Sensitivity and specificity of the new international diagnostic criteria for migraine with aura
http://www.100md.com
《神经病学神经外科学杂志》
Danish Headache Center, University of Copenhagen, Department of Neurology, Glostrup Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark
Correspondence to:
Dr M K Eriksen
Danish Headache Center, University of Copenhagen, Department of Neurology, Glostrup Hospital, Nordre Ringvej 57, DK-2600 Glostrup, Denmark; kirchmann@dadlnet.dk
ABSTRACT
Objectives: Since 1998, migraine with aura (MA) has been diagnosed according to the operational diagnostic criteria of the International Headache Society (ICHD-1). Here we present the data underlying the new criteria for MA in the ICHD-2 classification.
Methods: Sensitivity of the new criteria was tested in patients with MA and specificity in patients with reversible non-aura visual disturbances. The diagnoses in both groups of patients were made in a validated semistructured physician-conducted interview. We tested five sets of criteria for sensitivity and specificity comparing with the diagnosis according to the ICHD-1 in 200 patients and the selected set of criteria in 274 additional patients.
Results: Four sets of criteria had sensitivity/specificity of 46%/100%, 71%/100%, 62%/95%, and 99%/76%. Sensitivity of the selected set of criteria was 84% (95% CI 79% to 90%) and specificity 97% (95% CI 95% to 99%). According to these criteria at least two of the following should be fulfilled: homonymous visual or unilateral sensory symptoms; at least one aura symptom develops gradually over 5 minutes and/or different symptoms occur in succession over 5 minutes; each symptom lasts 5 and 60 minutes. In the additional sample sensitivity of the selected criteria was 90% (95% CI 86% to 94%) and specificity 96% (95% CI 91% to 100%).
Conclusions: The diagnostic criteria for MA selected for ICHD-2 had high sensitivity and specificity. The ICHD-2 criteria are more operational and probably delineate a more homogeneous sample of patients than the ICHD-1. The ICHD-2 for MA is intended equally for research and clinical practice and can be used at different levels of specialisation.
Abbreviations: ICHD, International Classification of Headache Disorders; MA, migraine with aura
Keywords: migraine with aura; classification; diagnostic criteria
Migraine with aura (MA) has been diagnosed according to the operational diagnostic criteria of the International Headache Society since 1988 (International Classification of Headache Disorders (ICHD)-1) (table 1).1 The diagnosis of MA relies exclusively on the description of symptoms because there are no diagnostic biological markers available to confirm the diagnosis. The principles of the ICHD-1 for all primary and secondary headaches have been recognised in clinical practice2–6 and have been adopted by the World Health Organization (WHO) (ICD-10 NA).7 The ICHD-1 has been universally
Table 1 Diagnostic criteria for migraine with aura according to the International Headache Society classification, 1988 (ICHD-1)1
The ICHD-1 criteria for MA were mostly based on expert opinion due to the scarcity of empirical studies.8 During the work on the second edition of the ICHD (ICHD-2)9 it appeared that the ICHD-1 criteria for MA were difficult to understand and did not describe the aura in detail. Therefore, the reliability of the diagnosis of aura could very likely be improved. Furthermore, the ICHD-1 for MA had a major error as patients could be diagnosed as having MA according to the criteria without fulfilling the criterion for presence of any typical symptom of aura.
For several years our group has collected data on patients with MA diagnosed according to the ICHD-1 criteria for genetic studies. Validated, semistructured telephone interviews were conducted by a trained physician and generated detailed data on the migraine aura. Part of these data were used in a preliminary search for diagnostic criteria for MA with an optimal combination of sensitivity and specificity, and the selected criteria were included in the ICHD-2 (table 2). In the present study we present the sensitivity, specificity, and likelihood ratios for the new criteria for MA compared with the old criteria using a larger sample of patients than previously. We calculated all relevant parameters in two large independent samples—that is, the sample used in the preliminary search for reliable MA criteria for the ICHD-2 plus an additional sample used for validation of the criteria.
Table 2 Diagnostic criteria for migraine with typical aura according to the International Classification of Headache Disorders Second Edition (ICHD-2)9
PATIENTS AND METHODS
Phenotype delineation
Patients were diagnosed as having MA if they fulfilled the ICHD-1 for MA and their aura was characterised by fully reversible visual symptoms, sensory symptoms, or dysphasic speech disturbances (that is, impaired production of language, impaired comprehension of language). Patients with hemiplegic aura were excluded since hemiplegic migraine is different from MA and therefore diagnosed according to separate diagnostic criteria in the ICHD-2.9–11
Data collection
The patients were recruited by a computerised search of the National Patient Register and screening of 27 000 case records from headache clinics and practising neurologists. Only patients with MA from families with a least one affected sib pair or patients with hemiplegic migraine were recruited.10–12 The 1831 recruited patients were sent a letter with information about the project before they were contacted by telephone. Of these 1831 patients, 85 patients were non-contactable and 381 patients did not participate.12 The remaining 1365 patients (called probands) took part in a screening telephone interview (fig 1): 980 probands were diagnosed as having MA of whom 189 had a family history of an MA sib pair.12,13 Selected relatives and probands from these families were contacted for an extensive validated semistructured telephone interview14 with a trained physician.13 Of the 736 relatives selected 25 were non-contactable and 68 did not participate. The remaining 643 relatives took part in an interview.13 In total, 105 probands and 257 of their relatives were diagnosed as having MA according to the ICHD-1 in an extensive interview and participated in the present study.13 Furthermore, 112 patients with other reversible visual disturbances related to headache were included in the study. Their visual disturbances were not judged to be visual migraine aura and they did not fulfil the ICHD-1 for MA. These patients were identified during the initial screening telephone interviews of the probands (57 patients) and during the extensive telephone interviews of the relatives (55 patients). Thus our study population comprised 474 patients: 362 patients with MA and 112 patients with non-aura reversible visual disturbances.
