PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

A Dowson

Publications and source records attributed to A Dowson.

16 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2006

Familial risk of migraine: variation by proband age at onset and headache severity.

BACKGROUND: It is well established that migraine aggregates within families. Less is known about the influence of proband characteristics (e.g., age at onset, headache severity) on familial aggregation. OBJECTIVE: To examine the association between the proband's migraine severity and age at migraine onset and familial aggregation of migraine. METHODS: The authors investigated the migraine prevalence in first-degree relatives of 532 persons with migraine and control subjects in a population study. Familial aggregation was expressed as the risk of migraine in family members of probands divided by risk in control family members. RESULTS: The relative risk (RR) of migraine in first-degree relatives of migraine probands was elevated compared with family members of controls (RR = 1.88; 95% CI: 1.30 to 2.72). The RR was also significantly higher for relatives of probands reporting onset of migraine before age 16 (2.50; 95% CI: 1.65 to 3.79) compared with those with onset at age 16 or older (1.44; 95% CI: 0.93 to 2.23). Among probands with very severe average pain scores (i.e., 9 to 10 on a 0 to 10 scale), the RR of migraine in family members was 2.38 (95% CI: 1.56 to 3.62) compared with 1.52 (0.99 to 2.34) for less severe pain (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Early onset of migraine in the proband as well as the severity of migraines are associated with higher levels of family aggregation.

Adult↗
PubMed2006

Improved migraine management in primary care: results of a patient treatment experience study using zolmitriptan orally disintegrating tablet.

The 'Zomig Appropriate for Primary care' programme was developed to address the needs of primary care physicians (PCPs) to improve migraine management. As part of the programme, an international, open-label, 6-month clinical study was performed. The study included new and tangible outcome variables relevant to PCPs and recruited patients presenting in primary care with an established migraine diagnosis. Patients treated up to three migraine attacks per month with zolmitriptan orally disintegrating tablet (ODT) 2.5 mg. All other migraine attacks occurring during the study period were treated with the patient's usual migraine medication (including other triptans). Questionnaires were used to record patient treatment experiences at the study end. The primary end-point was the proportion of patients wanting to continue using zolmitriptan ODT. Some 595 patients treated 7171 migraine attacks with zolmitriptan ODT. Of the 504 patients who completed the 6-month questionnaire, 380 (75.4%) wished to continue using zolmitriptan ODT. The results of the study indicate that patient-orientated end-points are more motivational and meaningful to physicians than traditional end-points used in controlled clinical trials, allowing them to make informed decisions regarding migraine management.

Administration, Oral↗
PubMed2005

Are investigations anxiolytic or anxiogenic? A randomised controlled trial of neuroimaging to provide reassurance in chronic daily headache.

OBJECTIVES: Aims were to investigate (a) whether neuroimaging in patients with chronic daily headache reassures patients or fails to reassure them and/or worsens outcome, impacting on service use, costs, health anxieties, and symptoms, and (b) whether this reassurance process occurs differentially in patients with different levels of psychological morbidity. METHODS DESIGN: randomised controlled trial; setting: headache clinic in secondary care, South London; participants: 150 patients fulfilling criteria for chronic daily headache, stratified using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS); intervention: treatment as usual or the offer of an MRI brain scan; main outcome measures: use of services, costs, and health anxiety. RESULTS: Seventy six patients were randomised to the offer of a brain scan and 74 patients to treatment as usual. One hundred and thirty seven (91%) primary care case notes were examined at 1 year, 103 (69%) patients completed questionnaires at 3 months and 96 (64%) at 1 year. Sixty six (44%) patients were HADS positive (scored >11 on either subscale). Patients offered a scan were less worried about a serious cause of the headaches at 3 months (p = 0.004), but this was not maintained at 1 year; other health anxiety measures did not differ by scan status. However, at 1 year HADS positive patients offered a scan cost significantly less, by 465 pounds Sterling (95% confidence interval (CI): -1028 pounds Sterling to -104 pounds Sterling), than such patients not offered a scan, due to lower utilisation of medical resources. CONCLUSIONS: Neuroimaging significantly reduces costs for patients with high levels of psychiatric morbidity, possibly by changing subsequent referral patterns of the general practitioner.

