Pensato Umberto, Ornello Raffaele, Rosignoli Chiara, Caponnetto Valeria, Onofri Agnese, Braschinsky Mark, Sved Olga, Gil-Gouveia Raquel, Oliveira Renato, Lampl Christian, Paungarttner Jakob, Martelletti Paolo, Wells-Gatnik William David, Martins Isabel Pavao, Mitsikostas Dimos D, Apostolakopoulou Loukia, Ozge Aynur, Narin Dilan Bayar, Pozo-Rosich Patricia, Munoz-Vendrell Albert, Prudenzano Maria Pia, Gentile Martino, Ryliskiene Kristina, Vainauskiene Jurgita, Sanchez-Del-Rio Margarita, Vernieri Fabrizio, Iaccarino Gianmarco, Waliszewska-Prosół Marta, Budrewicz Sławomir, Carnovali Marta, Katsarava Zaza, Sacco Simona
Department of Neurology, IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, via Manzoni 56, Rozzano, Milan, 20089, Italy.
Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, via Rita Levi Montalcini 4, 20072 Pieve Emanuele, Milan, Italy.
J Headache Pain. 2025 Aug 15;26(1):184. doi: 10.1186/s10194-025-02126-9.
Some individuals with migraine fail to respond adequately to preventive treatments, bearing most of migraine burden. The European Headache Federation (EHF) classifies these individuals into resistant migraine (ResM) or refractory migraine (RefM) according to treatment failures, debilitating headache days, and disease duration. We investigated the evolution of these categories over six months in patients treated at tertiary headache centers and whether they accurately reflect disability and burden.
Participants from the multicenter, prospective REFINE study were classified into three categories of treatment responsiveness, namely RefM, ResM, and non-refractory non-resistant migraine (NRNRM). The primary objective was to determine the trajectories of category changes over six months. Secondary outcomes included changes in the 6-item Headache Impact Test (HIT-6), Headache-Attributed Lost Time (HALT), and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS-A and HADS-D) scores.
Overall, 489 participants were included with a median age of 45 years (IQR = 36-53); 389 participants (79.7%) were female; 256 (52.4%) had NRNRM, 178 (36.4%) ResM, and 55 (11.2%) RefM. At follow-up, 200/256 (78.1%) NRNRM remained stable, while 56/256 (21.9%) progressed to ResM. Among those with ResM, 98/178 (55.1%) remained stable, 72/178 (40.5%) improved to NRNRM, and 8/178 (4.5%) worsened to RefM. Among participants with RefM, 37/55 (67.3%) remained stable, while 18/55 (32.7%) improved to NRNRM. Participants with RefM and ResM presented significantly higher scores at baseline than those with NRNRM. Over time, HIT-6, HALT, and HADS-A scores improved substantially in the overall cohort (p < 0.001, p < 0.001, and p = 0.006, respectively). Improvements were observed in participants with ResM across all scores and HIT-6 and HALT for NRNRM, but no improvement was noted in participants with RefM.
Over six months, ~ 40% of ResM and ~ 30% of RefM individuals improved to NRNRM, while ~ 20% of NRNRM developed treatment resistance after receiving care in tertiary headache centers. Participants with ResM had a better prognosis than those with RefM. While both ResM and RefM reflect high migraine disability burden, they might present relevant differences in their management and prognosis.
一些偏头痛患者对预防性治疗反应不佳,承担了大部分偏头痛负担。欧洲头痛联合会(EHF)根据治疗失败情况、使人衰弱的头痛天数和疾病持续时间,将这些患者分为耐药性偏头痛(ResM)或顽固性偏头痛(RefM)。我们调查了在三级头痛中心接受治疗的患者中这些分类在六个月内的演变情况,以及它们是否准确反映了残疾和负担。
多中心前瞻性REFINE研究的参与者被分为三类治疗反应性,即RefM、ResM和非顽固性非耐药性偏头痛(NRNRM)。主要目标是确定六个月内分类变化的轨迹。次要结果包括6项头痛影响测试(HIT-6)、头痛导致的误工时间(HALT)以及医院焦虑抑郁量表(HADS-A和HADS-D)评分的变化。
总体而言,纳入了489名参与者,中位年龄为45岁(四分位间距=36-53);389名参与者(79.7%)为女性;256名(52.4%)患有NRNRM,178名(36.4%)患有ResM,55名(11.2%)患有RefM。在随访时,200/256(78.1%)的NRNRM保持稳定,而56/256(21.9%)进展为ResM。在患有ResM的患者中,98/178(55.1%)保持稳定,72/178(40.5%)改善为NRNRM,8/178(4.5%)恶化为RefM。在患有RefM的参与者中,37/55(67.3%)保持稳定,而18/55(32.7%)改善为NRNRM。患有RefM和ResM的参与者在基线时的得分显著高于患有NRNRM的参与者。随着时间的推移,总体队列中的HIT-6、HALT和HADS-A得分显著改善(分别为p<0.001、p<0.001和p=0.006)。ResM患者在所有得分方面均有改善,NRNRM患者的HIT-6和HALT得分也有改善,但RefM患者未见改善。
在六个月内,约40%的ResM患者和约30%的RefM患者改善为NRNRM,而约20%的NRNRM患者在三级头痛中心接受治疗后出现治疗抵抗。ResM患者的预后优于RefM患者。虽然ResM和RefM都反映了较高的偏头痛残疾负担,但它们在管理和预后方面可能存在相关差异。