Figure 1 Ascertainment of probands with non-hemiplegic migraine with aura (MA). In total, 105 families with at least one MA sib pair were identified. The patients with MA included in the present study were recruited from these families.
The project was approved by the Danish ethical committees. Further details about the sample, non-participation, and comparison with a representative population based sample have been reported elsewhere.12,13
Data processing and statistical analysis
The 474 participants were divided into two subsamples: the training sample of 200 patients comprised 141 patients with MA plus 59 patients with non-aura visual disturbances (the 200 participants enrolled when the present study was initiated) and the validation sample of 274 patients comprised 221 patients with MA plus 53 patients with non-aura visual disturbances (the participants enrolled afterwards). The training sample was used for testing several sets of selected diagnostic criteria for MA all comprising three aura characteristics selected a priori in general agreement by the Classification Committee of the International Headache Society:
Homonymous visual symptoms or unilateral sensory symptoms
At least one aura symptom develops gradually over 5 minutes and/or different symptoms occur in succession over 5 minutes
Each symptom lasts 5 minutes and 60 minutes
We aimed at identifying the diagnostic criteria for MA comprising the combination of the three aura characteristics with the highest sensitivity and specificity when compared with the diagnosis according to the ICHD-1 for MA. Subsequently, the
For the sake of simplicity and because of pressure of time the diagnoses made according to the selected diagnostic criteria in the training sample were based exclusively on the visual symptoms of the patients. However, the diagnoses made according to the
RESULTS
Characteristics of patients with MA
The 362 patients with MA comprised 99 men and 263 women (M:F ratio 1:2.7; mean age 46 (SD 16) years, range 12–90). At least in some attacks 99% (358/362) of patients had visual aura; 54% (196/362) had sensory aura; and 32% (116/362) had aphasic aura. Most patients had a combination of aura symptoms, since 28% (102/362) had co-occurring visual and sensory aura; 25% (91/362) had visual, sensory, and aphasic aura; 6% (23/362) had visual and aphasic aura; 1% (4/362) had other aura combinations; and 39% (142/362) had visual aura exclusively. The characteristics of the symptoms of aura are shown in table 3. Overall, 88% (319/362) of the patients with MA fulfilled the ICHD-1 criterion of a gradual development of the aura, 83% (300/362) fulfilled the criterion of aura duration, and 94% (340/362) had a headache following the aura with a free interval of less than one hour. When more than one aura symptom was observed, they occurred in succession in 96% (149/155) and simultaneously in 4% (6/155) of patients (65 missing values or patients uncertain). The headache related to aura began after the onset of the aura in 82% (278/341), simultaneously with the aura in 11% (37/341) and before the onset of the aura in 8% (26/341) of patients. A total of 21 patients had aura without headache exclusively.
Table 3 Characteristics of migraine with aura (MA) and other reversible visual disturbances (no MA)
Characteristics of patients with non-aura reversible visual disturbances
The 112 patients with non-aura reversible visual disturbances comprised 32 men and 80 women (M:F ratio 1:2.5; mean age 41 (14) years, range 10–78). The characteristics of the reversible visual disturbances are shown in table 3. The visual disturbances were often characterised by flickering light lasting less than five minutes or by general blurring of vision lasting more than 60 minutes, but they did not fall into well defined categories. The headache related to the reversible visual disturbances fulfilled the ICHD-1 for migraine without aura in 37% (41/112), migrainous disorder without aura in 4% (4/112), and episodic tension-type headache in 16% (18/112) of patients. However, 40% (45/112) of patients had unspecified headache and 3% (4/112) had no headache. The headache related to the reversible visual disturbances began after the onset of the visual disturbances with a free interval of less than one hour in 60% (54/90), simultaneously with the visual disturbances in 14% (13/90), and before the onset of the visual disturbances in 26% (23/90) of patients (18 missing values). In 8% (9/112) of patients the reversible visual disturbances fulfilled the ICHD-1 for migrainous disorder with aura. That is, the patients fulfilled all but one of the criteria for MA.
Testing of selected sets of diagnostic criteria for MA
Initially, five sets of selected diagnostic criteria for MA were tested on 200 patients, the training sample. The diagnoses made according to the selected sets of diagnostic criteria (based on the visual aura exclusively) were compared with the diagnosis according to the ICHD-1 for MA (table 4). The set of diagnostic criteria presented at the top of table 4 was suggested by the Classification Committee of the International Headache Society. However, due to low sensitivity (46%) this set of criteria was rejected. The set of diagnostic criteria presented at the bottom of table 4 had high sensitivity (84%) and specificity (97%) and was
Table 4 Testing of selected sets of diagnostic criteria for migraine with aura (training sample, n = 200)
Validation of The
Table 5 Validation of
We verified that we had chosen the set of criteria for MA with the best diagnostic accuracy among the sets of criteria tested by validating the set of criteria showing the second best diagnostic accuracy on the training sample (sensitivity 99%, specificity 76%). This set of criteria had a sensitivity of 99% (219/221) and a specificity of 62% (33/53) when applied to the validation sample.
DISCUSSION
Methodological considerations
The new diagnostic criteria for MA according to the ICHD-29 is based on empirical data collected for the present study. Furthermore, we added a second sample of patients with MA and patients with non-aura visual disturbances and here present a full validation of the new diagnostic criteria.
