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.
ClinicalTrials.gov 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.
GLOSSARY
- ANOVA=
- analysis of variance;
- CI=
- confidence interval;
- FLAIR=
- fluid-attenuated inversion recovery;
- HIT-6=
- Headache Impact Test–6;
- VAS=
- visual analogue scale
Footnotes
Go to Neurology.org for full disclosures. Funding information and disclosures deemed relevant by the authors, if any, are provided at the end of the article. The Article Processing Charge was funded by grants from Helse Nord RHF (The Northern Norway Regional Health Authority).
Supplemental data at Neurology.org
- Received October 7, 2016.
- Accepted in final form March 16, 2017.
- Copyright © 2017 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the American Academy of Neurology
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License 4.0 (CC BY-NC-ND), which permits downloading and sharing the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be changed in any way or used commercially without permission from the journal.
Disputes & Debates: Rapid online correspondence
REQUIREMENTS
If you are uploading a letter concerning an article:
You must have updated your disclosures within six months: http://submit.neurology.org
Your co-authors must send a completed Publishing Agreement Form to Neurology Staff (not necessary for the lead/corresponding author as the form below will suffice) before you upload your comment.
If you are responding to a comment that was written about an article you originally authored:
You (and co-authors) do not need to fill out forms or check disclosures as author forms are still valid
and apply to letter.
Submission specifications:
- Submissions must be < 200 words with < 5 references. Reference 1 must be the article on which you are commenting.
- Submissions should not have more than 5 authors. (Exception: original author replies can include all original authors of the article)
- Submit only on articles published within 6 months of issue date.
- Do not be redundant. Read any comments already posted on the article prior to submission.
- Submitted comments are subject to editing and editor review prior to posting.