Walter F. Stewart

Prevalence and Burden of Migraine in the United States: Data From the American Migraine Study II

Objective.—To describe the prevalence, sociodemographic profile, and the burden of migraine in the United States in 1999 and to compare results with the original American Migraine Study, a 1989 population‐based study employing identical methods.

Migraine prevalence, disease burden, and the need for preventive therapy

Objectives: 1) To reassess the prevalence of migraine in the United States; 2) to assess patterns of migraine treatment in the population; and 3) to contrast current patterns of preventive treatment use with recommendations for use from an expert headache panel. Methods: A validated self-administered headache questionnaire was mailed to 120,000 US households, representative of the US population. Migraineurs were identified according to the criteria of the second edition of the International Classification of Headache Disorders. Guidelines for preventive medication use were developed by a panel of headache experts. Criteria for consider or offer prevention were based on headache frequency and impairment. Results: We assessed 162,576 individuals aged 12 years or older. The 1-year period prevalence for migraine was 11.7% (17.1% in women and 5.6% in men). Prevalence peaked in middle life and was lower in adolescents and those older than age 60 years. Of all migraineurs, 31.3% had an attack frequency of three or more per month, and 53.7% reported severe impairment or the need for bed rest. In total, 25.7% met criteria for “offer prevention,” and in an additional 13.1%, prevention should be considered. Just 13.0% reported current use of daily preventive migraine medication. Conclusions: Compared with previous studies, the epidemiologic profile of migraine has remained stable in the United States during the past 15 years. More than one in four migraineurs are candidates for preventive therapy, and a substantial proportion of those who might benefit from prevention do not receive it.

Risk of Alzheimer's disease and duration of NSAID use

Article abstract-In a longitudinal study of 1,686 participants in the Baltimore Longitudinal Study of Aging, we examined whether the risk of Alzheimers disease (AD) was reduced among reported users of aspirin or other nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). In addition, we examined use of acetaminophen, a pain-relief medication with little or no anti-inflammatory activity, to assess the specificity of the association between AD risk and self-reported medications. Information on use of medications was collected during each biennial examination between 1980 and 1995. The relative risk (RR) for AD decreased with increasing duration of NSAID use. Among those with 2 or more years of reported NSAID use, the RR was 0.40 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.19-0.84) compared with 0.65 (95% CI: 0.33-1.29) for those with less than 2 years of NSAID use. The overall RR for AD among aspirin users was 0.74 (95% CI: 0.46-1.18), and no trend of decreasing risk of AD was observed with increasing duration of aspirin use. No association was found between AD risk and use of acetaminophen (RR = 1.35; 95% CI: 0.79-2.30), and there was no trend of decreasing risk with increasing duration of use. These findings are consistent with evidence from cross-sectional studies indicating protection against AD risk among NSAID users and with evidence suggesting that one stage of the pathophysiology leading to AD is characterized by an inflammatory process. NEUROLOGY 1997;48: 626-632

Migraine Diagnosis and Treatment: Results From the American Migraine Study II

Objective.—A population‐based survey was conducted in 1999 to describe the patterns of migraine diagnosis and medication use in a representative sample of the US population and to compare results with a methodologically identical study conducted 10 years earlier.

Prevalence of frequent headache in a population sample.

Purpose.—Patients with daily or near‐daily headaches are commonly seen in neurology practices and in headache subspecialty centers, but there is little information on the prevalence of this condition in the general population. We present the first US‐based study describing the prevalence and characteristics of frequent headache in the general population.

Migraine in the United States Epidemiology and patterns of health care use

ObjectiveTo determine the prevalence and distribution of migraine in the United States as well as current patterns of health care use. MethodsA random-digit-dial, computer-assisted telephone interview (CATI) survey was conducted in Philadelphia County, PA, in 1998. The CATI identifies individuals with migraine (categories 1.1 and 1.2) as defined by the diagnostic criteria of the International Headache Society with high sensitivity (85%) and specificity (96%). Interviews were completed in 4,376 subjects to identify 568 with migraine. Those with 6 or more attacks per year (n = 410) were invited to participate in a follow-up interview about health care utilization and family impact of migraine; 246 (60.0%) participated. ResultsThe 1-year prevalence of migraine was 17.2% in females and 6.0% in males. Prevalence was highest between the ages of 30 and 49. Whereas 48% of migraine sufferers had seen a doctor for headache within the last year (current consulters), 31% had never done so in their lifetimes and 21% had not seen a doctor for headache for at least 1 year (lapsed consulters). Of current or lapsed consulters, 73% reported a physician-made diagnosis of migraine; treatments varied. Of all migraine sufferers, 49% were treated with over-the-counter medications only, 23% with prescription medication only, 23% with both, and 5% with no medications at all. ConclusionRelative to prior cross-sectional surveys, epidemiologic profiles for migraine have remained stable in the United States over the last decade. Self-reported rates of current medical consultation have more than doubled. Moderate increases were seen in the percentage of migraine sufferers who use prescription medications and in the likelihood of receiving a physician diagnosis of migraine.