Diagnostic criteria should be developed using one sample and tested on another to avoid random errors and false positive results. The development of the ICHD-2 for MA was based on analysis of visual symptoms only because the diagnosis of MA is most difficult in patients presenting only one aura symptom. Approximately 99% of patients with MA have visual aura at least in some attacks13,15 and 68% of patients with MA from the general population have exclusively visual aura.15 However, the validation of the ICHD-2 for MA was based on the visual, sensory, or aphasic symptoms of aura. The ICHD-2 for MA is thus ready for application in patients with MA presenting any combination of visual, sensory, or aphasic aura.
The study population was selected from patients with MA consulting a specialist plus the affected relatives of these patients. However, the proportion of patients with MA with unilateral symptoms of aura and the duration of the symptoms of aura are identical to those in a previous population based study.13,15 Yet, a gradual development of the aura was reported less often in the present study than in the population based study (visual aura: 81% v 97%, sensory aura: 75% v 98%)13,15 and more than one aura symptom was reported more often than in the population based study (60% v 31%).13,15 Some of the observed variations might increase the sensitivity and some might decrease the sensitivity of the ICHD-2 for MA when applied to population samples.
The characteristics of the reversible non-aura visual disturbances were similar in patients with a related migraine headache or an unspecified headache. The visual disturbances resembled the transient visual disturbances previously reported in patients with migraine without aura.16 The prevalence of transient visual disturbances is high in both patients with migraine and healthy controls17 but the pathogenesis has not been elucidated. The positive visual symptoms—that is, flickering light in patients with migraine without aura, may be explained by a suggested lower cortical threshold for visual stimulation and presence of cortical hypersensitivity in patients with migraine.18,19
Scientific implications
The reliability of the ICHD-2 for MA is believed to be improved compared with the ICHD-1 for MA as the criteria have been further operationalised and a description of the typical symptoms of aura is included in the criteria (see table 2). As a consequence, the diagnosis of MA now relies less on clinical judgement. The classification of primary headaches according to the ICHD-1 has previously been shown to have quite good reliability but the studies included only 22 patients with MA in total.5,6,20 Future studies will show if the ICHD-2 criteria for MA live up to the expectedly increased reliability. In the present study we aimed at identifying an equal number of patients with MA and patients with non-aura visual disturbances for the validation sample. Recruiting controls with non-aura visual symptoms from headache populations was, however, difficult and we did not get an equal number. Further testing of the MA criteria in patients with non-migraine visual or sensory disturbances would be valuable.
The validity of the ICHD-2 for MA is believed to be fair because the criteria are based on the statistical analysis of empirical data from a large sample. The diagnosis of MA in our patients was supported by a long history of MA, a history of previous diagnosis of migraine, and antimigraine treatment and a strong family predisposition to MA.13,21 Furthermore, the criteria were developed using the cardinal characteristics of migraine aura agreed by experts and in agreement with previous empirical findings.15,22–24 Assessment of validity is difficult when analysing the diagnostic criteria for MA because it is a clinical entity with no biological markers to confirm the diagnosis. Even the ICHD-1 for MA is not a valid gold standard as it was based on the opinion of experts and partly allowed subjective interpretations. The validation criteria must be independent from the diagnostic criteria tested. Previous validation studies of the ICHD-1 encountered similar methodological problems.25–28 The validity of the ICHD-1 for migraine without aura has been evaluated using logistic regression models with subjective distress as a validation criterion.25,26 However, this criterion is generally regarded as not suitable. Eventually the validity of the criteria for MA will have to be tested against the genetic constitution of MA,29 against the response to novel selective drugs such as tonabersat that might prevent cortical spreading depression,30 or against the characteristic changes in cerebral blood flow during MA attacks.31,32 MA will continue to be diagnosed on the basis of the description of symptoms until the diagnosis can be based on biological mechanisms or genetics.
The individual symptoms of aura forming the components of the ICHD-2 for MA were chosen a priori by the Classification Committee of the International Headache Society. The new criteria for MA (see table 2) are tighter than the more open criteria of the ICHD-1 (see table 1) accepting only three kinds of aura symptoms: visual, sensory, and aphasic. Other symptoms (except hemiplegia) additional to the typical symptoms of aura do not affect the diagnosis. Thus the new criteria will enable an analysis of how often other symptoms such as distorted vision, micropsia/macropsia, deja/jamais vue, and olfactory and auditory hallucinations may occur together with the typical symptoms of aura. It also remains to be studied how often so-called basilar-type symptoms occur together with typical symptoms of aura. An analysis of further aura characteristics using logistic regression models may reveal whether the present criteria for MA are the best option or if including other aura characteristics will further improve the validity and reliability of these criteria.
Clinical implications
The major principles of the diagnosis of MA according to the ICHD-2 have not been changed compared with the ICHD-1. This ensures continuity in the way MA is diagnosed. The existing body of evidence gained using the ICHD-1 for MA remains valid for the diagnosis made using the ICHD-2 for MA. Therefore, patients who fulfil the ICHD-2 diagnostic criteria for MA will usually respond to specific antimigraine treatment such as triptans. The ICHD-2 for MA is intended equally for research and for clinical practice and it can be used at different levels of specialisation.9 This ensures increased diagnostic reliability and promotes the research/clinical interface.
