4.4 Article

New daily persistent headache: Should migrainous features be incorporated?

期刊

CEPHALALGIA
卷 31, 期 15, 页码 1561-1569

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/0333102411424620

关键词

New daily persistent headache; migraine; outcome; quality of life; impact

资金

  1. Taipei Veterans General Hospital [V100C-087, VGHUST100-G7-1-1]
  2. NSC [NSC 99-2911-I-008-100]
  3. Ministry of Education (Aim for the Top University Plan), Taiwan

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: International Classification of Headache Disorders (ICHD-2) criteria for new daily persistent headache (NDPH) require tension-type headache features. Many patients with 'new-onset persistent' headache fail to fulfil such criteria due to prominent migrainous features. Subjects and methods: We reviewed all NDPH patients in our headache clinic, using the definition of persistent headache < 3 days after onset for > 3 months. The patients were dichotomised: patients meeting ICHD-2 criteria (NDPH-S) and patients failing to meet ICHD-2 criteria due to prominent migrainous features (NDPH-M). All patients had completed a structured intake form including demographics, headache profiles, Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), Short Form 36 (SF-36) Health Survey, and Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS). A telephone interview was conducted for follow-up. Results: A total of 92 NDPH patients were enrolled (59 (64.1%) NDPH-M, 33 (35.9%) NDPH-S). Between the two subgroups, the sociodemographics were indistinguishable, but the patients with NDPH-M had higher headache intensity, BDI scores, MIDAS scores, and lower scores of most SF-36 subscales. After an average of 2 years of follow-up, 57 (66%) had a good outcome (>= 50% reduction in headache frequency). Cox proportional analysis showed that disease duration <= 6 months and NDPH-S diagnosis predicted good outcomes. Conclusion: Migrainous features were common in patients with NDPH. Unlike prior studies, our study showed NDPH-M represented a more severe subgroup with a poorer outcome compared with NDPH-S.

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

4.4
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