Adult↗
PubMed2003

A six-item short-form survey for measuring headache impact: the HIT-6.

BACKGROUND: Migraine and other severe headaches can cause suffering and reduce functioning and productivity. Patients are the best source of information about such impact. OBJECTIVE: To develop a new short form (HIT-6) for assessing the impact of headaches that has broad content coverage but is brief as well as reliable and valid enough to use in screening and monitoring patients in clinical research and practice. METHODS: HIT-6 items were selected from an existing item pool of 54 items and from 35 items suggested by clinicians. Items were selected and modified based on content validity, item response theory (IRT) information functions, item internal consistency, distributions of scores, clinical validity, and linguistic analyses. The HIT-6 was evaluated in an Internet-based survey of headache sufferers (n = 1103) who were members of America Online (AOL). After 14 days, 540 participated in a follow-up survey. RESULTS: HIT-6 covers six content categories represented in widely used surveys of headache impact. Internal consistency, alternate forms, and test-retest reliability estimates of HIT-6 were 0.89, 0.90, and 0.80, respectively. Individual patient score confidence intervals (95%) of app. +/-5 were observed for 88% of all respondents. In tests of validity in discriminating across diagnostic and headache severity groups, relative validity (RV) coefficients of 0.82 and 1.00 were observed for HIT-6, in comparison with the Total Score. Patient-level classifications based in HIT-6 were accurate 88.7% of the time at the recommended cut-off score for a probability of migraine diagnosis. HIT-6 was responsive to self-reported changes in headache impact. CONCLUSIONS: The IRT model estimated for a 'pool' of items from widely used measures of headache impact was useful in constructing an efficient, reliable, and valid 'static' short form (HIT-6) for use in screening and monitoring patient outcomes.

Adult↗
PubMed2003

Migraine headache disability and health-related quality-of-life: a population-based case-control study from England.

The aims of this study were: (i) to compare health-related quality of life (HRQoL) as measured by the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 36-Item Health Survey (SF-36) in a population sample of migraine headache sufferers and controls without migraine; (ii) to assess the relationship of HRQoL and work-related disability attributed to headache in a population sample. The study was conducted in two phases. First, a population-based, telephone interview survey of 5769 residents of greater London, England was conducted to identify individuals with migraine headache (cases) and controls without migraine. In the second stage, in-person interviews were conducted in a matched sample of 200 migraine cases and 200 controls selected from survey respondents. At the beginning of the in-person interview, participants were asked to complete the SF-36. In addition, a work-related disability score based on the telephone interview was defined as the number of lost work days or days when usual activity was reduced by 50% or more over the previous year. The disability score was trichotomized as mild (n = 98), moderate (n = 49), and severe disability (n = 49). Compared with controls, individuals with migraine headache scored significantly lower in eight of the nine domains of the SF-36 as well as in the overall Physical Component Summary (PCS) score and Mental Component Summary (MCS) score. Further, among migraine sufferers, each of the disability groups scored significantly lower in seven of the nine domains and in the summary scales. Scores showed greater reductions in HRQoL for the moderate and severe disability groups vs. the mild disability group in five of nine scales and in the Total Physical Summary score. We conclude that, in a population-based sample of migraine headache sufferers, individuals with migraine headache have lower HRQoL scores compared with controls. Moreover, among individuals with migraine headache, work-related disability is associated with lower HRQoL scores. Specifically, individuals classified with moderate to severe work-related disability had lower HRQoL scores than those classified with low disability.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2003

Patients' decision-making for migraine and chronic daily headache management. A qualitative study.

The objective of this study was to gain insight into the patients' decision-making for migraine and chronic daily headache management. Patients were recruited by theoretical sampling in Surrey (UK). Semi-structured and tape-recorded interviews (n = 13) were conducted, transcribed verbatim, coded and analysed according to the grounded theory methodology. Thirteen patients (8 migraine and 5 chronic daily headache) described their management. All patients employed multiple behaviours to manage their headaches. From the patients' descriptions emerged their decision-making. Based on experience, perceptions and new information, the decision-making process involved four stages: headache severity, evaluation, decision making and behaviours. Although the participants were passive with regards to certain management strategies, overall they were actively involved in treating and preventing their headaches. Furthermore, they were active decision-makers in choosing appropriate management. Migraine and chronic daily headache patients are actively involved in managing their headaches. They are key decision-makers and should not be overlooked as a resource for effective management.