The new criteria for MA of the ICHD-2 are more operational and probably delineate a more homogeneous sample of patients with MA than the ICHD-1. By narrowing the definition of the trait one will include only individuals likely to have similar aetiology leading to the disease phenotype. The ICHD-2 is the basis for worldwide teaching in headache classification and diagnosis and will therefore benefit patient management.9 The ICHD-2 works to destigmatise individuals with headache and to gain recognition for these disorders as neurobiological conditions. It is imperative for the success of these efforts that researchers and clinicians use the same diagnostic system and that this system is as precise as possible.9
The International Headache Society was involved in developing the ICD-10 for neurological disorders (ICD-10 NA).7,33 The ICD-10 NA is not meant to compete with the ICHD-2 classification, but is intended to allow users to transfer their data from one system to the other to take advantage of the universally
Table 6 Classification of migraine according to the International Headache Society (IHS) ICHD-2 codes and the WHO ICD-10 NA codes
Alhough the ICHD-2 for MA describes the common features of MA it still takes specialised neurological knowledge to diagnose the more challenging presentations of MA. In the ICHD-2 for MA the presence or absence of a headache and the nature of the headache is used only for sub-diagnosing in patients with MA (see table 2). A headache is not essential to establish the MA diagnosis, though a headache following the aura strengthens the diagnosis of migraine. Diagnostic caution is required when aura is not followed by headache and in patients with sensory and aphasic symptoms without visual aura.13 In such cases and in cases with other diagnostic uncertainty, appropriate investigations should be undertaken to rule out intracranial pathology even if the patient fulfils the ICHD-2 criteria for MA.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors thank the participants, medical students I Andersen, F Nazim, and S Roemer, and many other colleagues for their excellent collaboration.
REFERENCES
Headache Classification Committee of the International Headache Society. Classification and diagnostic criteria for headache disorders, cranial neuralgias and facial pain. Cephalalgia 1988;8:1–96.
Edmeads J, Findlay H, Tugwell P, et al. Impact of migraine and tension-type headache on life-style, consulting behaviour, and medication use: a Canadian population survey. Can J Neurol Sci 1993;20:131–7.
Henry P, Michel P, Brochet B, et al. A nationwide survey of migraine in France: prevalence and clinical features in adults. GRIM. Cephalalgia. 1992;12: 229–37; discussion 186,.
Treatment of migraine attacks with sumatriptan. The Subcutaneous Sumatriptan International Study Group. N Engl J Med 1991;325:316–21.
Russell MB, Rasmussen BK, Brennum J, et al. Presentation of a new instrument: the diagnostic headache diary. Cephalalgia 1992;12:369–74.
Leone M, Filippini G, D’Amico D, et al. Assessment of International Headache Society diagnostic criteria: a reliability study. Cephalalgia 1994;14:280–4.
World Health Organization. Application of the International Classification of Diseases to Neurology, 2nd edn. Genova: World Health Organization 1997.
Olesen J. Classification of Headaches. In: Olesen J, Tfelt-Hansen P, Welch K, eds. The Headaches, 2nd edn. Philadelphia: Lippincot Williams & Wilkins, 2000:13–14.
International Classification of Headache Disorders, 2nd edn. Cephalalgia 2004;24:1–160.
Thomsen LL, Eriksen MK, Roemer SF, et al. A population-based study of familial hemiplegic migraine suggests revised diagnostic criteria. Brain 2002;125 (Pt 6) :1379–91.
Thomsen LL, Ostergaard E, Olesen J, et al. Evidence for a separate type of migraine with aura: sporadic hemiplegic migraine. Neurology 2003;60:595–601.
Lykke Thomsen L, Kirchmann Eriksen M, Faerch Romer S, et al. An epidemiological survey of hemiplegic migraine. Cephalalgia 2002;22:361–75.
Eriksen M, Thomsen L, Olesen J. Clinical characteristics of 362 patients with familial migraine with aura. Cephalalgia 2004;24:564–75.
Russell MB, Rasmussen BK, Thorvaldsen P, et al. Prevalence and sex-ratio of the subtypes of migraine. Int J Epidemiol 1995;24:612–18.
Russell MB, Olesen J. A nosographic analysis of the migraine aura in a general population. Brain 1996;119 (Pt 2) :355–61.
Cologno D, Torelli P, Manzoni GC. Transient visual disturbances during migraine without aura attacks. Headache 2002;42:930–3.
Mattsson P, Lundberg PO. Characteristics and prevalence of transient visual disturbances indicative of migraine visual aura. Cephalalgia 1999;19:479–84.
Mulleners WM, Chronicle EP, Palmer JE, et al. Suppression of perception in migraine: evidence for reduced inhibition in the visual cortex. Neurology 2001;56:178–83.
Mulleners WM, Aurora SK, Chronicle EP, et al. Self-reported photophobic symptoms in migraineurs and controls are reliable and predict diagnostic category accurately. Headache 2001;41:31–9.
Granella F, D’Alessandro R, Manzoni GC, et al. International Headache Society classification: interobserver reliability in the diagnosis of primary headaches. Cephalalgia 1994;14:16–20.
Kendell RE. Clinical validity. Psychol Med 1989;19:45–55.
Russell MB, Rasmussen BK, Fenger K, et al. Migraine without aura and migraine with aura are distinct clinical entities: a study of four hundred and eighty-four male and female migraineurs from the general population. Cephalalgia 1996;16:239–45.
Jensen K, Tfelt-Hansen P, Lauritzen M, et al. Classic migraine. A prospective recording of symptoms. Acta Neurol Scand 1986;73:359–62.
Manzoni GC, Farina S, Lanfranchi M, et al. Classic migraine-clinical findings in 164 patients. Eur Neurol 1985;24:163–9.
Merikangas KR, Dartigues JF, Whitaker A, et al. Diagnostic criteria for migraine. A validity study. Neurology 1994;44 (6 suppl 4) :S11–16.
