Dataset Information

A randomized trial of telemedicine efficacy and safety for nonacute headaches.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To evaluate long-term treatment efficacy and safety of one-time telemedicine consultations for nonacute headaches.

Methods

We randomized, allocated, and consulted nonacute headache patients via telemedicine (n = 200) or in a traditional manner (n = 202) in a noninferiority trial. Efficacy endpoints, assessed by questionnaires at 3 and 12 months, included change from baseline in Headache Impact Test-6 (HIT-6) (primary endpoint) and pain intensity (visual analogue scale [VAS]) (secondary endpoint). The primary safety endpoint, assessed via patient records, was presence of secondary headache within 12 months after consultation.

Results

We found no differences between telemedicine and traditional consultations in HIT-6 (p = 0.84) or VAS (p = 0.64) over 3 periods. The absolute difference in HIT-6 from baseline was 0.3 (95% confidence interval [CI] -1.26 to 1.82, p = 0.72) at 3 months and 0.2 (95% CI -1.98 to 1.58, p = 0.83) at 12 months. The absolute change in VAS was 0.4 (95% CI -0.93 to 0.22, p = 0.23) after 3 months and 0.3 (95% CI -0.94 to 0.29, p = 0.30) at 12 months. We found one secondary headache in each group at 12 months. The estimated number of consultations needed to miss one secondary headache with the use of telemedicine was 20,200.

Conclusion

Telemedicine consultation for nonacute headache is as efficient and safe as a traditional consultation.

Clinicaltrialsgov identifier

NCT02270177.

Classification of evidence

This study provides Class III evidence that a one-time telemedicine consultation for nonacute headache is noninferior to a one-time traditional consultation regarding long-term treatment outcome and safety.

SUBMITTER: Muller KI

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5501933 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe feasibility of telemedicine in diagnosing and treating nonacute headaches, such as primary headaches (migraine and tension-type) and medication-overuse headaches has not been previously investigated. By eliminating the need of travel to specialists, telemedicine may offer significant time and money savings.ObjectivesOur objective was to estimate the acceptance of telemedicine and investigate the feasibility and cost savings of telemedicine consultations in diagnosing and treating nonacute headaches.MethodsFrom September 2012 to March 2015, nonacute headache patients from Northern Norway who were referred to neurologists through an electronic application system were consecutively screened and randomized to participate in either telemedicine or traditional specialist visits. All patients were consulted by two neurologists at the neurological department in Tromsø University Hospital. Feasibility outcomes were compared between telemedicine and traditional groups. Baseline characteristics and costs were then compared between rural and urban patients. Travel costs were calculated by using the probabilistic method of the Norwegian traveling agency: the cheapest means of public transport for each study participant. Loss of pay was calculated based on the Norwegian full-time employee's average salary: < 3.5 hours=a half day's salary, > 3.5 hours spent on travel and consultation=one day's salary. Distance and time spent on travel were estimated by using Google Maps.ResultsOf 557 headache patients screened, 479 were found eligible and 402 accepted telemedicine participation (83.9%, 402/479) and were included in the final analyses. Of these, 202 received traditional specialist consultations and 200 received telemedicine. All patients in the telemedicine group were satisfied with the video quality, and 198 (99%, 198/200) were satisfied with the sound quality. The baseline characteristics as well as headache diagnostics and follow-up appointments, and the investigation, advice, and prescription practices were not statistically different between the two randomized groups. In addition, telemedicine consultations were shorter than traditional visits (38.8 vs 43.7 min, P<.001). The travel cost per rural individual (292/402, 73%) was €249, and estimated lost income was €234 per visit. The travel cost in the urban area (110/402, 27%) was €6, and estimated lost income was €117 per visit. The median traveling distance for rural patients was 526 km (range 1892 km), and the median traveling time was 7.8 hours (range 27.3 hours). Rural patients had a longer waiting time than urban patients (64 vs 47 days, P=.001), and fewer women were referred from rural areas (P=.04). Rural women reported higher pain scores than urban women (P=.005).ConclusionOur study shows that telemedicine is an accepted, feasible, time-saving, and cost-saving alternative to traditional specialist consultations for nonacute headaches.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov NCT02270177; http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02270177 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6hmoHGo9Q).

Project description:ImportanceVasoactive intestinal polypeptide (VIP) and pituitary adenylate cyclase-activating polypeptides (PACAPs) are structurally and functionally related, yet different in their migraine-inducing properties. It remains unclear whether the lack of migraine induction can be attributed to the only transient vasodilatory response after a 20-minute infusion of VIP.ObjectiveTo determine whether a 2-hour infusion of VIP would provoke migraine attacks.Design, setting, and participantsA randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study was conducted between May and September 2020 at the Danish Headache Center in Copenhagen, Denmark. Patients were eligible for inclusion if they were ages 18 to 40 years, weighed between 50 and 90 kg, had a diagnosis of migraine without aura as defined by the International Classification of Headache Disorders, and had a migraine frequency of 1 to 6 attacks per month.InterventionsPatients were randomly allocated to receive a 2-hour infusion of VIP or placebo on 2 different days.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary end point was the difference in incidence of experimentally induced migraine attacks during the observational period (0-12 hours) between VIP and placebo.ResultsTwenty-one patients (17 [81%] women and 4 [19%] men; mean [range] age, 25.9 [19-40] years) were recruited in the study. Fifteen patients (71%; 95% CI, 48%-89%) developed migraine attacks after VIP compared with 1 patient (5%; 95% CI, 0%-24%) who developed a migraine attack after placebo (P < .001). The VIP-induced migraine attacks mimicked patients' spontaneous attacks. The area under the curve (AUC) of headache intensity scores (0-12 hours), as well as the AUC of the superficial temporal artery diameter (0-180 minute) were significantly greater after VIP compared with placebo (AUC0-12h, P = .003; AUC0-180min, P < .001).Conclusions and relevanceA 2-hour infusion of VIP caused migraine attacks, suggesting an important role of VIP in migraine pathophysiology. VIP and its receptors could be potential targets for novel migraine drugs.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04260035.