Adult↗
PubMed2002

Usage of triptans among migraine patients: an audit in nine GP practices.

A retrospective audit was carried out to investigate triptan usage over a period of one year among 360 adult patients with migraine in nine GP practices in the UK and the Republic of Ireland. Data from patient records were analysed, in conjunction with replies to a questionnaire about patients' perceptions of their migraine and its treatment. The majority of patients included in the audit were women (83%), and most patients (81%) were aged between 35 and 64 years. Most patients in the audit population (60%) were in the lowest band of triptan usage (1-36 tablets prescribed over 12 months); 7% had moderate usage (37-53 tablets). A minority of patients appeared to be taking triptans in higher quantities: about 15% of patients had been prescribed 54-94 triptan tablets over a year, 9% had received prescriptions for 95-149 tablets and 7% had received prescriptions for 150 or more tablets. These results indicated that some migraine patients were using triptans at higher than expected rates, and suggested that some patients might have been using their prescribed triptans inappropriately to treat a headache that they incorrectly perceived as migraine (e.g. chronic daily headache). Analyses were carried out to identify predictors of high usage. Predictors identified included the use of several other (non-triptan) medications to treat conditions other than migraine, one triptan dose being reported as sufficient to treat an attack, patient's perception of all headaches as migraine and lack of concern about taking too much medication. Patients identified as using triptans at a higher than expected rate can be called in for review of migraine diagnosis, identification of possible causes of any increased frequency of attacks, and investigation of suspected non-migrainous headaches, such as chronic daily headache and medication-induced headaches. For GPs, such actions would help achieve and maintain a high standard of care for their migraine patients, thus helping to contribute towards meeting the demands of the clinical governance agenda. Audit of triptan usage may also offer financial benefits for the practice, since helping patients to avoid the inappropriate use of triptans could lead to reductions in the overall costs of triptan prescribing within the practice. The high usage predictors could be developed into a checklist of potential indicators for GPs to identify patients who may become high users if prescribed triptans and who might require closer monitoring. We recommend that patients identified as having a potential for high usage should be routinely reviewed, every 3-6 months, to ensure that they are using triptans appropriately to treat migraine. Although triptans are generally safe and well tolerated, unnecessary use of any medication should be avoided.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2002

Management by nurses of primary headache: a pilot study.

Primary headache is a very common condition and one that nurses encounter in many different care settings. Yet there is a lack of evidence as to whether advice given to sufferers is effective and what improvements may be expected in the condition. The aim of this study was to evaluate the advice given by a nurse to primary headache sufferers. The design was quasi-experimental. An experimental group (n = 19) and a control group (n = 25) of primary headache sufferers had their headache parameters of frequency, severity duration and disability (Migraine Disability Assessment) over the previous six months assessed. The experimental group then received advice in the form of health education from a nurse. Both groups kept a headache diary for six months. After six months both groups had their headache parameters assessed again. Compared to the control group, there was a significant reduction in the severity of headaches experienced by the experimental group (p = 0.006). Although there were reductions in frequency and duration of headaches experienced by the experimental group compared to the control group, these were not significant (p = 0.664 and p = 0.235, respectively). The Migraine Disability Assessment showed a trend towards reduced scores in the experimental group compared to controls which were not significant (p = 0.535). This pilot study suggests that health education can be effective in reducing the severity of headaches. However, a larger study over a longer period is needed to evaluate improvements in headache parameters.

Adult↗
PubMed2000

The wavelength of light causing photophobia in migraine and tension-type headache between attacks.