Merikangas KR, Whitaker AE, Angst J. Validation of diagnostic criteria for migraine in the Zurich longitudinal cohort study. Cephalalgia 1993;13 (suppl 12) :47–53.
Michel P, Dartigues JF, Henry P, et al. Validity of the International Headache Society criteria for migraine. GRIM. Groupe de Recherche Interdisciplinaire sur la Migraine. Neuroepidemiology 1993;12:51–7.
Iversen HK, Langemark M, Andersson PG, et al. Clinical characteristics of migraine and episodic tension-type headache in relation to old and new diagnostic criteria. Headache 1990;30:514–19.
Wessman M, Kallela M, Kaunisto MA, et al. A susceptibility locus for migraine with aura, on chromosome 4q24. Am J Hum Genet 2002;70:652–62.
Bradley DP, Smith MI, Netsiri C, et al. Diffusion-weighted MRI used to detect in vivo modulation of cortical spreading depression: comparison of sumatriptan and tonabersat. Exp Neurol 2001;172:342–53.
Olesen J, Larsen B, Lauritzen M. Focal hyperemia followed by spreading oligemia and impaired activation of rCBF in classic migraine. Ann Neurol 1981;9:344–52.
Cutrer FM, Sorensen AG, Weisskoff RM, et al. Perfusion-weighted imaging defects during spontaneous migrainous aura. Ann Neurol 1998;43:25–31.
Orgogozo J, Van Drimmelen-Krabbe J, Bradley W, et al. The World Health Organization view on disease classification and diagnosis. In: Olesen J, ed. Headache Classification and Epidemiology. New York: Raven Press, Ltd, 1994:27–35.(M K Eriksen, L L Thomsen )
婵犵數濮烽弫鎼佸磿閹寸姴绶ら柦妯侯棦濞差亝鍋愰悹鍥皺椤︻厼鈹戦悩缁樻锭婵炲眰鍊濋、姘舵焼瀹ュ棛鍘卞┑鐐村灥瀹曨剟寮搁妶鍡愪簻闁冲搫鍟崢鎾煛鐏炲墽鈽夐柍钘夘樀瀹曪繝鎮欏顔介獎闂備礁鎼ˇ顐﹀疾濠婂吘娑㈠礃椤旇壈鎽曞┑鐐村灦鑿ら柡瀣叄閻擃偊宕堕妸锕€鐨戦梺绋款儐閹歌崵绮嬮幒鏂哄亾閿濆簼绨介柛鏃撶畱椤啴濡堕崱妤€娼戦梺绋款儐閹瑰洭寮诲☉銏″亹鐎规洖娲㈤埀顒佸笚娣囧﹪宕ｆ径濠傤潓闂佸疇顫夐崹鍨暦閸洖鐓橀柣鎰靛墰娴滄瑩姊虹拠鏌ヮ€楃紒鐘茬Ч瀹曟洟宕￠悙宥嗙☉閳藉濮€閻橀潧濮︽俊鐐€栫敮鎺椝囬鐐村€堕柨鏃傜摂濞堜粙鏌ｉ幇顒佲枙闁稿孩姊归〃銉╂倷閸欏鏋犲銈冨灪濡啫鐣烽妸鈺婃晣闁绘劙娼ч幖绋库攽閻樺灚鏆╅柛瀣█楠炴捇顢旈崱妤冪瓘闂佽鍨奸悘鎰洪鍕吅闂佺粯锚閸氣偓缂佹顦靛娲箰鎼达絿鐣甸梺鐟板槻椤戝鐣烽悽绋块唶婵犮埄浜濆Λ鍐极閸屾粎椹抽悗锝庝簻婵″ジ姊绘担鍛婃喐闁稿鍋ら獮鎰板箮閽樺鎽曢梺鍝勬储閸ㄥ綊鐛姀銈嗙厸闁搞儮鏅涘瓭婵犵鈧尙鐭欓柡宀嬬秮婵偓闁宠桨鑳舵禒鈺冪磽閸屾氨孝闁挎洦浜悰顔界節閸ャ劍娅㈤梺缁樓圭亸娆撴偪閳ь剚淇婇悙顏勨偓鏍箰妤ｅ啫纾婚柣鏂挎憸椤╃兘鏌熼幍顔碱暭闁抽攱鍨块弻娑㈡晜鐠囨彃绗岄梺鑽ゅ枑閸ｆ潙煤椤忓嫀褔鏌涢妷顔惧帥婵炶偐鍠栧娲礃閸欏鍎撻梺鐟板暱濮橈妇鎹㈠鑸碘拻濞达絽鎳欒ぐ鎺戝珘妞ゆ帒鍊婚惌娆撴煙閻戞﹩娈曢柛濠傜仛閵囧嫰寮崹顔规寖缂佺偓鍎抽妶鎼佸蓟閿熺姴绀冮柕濞垮劗閸嬫挾绮欓幐搴㈢槑濠电姷鏁告慨顓㈠箯閸愵喖绀嬮柛顭戝亞閺夊綊鏌ｆ惔銏╁晱闁哥姵鐗犻幃銉╂偂鎼达絾娈惧┑顔姐仜閸嬫挸鈹戦埄鍐憙妞わ附濞婇弻娑㈠箻閺夋垹浠哥紓浣虹帛缁嬫捇鍩€椤掍胶鈯曞畝锝呮健閹本绻濋崑鑺ユ閹晠宕ｆ径瀣瀾闂備浇妗ㄧ欢锟犲闯閿濆鈧線寮撮姀鈩冩珕闂佽姤锚椤︿粙鍩€椤掍胶鈽夐柍瑙勫灴閺佸秹宕熼锛勬崟濠电姭鎷冮崨顔界彧缂備緡鍠楅悷锔炬崲濠靛鐐婇柕濞у啫绠版繝鐢靛О閸ㄧ厧鈻斿☉銏℃櫇闁靛牆顦Ч鏌ユ煛閸モ晛鏋戦柛娆忕箻閺岋綁鎮㈤悡搴濆枈濠碘槅鍨崑鎾绘⒒娴ｈ姤銆冪紒鈧担铏圭煋闁圭虎鍠楅崑鈺傜節闂堟侗鍎忕紒鈧崘鈹夸簻妞ゆ挾鍠庨悘锝夋煙鐎电ǹ鍘存慨濠勭帛閹峰懐绮电€ｎ亝鐣伴梻浣告憸婵敻骞戦崶褏鏆︽繝闈涳功閻も偓濠电偞鍨兼ご鎼佸疾閿濆洨纾介柛灞剧懅閸斿秴鐣濋敐鍛仴闁糕斂鍨藉顕€宕奸悢鍝勫箺闂備胶鎳撻顓㈠磿閹寸偟鐟规繛鎴欏灪閻撴洟鏌￠崒姘变虎闁哄棴缍侀弻鈥崇暆鐎ｎ剛鐦堥悗瑙勬礃鐢帡锝炲┑瀣垫晣闁绘﹢娼ч獮鈧紓鍌氬€搁崐鐑芥倿閿曞倶鈧啴宕ㄥ銈呮喘閺屽棗顓奸崨顖氬Е婵＄偑鍊栫敮鎺楀窗濮橆兗缂氶柟閭﹀枤绾惧吋銇勯弮鍥т汗缂佺姴顭烽弻銊モ攽閸繀妲愰梺杞扮閸熸潙鐣烽幒鎴僵闁告鍋為幉銏ゆ⒒娴ｈ棄鍚瑰┑鐐╁亾缂傚倸鍊归懝楣冨煝瀹ュ鏅查柛銉㈡櫇閻撳姊洪崜鑼帥闁哥姵鎹囬崺鈧い鎺嶇缁楁帗銇勯锝囩疄妞ゃ垺锕㈤幃鈺咁敃閿濆孩缍岄梻鍌氬€风欢姘缚瑜嶇叅闁靛牆鎮垮