syst Transit 2017;19:1–184.

13. MacGregor E, Brandes J, Eikermann A, Giammarco R. Impact of migraine on patients and their families: The Migraine and Zolmitriptan Evaluation (MAZE) survey—Phase III. Curr Med Res Opin 2004;20:1143–1150.

14. Headache Classification Committee of the International HeadacheSociety(IHS).InternationalClassificationofHeadache Disorders, 3rd edition (beta version). Cephalalgia 2013;33: 629–808.

15. Steiner TJ, Paemeleire K, Jensen R, et al. European principles of management of common headache disorders in primary care. J Headache Pain 2007;8(suppl 1):s3–s47. 16. Minen MT, Loder E, Tishler L, Silbersweig D. Migraine diagno- sis and treatment: A knowledge and needs assessment among primary care providers. Cephalalgia 2016;36:358–370.

17. Stewart WF, Lipton RB, Celentano DD, Reed ML. Prevalence of migraine headache in the United States. Relation to age, income, race, and other sociodemographic factors. JAMA 1992;267:64–69.

18. Gesztelyi G, Bereczki D. Primary headaches in an outpa- tient neurology headache clinic in East Hungary. Eur J Neurol 2004;11:389–395.

19. Kozak S, Gantenbein AR, Isler H, et al. Nosology and treatment of primary headache in a Swiss headache clinic. J Headache Pain 2005;6:121–127.

20. Gantenbein AR, Kozak S, Agosti F, Agosti R, Isler H. Headache patients in primary care and a tertiary care unit inZürich, Switzerland. Cephalalgia 2006;26:1451–1457.