OBJECTIVE: To ascertain the wavelength of light that patients with migraine and tension-type headache find uncomfortable between attacks. BACKGROUND: Photophobia is an abnormal perceptual sensitivity to light experienced by most patients with headache during and, also, between attacks. METHODS: We examined the discomfort threshold to light of low, medium, and high wavelengths in a group of patients with migraine (n=21), patients with tension-type headache (n=19), and healthy controls (n=21). RESULTS: The results indicate that the migraine group had significantly lower discomfort thresholds at the low (P=.001) and high (P=.031) wavelengths compared with both the tension-type headache and control groups; the latter two groups had similar average discomfort levels at these two wavelengths. With the medium wavelength, the control group had significantly higher discomfort thresholds than the migraine (P=.002) and tension-type headache (P=.031) groups; the latter two groups had similar discomfort levels at this wavelength. With unfiltered (white) light, the migraine group had the lowest discomfort threshold and the control group the highest (P=.026), whereas the tension-type headache group had an intermediate discomfort threshold. CONCLUSIONS: There were significant differences between migraineurs, patients with tension-type headache, and healthy controls in the wavelengths that are uncomfortable between attacks.

Adult↗
PubMed2000

Comparison of a fixed combination of domperidone and paracetamol (Domperamol) with sumatriptan 50 mg in moderate to severe migraine: a randomised UK primary care study.

Migraine is a common and debilitating condition routinely managed in primary care. A number of treatment options--both acute and prophylactic--are currently available but may differ in terms of efficacy, tolerability and cost. The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness and tolerability of a fixed combination of domperidone and paracetamol (Domperamol; Servier), which has anti-nauseant and anti-emetic activity, with sumatriptan 50 mg in moderate to severe migraine. To do this, 120 patients were recruited from 23 primary care practices throughout the UK and were enrolled into the six-month trial. Patients were randomised at entry to one of the comparator regimens (used to treat their first migraine attack) and then crossed over to the alternative treatment for their second attack. Detailed diary cards were completed for each attack using a scale of pain severity. At two hours and four hours post-dose, the two treatments showed comparable efficacy (< or = 15% difference) in relieving headache and reducing nausea and vomiting. Both were well tolerated and there were no serious adverse effects. In the management of migraine patients typically seen in routine general practice, this trial showed that the effects of Domperamol and sumatriptan 50 mg were broadly comparable. Since Domperamol is considerably less expensive than sumatriptan (and other triptans), a first-line role for this agent appears appropriate.

Acetaminophen↗
PubMed1999

An international study to assess reliability of the Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) score.

BACKGROUND: The Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) instrument is a five-item questionnaire developed to measure headache-related disability and improve doctor-patient communication about the functional consequences of migraine. OBJECTIVES: To examine the test-retest reliability and internal consistency of the five items and of the overall MIDAS score in population-based samples of migraine sufferers in two countries and to compare consistency across countries. METHODS: Using a clinically validated telephone interview, population-based samples of migraine-headache sufferers were identified in the United States (Baltimore, MD) and the United Kingdom (Merton and Sutton, Surrey). Eligible individuals completed the MIDAS questionnaire on two occasions an average of 3 weeks apart. The MIDAS score is derived from five questions about missed time from work and household work (one question each about missed days and days with at least 50% reduced productivity) and missed days of nonwork activities. RESULTS: A total of 97 migraine-headache sufferers from the United States and 100 from the United Kingdom completed the MIDAS questionnaire twice. Mean and median item values and overall MIDAS scores were similar between the United States and the United Kingdom. Test-retest Spearman correlations of individual items ranged from 0.46 to 0.78. No significant differences in item-specific correlations were observed between the United States and United Kingdom. The test-retest Pearson correlation of the MIDAS score (i.e., sum of lost days and reduced-effectiveness days in each domain) was 0.80 in the United States and 0.83 in the United Kingdom. The Cronbach alpha, a measure of internal consistency, was 0.76 in the United States and 0.73 in the United Kingdom. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first international population-based study to assess the reliability of a disability-related illness severity score for migraine. The reliability and internal consistency of the Migraine Disability Assessment score are similar to that of a previous questionnaire (Headache Impact Questionnaire). However, the Migraine Disability Assessment score requires fewer questions, is easier to score, and provides intuitively meaningful information on lost days of activity in three domains.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1999

The UK migraine patient survey: quality of life and treatment.