ú顏勎╅柍杞拌兌閸旓箑顪冮妶鍡楃瑨闁稿妫濆銊╂偋閸垻顔曟繝銏ｆ硾椤戝洤煤鐎电硶鍋撶憴鍕８闁搞劏濮ゆ穱濠囧醇閺囩偟鍊為梺闈浨归崕鐑樺閺囥垺鐓熼柣鏂挎憸閻苯顭胯椤ㄥ牓寮鍢夋棃宕崘顏嗏棨濠电姰鍨奸崺鏍礉閺嶎厼纾婚柨婵嗩槹閻撴洟鏌曟径妯虹仩妞も晩鍓欓埥澶愬箻閻熸壆姣㈢紓浣介哺鐢岣胯箛娑樜╃憸蹇涙偩婵傚憡鈷戠憸鐗堝俯濡垵鈹戦悙鈺佷壕闂備浇顕栭崰妤冨垝閹捐绠板┑鐘插暙缁剁偛顭跨捄铏圭伇婵﹦鍋撶换婵嬫偨闂堟稐绮跺銈嗘处閸樹粙骞堥妸锔哄亝闁告劑鍔嶅Σ顒勬⒑閸濆嫮鈻夐柛妯恒偢瀹曞綊宕掗悙瀵稿帾婵犵數鍋熼崑鎾斥枍閸℃稒鐓曢悗锝冨妼婵″ジ妫佹径鎰叆婵犻潧妫欓崳褰掓煛閸℃瑥鏋戝ǎ鍥э躬椤㈡稑顫濋崡鐐╁徍婵犳鍠栭敃銉ヮ渻娴犲鈧線寮撮姀鈩冩珳闂佺硶鍓濋悷锕傤敇婵犳碍鈷掑ù锝堟鐢盯鏌熺喊鍗炰簽闁瑰箍鍨归埞鎴犫偓锝庡墮缁侊箓鏌ｆ惔顖滅У闁哥姵鐗滅划濠氭晲閸℃瑧鐦堟繝鐢靛Т閸婃悂顢旈锔界厵闁哄鍋勬慨鍌涙叏婵犲啯銇濇鐐村姈閹棃鏁愰崒娑辨綌闂傚倷绀侀幖顐︽偋濠婂牆绀堥柣鏃堫棑閺嗭箓鏌ｉ悢绋款棎闁割偒浜弻娑㈠即閵娿儱瀛ｅ┑鐐存綑鐎氼剟鈥旈崘顔嘉ч柛鈩冾殘閻熸劙姊虹紒妯洪嚋缂佺姵鎸搁锝夊箮缁涘鏅滈梺鍓插亞閸犳捇宕㈤柆宥嗏拺闁荤喓澧楅幆鍫㈢磼婢跺缍戦柣锝囨暬瀹曞崬鈽夊▎鎴濆笚闁荤喐绮嶇划鎾崇暦濠婂喚娼╂い鎺戭槹閸嶇敻姊洪棃娴ュ牓寮插⿰鍫濈；闁稿瞼鍋為悡銉╂煟閺傛寧鎯堢€涙繈鏌ｉ悢鍝ユ嚂缂佺姵鎹囬悰顕€寮介鐐殿啇濡炪倖鎸鹃崑鐔哥椤栨粎纾藉ù锝嗗絻娴滅偓绻濋姀锝嗙【闁愁垱娲濋妵鎰板箳閹寸媭妲梻浣呵圭换妤呭磻閹邦兘鏋旈柕鍫濐槹閳锋垹绱撴担璐細缂佺姵鐗犻弻锝夊煛婵犲倻浠╅梺浼欑悼閸忔﹢寮幘缁樺亹闁肩⒈鍓﹀Σ浼存⒒娴ｈ棄浜归柍宄扮墦瀹曟粌顫濇０婵囨櫓闂佺鎻梽鍕煕閹达附鍋ｉ柛銉岛閸嬫捇鎼归銈勭按闂傚倷绀侀幉锟犲蓟閵婏富娈介柟闂寸閻撴繈鏌熼幑鎰靛殭缂佺媴缍侀弻锝夊箛椤撶喓绋囧銈呭閹告悂鍩為幋锔藉亹閻犲泧鍐х矗闂備礁鎽滈崳銉╁垂閸洜宓侀柛鈩冪☉绾惧吋鎱ㄩ敐搴″箹缂傚秴锕獮鍐煛閸涱厾顔岄梺鍦劋缁诲倹淇婇柨瀣瘈闁汇垽娼цⅴ闂佺ǹ顑嗛幑鍥蓟閻斿皝鏋旈柛顭戝枟閻忔挾绱掓ィ鍐暫缂佺姵鐗犲濠氭偄鐞涒€充壕闁汇垻娅ラ悷鐗堟瘎闂佽崵鍠愮划搴㈡櫠濡ゅ懏鍋傞柨鐔哄Т閽冪喐绻涢幋娆忕仼缂佺姵濞婇弻锟犲磼濮樿鲸鐨戦梺鍝勵儏閹冲酣鍩為幋锔藉€烽柛娆忣槸濞咃綁姊绘担绋跨盎缂佽尙鍋撶粚杈ㄧ節閸パ咁啋濡炪倖妫佹慨銈呪枍閵忋倖鈷戦悹鎭掑妼濞呮劙鏌熼崙銈嗗Correspondence to:
Dr M K Eriksen
Danish Headache Center, University of Copenhagen, Department of Neurology, Glostrup Hospital, Nordre Ringvej 57, DK-2600 Glostrup, Denmark; kirchmann@dadlnet.dk
ABSTRACT
Objectives: Since 1998, migraine with aura (MA) has been diagnosed according to the operational diagnostic criteria of the International Headache Society (ICHD-1). Here we present the data underlying the new criteria for MA in the ICHD-2 classification.
Methods: Sensitivity of the new criteria was tested in patients with MA and specificity in patients with reversible non-aura visual disturbances. The diagnoses in both groups of patients were made in a validated semistructured physician-conducted interview. We tested five sets of criteria for sensitivity and specificity comparing with the diagnosis according to the ICHD-1 in 200 patients and the selected set of criteria in 274 additional patients.
Results: Four sets of criteria had sensitivity/specificity of 46%/100%, 71%/100%, 62%/95%, and 99%/76%. Sensitivity of the selected set of criteria was 84% (95% CI 79% to 90%) and specificity 97% (95% CI 95% to 99%). According to these criteria at least two of the following should be fulfilled: homonymous visual or unilateral sensory symptoms; at least one aura symptom develops gradually over 5 minutes and/or different symptoms occur in succession over 5 minutes; each symptom lasts 5 and 60 minutes. In the additional sample sensitivity of the selected criteria was 90% (95% CI 86% to 94%) and specificity 96% (95% CI 91% to 100%).
