4.6 Article

Do psychiatric comorbidities influence headache treatment outcomes? Results of a naturalistic longitudinal treatment study

期刊

PAIN
卷 146, 期 1-2, 页码 56-64

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1016/j.pain.2009.06.019

关键词

Headache disorders; Psychiatric disorders; Depression; Anxiety; Longitudinal; Treatment outcomes

资金

  1. NINDS NIH HHS [K01 NS046582-02, K01 NS046582-05, K01 NS046582-01, K01 NS046582-04, K01 NS046582-03] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study examined if the presence of one or more psychiatric disorders influences headache treatment outcomes in patients in headache specialty treatment centers. Using a naturalistic. longitudinal design, 223 patients receiving preventive therapy for headache disorders completed 30-day daily diaries that assessed headache days/month and severity at acute therapy baseline and 6-month evaluation and also provided data on headache disability and quality of life at acute therapy baseline, preventive therapy initiation, preventive therapy adjustment, and 6-month evaluation visits. Psychiatric diagnoses were determined using the Primary Care Evaluation for Mental Disorders (PRIME MDs). Of the 223 patients, 34% (n = 76) had no psychiatric disorder, 21% (n = 46) were diagnosed with Depress ion-Only; 13% (n = 29) were diagnosed with Anxiety-Only; and 32% (n = 72) were diagnosed with Depression-and-Anxiety. Prior to initiating new preventive therapy, patients with one or more psychiatric disorders reported more frequent and disabling headaches and poorer life quality compared to patients with no psychiatric disorders. Rates of improvement in headache days/month, disability, and quality of life were significant and comparable across the four groups. Contrary to clinical wisdom, patients with psychiatric disorders respond very favorably to contemporary headache treatments administered in headache specialty treatment centers. Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of International Association for the Study of Pain.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据