TY - JOUR

T1 - Premonitory symptoms in migraine

T2 - A REFORM Study

AU - Thuraiaiyah, Janu

AU - Ashina, Håkan

AU - Christensen, Rune H.

AU - Al-Khazali, Haidar M.

AU - Wiggers, Astrid

AU - Amin, Faisal Mohammad

AU - Steiner, Timothy J.

AU - Ashina, Messoud

PY - 2024

Y1 - 2024

N2 - BACKGROUND: Estimates of proportions of people with migraine who report premonitory symptoms vary greatly among previous studies. Our aims were to establish the proportion of patients reporting premonitory symptoms and its dependency on the enquiry method. Additionally, we investigated the impact of premonitory symptoms on disease burden using Headache Impact Test (HIT-6), Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) and World Health Organization Disability Assessment 2.0 (WHODAS 2.0), whilst investigating how various clinical factors influenced the likelihood of reporting premonitory symptoms. METHODS: In a cross-sectional study, premonitory symptoms were assessed among 632 patients with migraine. Unprompted enquiry was used first, followed by a list of 17 items (prompted). Additionally, we obtained clinical characteristics through a semi-structured interview. RESULTS: Prompted enquiry resulted in a greater proportion reporting premonitory symptoms than unprompted (69.9% vs. 43.0%; p < 0.001) and with higher symptom counts (medians 2, interquartile range = 0-6 vs. 1, interquartile range = 0-1; p < 0.001). The number of symptoms correlated weakly with HIT-6 (ρ = 0.14; p < 0.001) and WHODAS scores (ρ = 0.09; p = 0.041). Reporting postdromal symptoms or triggers increased the probability of reporting premonitory symptoms, whereas monthly migraine days decreased it. CONCLUSIONS: The use of a standardized and optimized method for assessing premonitory symptoms is necessary to estimate their prevalence and to understand whether and how they contribute to disease burden.

AB - BACKGROUND: Estimates of proportions of people with migraine who report premonitory symptoms vary greatly among previous studies. Our aims were to establish the proportion of patients reporting premonitory symptoms and its dependency on the enquiry method. Additionally, we investigated the impact of premonitory symptoms on disease burden using Headache Impact Test (HIT-6), Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) and World Health Organization Disability Assessment 2.0 (WHODAS 2.0), whilst investigating how various clinical factors influenced the likelihood of reporting premonitory symptoms. METHODS: In a cross-sectional study, premonitory symptoms were assessed among 632 patients with migraine. Unprompted enquiry was used first, followed by a list of 17 items (prompted). Additionally, we obtained clinical characteristics through a semi-structured interview. RESULTS: Prompted enquiry resulted in a greater proportion reporting premonitory symptoms than unprompted (69.9% vs. 43.0%; p < 0.001) and with higher symptom counts (medians 2, interquartile range = 0-6 vs. 1, interquartile range = 0-1; p < 0.001). The number of symptoms correlated weakly with HIT-6 (ρ = 0.14; p < 0.001) and WHODAS scores (ρ = 0.09; p = 0.041). Reporting postdromal symptoms or triggers increased the probability of reporting premonitory symptoms, whereas monthly migraine days decreased it. CONCLUSIONS: The use of a standardized and optimized method for assessing premonitory symptoms is necessary to estimate their prevalence and to understand whether and how they contribute to disease burden.

KW - Assessment method

KW - headache burden

KW - HIT-6

KW - MIDAS

KW - WHODAS

U2 - 10.1177/03331024231223979

DO - 10.1177/03331024231223979

M3 - Journal article

C2 - 38299579

AN - SCOPUS:85184119570

VL - 44

JO - Cephalalgia

JF - Cephalalgia

SN - 0800-1952

IS - 2

ER -