Conclusions: The diagnostic criteria for MA selected for ICHD-2 had high sensitivity and specificity. The ICHD-2 criteria are more operational and probably delineate a more homogeneous sample of patients than the ICHD-1. The ICHD-2 for MA is intended equally for research and clinical practice and can be used at different levels of specialisation.
Abbreviations: ICHD, International Classification of Headache Disorders; MA, migraine with aura
Keywords: migraine with aura; classification; diagnostic criteria
Migraine with aura (MA) has been diagnosed according to the operational diagnostic criteria of the International Headache Society since 1988 (International Classification of Headache Disorders (ICHD)-1) (table 1).1 The diagnosis of MA relies exclusively on the description of symptoms because there are no diagnostic biological markers available to confirm the diagnosis. The principles of the ICHD-1 for all primary and secondary headaches have been recognised in clinical practice2–6 and have been adopted by the World Health Organization (WHO) (ICD-10 NA).7 The ICHD-1 has been universally
Table 1 Diagnostic criteria for migraine with aura according to the International Headache Society classification, 1988 (ICHD-1)1
The ICHD-1 criteria for MA were mostly based on expert opinion due to the scarcity of empirical studies.8 During the work on the second edition of the ICHD (ICHD-2)9 it appeared that the ICHD-1 criteria for MA were difficult to understand and did not describe the aura in detail. Therefore, the reliability of the diagnosis of aura could very likely be improved. Furthermore, the ICHD-1 for MA had a major error as patients could be diagnosed as having MA according to the criteria without fulfilling the criterion for presence of any typical symptom of aura.
For several years our group has collected data on patients with MA diagnosed according to the ICHD-1 criteria for genetic studies. Validated, semistructured telephone interviews were conducted by a trained physician and generated detailed data on the migraine aura. Part of these data were used in a preliminary search for diagnostic criteria for MA with an optimal combination of sensitivity and specificity, and the selected criteria were included in the ICHD-2 (table 2). In the present study we present the sensitivity, specificity, and likelihood ratios for the new criteria for MA compared with the old criteria using a larger sample of patients than previously. We calculated all relevant parameters in two large independent samples—that is, the sample used in the preliminary search for reliable MA criteria for the ICHD-2 plus an additional sample used for validation of the criteria.