This research confirms that a majority of migraine sufferers in the UK acknowledge an incidence, frequency and symptomatology that have a significant effect on quality of life (both activity-based and on personal relationships); despite this, a significant proportion self-medicate with unsuitable and ineffective agents owing to the low level of efficacy and general lack of satisfaction with recommended and prescribed therapies. 50,000 migraineurs (sample derived from the Consumer Research Bureau) in the UK were invited to self-complete a questionnaire (during Q2-Q3, 1998). 9770 questionnaires were included in the analysis. With the advent of improved diagnosis and medications, the present study was undertaken to assess the impact and severity of migraine on the normal activities, attitudes and relationships of known migraineurs. The efficacy and control achieved by a range of therapeutic interventions were also considered. In order to identify the headache characteristics of this self-selected migraine patient population, diagnosis was confirmed by information relating to quality of headache (frequency, duration and symptomatology); the extent of restrictions on specific daily activities was also used to provide severity characteristics. A majority believed that they could not control their migraine and a significant proportion believed that migraine controlled their day-to-day life. Despite this, sufferers may not consult general practitioners (GPs) owing to previous experience, expectations of inadequate therapeutic intervention and/or perceived lack of physician empathy. This study is both opinion-based and awareness-based, and confirms known statistics while also providing further clarification on the overall effect of migraine on associated emotional and physical relationships, and on migraineurs' use and opinion of a range of available medications.

Adult↗
PubMed1997

Photophobia and phonophobia in migraineurs between attacks.

This study investigated whether migraineurs are more sensitive to light and sound while headache-free than are healthy people. Fifty-two migraineurs (mean age 39 years) were selected using the International Headache Society diagnostic criteria for migraine. Forty-eight healthy controls were matched for age, sex, and race (mean age 36 years). Visual and auditory discomfort thresholds were measured by exposing subjects to increasing light and sound until they complained of discomfort. There were significant differences between groups in both the light discomfort threshold (P < 0.00005) and the hearing discomfort threshold (P < 0.0005). The thresholds for both were lower in the migraineurs. Overall, for both groups together, there was a significant negative correlation between light discomfort threshold and age (correlation coefficient -0.2276, P = 0.011), but not for the hearing discomfort threshold and age (P = 0.275). The results show that the migraineurs were significantly more sensitive to light and sound when headache-free than were healthy controls. The apparent increased intolerance to light in both groups together noted with increased age, did not apply to the migraine group.

Adult↗
PubMed1996

Can oral 311C90, a novel 5-HT1D agonist, prevent migraine headache when taken during an aura?

The purpose of this pilot study was to determine whether 20 mg oral 311C90 can prevent the development of migraine headache when taken during the aura phase of a migraine attack. The study also aimed to provide an initial safety profile for 311C90 when taken during the aura. Forty patients (31 females, 9 males) were entered into this outpatient, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 2-period crossover trial. They all almost invariably experienced a migraine headache after the aura phase. Patients treated two migraine attacks during the aura phase in a random order, one with 311C90 20 mg and the other with placebo. Efficacy assessments were recorded on standard diary cards completed by each patient. A primary response was defined as the complete absence of headache pain in the 24 hour period following administration of the first dose of study medication. Safety assessments included ECGs, laboratory tests and the recording of adverse experiences. Twenty patients completed the study by treating 2 attacks, 16 of these were fully adherent to the study protocol. Three of the 16 patients responded to 311C90 whereas all patients developed a migraine headache after taking placebo. Two patients who did not respond to 311C90 described the developing headache as being "non-migraine'. Adverse experiences reported were similar to those experienced by patients in previous studies when 311C90 was taken during a migraine headache. There were no reports of 311C90-related adverse effects on the aura. These preliminary results suggest that oral 311C90 may be of value in preventing a migraine headache and is safe when taken during the aura phase. This intriguing possibility therefore warrants further investigation possibly utilising formulations that would deliver meaningful plasma levels of drug more rapidly.

Administration, Oral↗