Comorbidity of migraine and depression Investigating potential etiology and prognosis

Background: An association between migraine and major depression has been observed in clinical and community samples. The factors that contribute to this association and their implications remain unclear. Objective: To determine the factors contributing to the association of migraine and major depression. Methods: A cohort study of persons aged 25 to 55 years with migraine (n = 496) or with other headaches of comparable severity (n = 151) and control subjects with no history of severe headaches (n = 539) randomly selected from the general community were interviewed first in 1997 and then reinterviewed in 1999. Results: Major depression at baseline predicted the first-onset migraine during the 2-year follow-up period (odds ratio [OR] = 3.4; 95% CI = 1.4, 8.7) but not other severe headaches (OR = 0.6; 95% CI = 0.1, 4.6). Migraine at baseline predicted the first-onset major depression during follow-up (OR = 5.8; 95% CI = 2.7, 12.3); the prospective association from severe headaches to major depression was not significant (OR = 2.7; 95% CI = 0.9, 8.1). Comorbid major depression did not influence the frequency of migraine attacks, their persistence, or the progression of migraine-related disability over time. Conclusions: Major depression increased the risk for migraine, and migraine increased the risk for major depression. This bidirectional association, with each disorder increasing the risk for first onset of the other, was not observed in relation to other severe headaches. With respect to other severe headaches, there was no increased risk associated with pre-existing major depression, although the possibility of an influence in the reverse direction (i.e., from severe headaches to depression) cannot be securely ruled out.

Screening for dementia with the Memory Impairment Screen

Objectives: To validate a sensitive and specific screening test for AD and other dementias, assess its reliability and discriminative validity, and present normative data for its use in various applied settings. Background: To improve discrimination in screening for AD and dementia, we developed the Memory Impairment Screen (MIS), a 4-minute, four-item, delayed free- and cued-recall test of memory impairment. The MIS uses controlled learning to ensure attention, induce specific semantic processing, and optimize encoding specificity to improve detection of dementia. Methods: Equivalent forms of the MIS were given at the beginning and end of the testing session to assess alternate forms reliability. Discriminative validity was assessed in a criterion sample of 483 aged individuals, 50 of whom had dementia according to Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (3rd ed., revised) criteria. Results: The MIS had good alternate forms reliability, high construct validity for memory impairment, and good discriminative validity in terms of sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value. We present normative data for use in settings with different base rates (prevalences) of AD and dementia. Conclusion: The MIS provides efficient, reliable, and valid screening for AD and other dementias.

Acute Migraine Medications and Evolution From Episodic to Chronic Migraine: A Longitudinal Population-Based Study

Background.— Though symptomatic medication overuse is believed to play a major role in progression from episodic to chronic or transformed migraine (TM), population‐based longitudinal data on these agents are limited.

Headache and major depression Is the association specific to migraine

Objective: To examine the relationship between migraine and major depression, by estimating the risk for first-onset major depression associated with prior migraine and the risk for first migraine associated with prior major depression. We also examined the extent to which comorbidity with major depression is specific to migraine or is observed in other severe headaches. Methods: Representative samples of persons 25 to 55 years of age with migraine or other severe headaches (i.e., disabling headaches without migraine features) and controls with no history of severe headaches were identified by a telephone survey and later interviewed in person to ascertain history of common psychiatric disorders. Results: Lifetime prevalence of major depression was approximately three times higher in persons with migraine and in persons with severe headaches compared with controls. Significant bidirectional relationships were observed between major edepression and migraine, with migraine predicting first-onset depression and depression predicting first-onset migraine. In contrast, persons with severe headaches had a higher incidence of first-onset major depression (hazard ratio = 3.6), but major depression did not predict a significantly increased incidence of other severe headaches (hazard ratio = 1.6). Conclusions: The contrasting results regarding the relationship of major depression with migraine versus other severe headaches suggest that different causes may underlie the co-occurrence of major depression in persons with migraine compared with persons with other severe headaches.