Table 2 Diagnostic criteria for migraine with typical aura according to the International Classification of Headache Disorders Second Edition (ICHD-2)9
PATIENTS AND METHODS
Phenotype delineation
Patients were diagnosed as having MA if they fulfilled the ICHD-1 for MA and their aura was characterised by fully reversible visual symptoms, sensory symptoms, or dysphasic speech disturbances (that is, impaired production of language, impaired comprehension of language). Patients with hemiplegic aura were excluded since hemiplegic migraine is different from MA and therefore diagnosed according to separate diagnostic criteria in the ICHD-2.9–11
Data collection
The patients were recruited by a computerised search of the National Patient Register and screening of 27 000 case records from headache clinics and practising neurologists. Only patients with MA from families with a least one affected sib pair or patients with hemiplegic migraine were recruited.10–12 The 1831 recruited patients were sent a letter with information about the project before they were contacted by telephone. Of these 1831 patients, 85 patients were non-contactable and 381 patients did not participate.12 The remaining 1365 patients (called probands) took part in a screening telephone interview (fig 1): 980 probands were diagnosed as having MA of whom 189 had a family history of an MA sib pair.12,13 Selected relatives and probands from these families were contacted for an extensive validated semistructured telephone interview14 with a trained physician.13 Of the 736 relatives selected 25 were non-contactable and 68 did not participate. The remaining 643 relatives took part in an interview.13 In total, 105 probands and 257 of their relatives were diagnosed as having MA according to the ICHD-1 in an extensive interview and participated in the present study.13 Furthermore, 112 patients with other reversible visual disturbances related to headache were included in the study. Their visual disturbances were not judged to be visual migraine aura and they did not fulfil the ICHD-1 for MA. These patients were identified during the initial screening telephone interviews of the probands (57 patients) and during the extensive telephone interviews of the relatives (55 patients). Thus our study population comprised 474 patients: 362 patients with MA and 112 patients with non-aura reversible visual disturbances.
Figure 1 Ascertainment of probands with non-hemiplegic migraine with aura (MA). In total, 105 families with at least one MA sib pair were identified. The patients with MA included in the present study were recruited from these families.
The project was approved by the Danish ethical committees. Further details about the sample, non-participation, and comparison with a representative population based sample have been reported elsewhere.12,13
Data processing and statistical analysis
The 474 participants were divided into two subsamples: the training sample of 200 patients comprised 141 patients with MA plus 59 patients with non-aura visual disturbances (the 200 participants enrolled when the present study was initiated) and the validation sample of 274 patients comprised 221 patients with MA plus 53 patients with non-aura visual disturbances (the participants enrolled afterwards). The training sample was used for testing several sets of selected diagnostic criteria for MA all comprising three aura characteristics selected a priori in general agreement by the Classification Committee of the International Headache Society:
Homonymous visual symptoms or unilateral sensory symptoms
At least one aura symptom develops gradually over 5 minutes and/or different symptoms occur in succession over 5 minutes
Each symptom lasts 5 minutes and 60 minutes
We aimed at identifying the diagnostic criteria for MA comprising the combination of the three aura characteristics with the highest sensitivity and specificity when compared with the diagnosis according to the ICHD-1 for MA. Subsequently, the
For the sake of simplicity and because of pressure of time the diagnoses made according to the selected diagnostic criteria in the training sample were based exclusively on the visual symptoms of the patients. However, the diagnoses made according to the
RESULTS
Characteristics of patients with MA
The 362 patients with MA comprised 99 men and 263 women (M:F ratio 1:2.7; mean age 46 (SD 16) years, range 12–90). At least in some attacks 99% (358/362) of patients had visual aura; 54% (196/362) had sensory aura; and 32% (116/362) had aphasic aura. Most patients had a combination of aura symptoms, since 28% (102/362) had co-occurring visual and sensory aura; 25% (91/362) had visual, sensory, and aphasic aura; 6% (23/362) had visual and aphasic aura; 1% (4/362) had other aura combinations; and 39% (142/362) had visual aura exclusively. The characteristics of the symptoms of aura are shown in table 3. Overall, 88% (319/362) of the patients with MA fulfilled the ICHD-1 criterion of a gradual development of the aura, 83% (300/362) fulfilled the criterion of aura duration, and 94% (340/362) had a headache following the aura with a free interval of less than one hour. When more than one aura symptom was observed, they occurred in succession in 96% (149/155) and simultaneously in 4% (6/155) of patients (65 missing values or patients uncertain). The headache related to aura began after the onset of the aura in 82% (278/341), simultaneously with the aura in 11% (37/341) and before the onset of the aura in 8% (26/341) of patients. A total of 21 patients had aura without headache exclusively.
Table 3 Characteristics of migraine with aura (MA) and other reversible visual disturbances (no MA)
Characteristics of patients with non-aura reversible visual disturbances
The 112 patients with non-aura reversible visual disturbances comprised 32 men and 80 women (M:F ratio 1:2.5; mean age 41 (14) years, range 10–78). The characteristics of the reversible visual disturbances are shown in table 3. The visual disturbances were often characterised by flickering light lasting less than five minutes or by general blurring of vision lasting more than 60 minutes, but they did not fall into well defined categories. The headache related to the reversible visual disturbances fulfilled the ICHD-1 for migraine without aura in 37% (41/112), migrainous disorder without aura in 4% (4/112), and episodic tension-type headache in 16% (18/112) of patients. However, 40% (45/112) of patients had unspecified headache and 3% (4/112) had no headache. The headache related to the reversible visual disturbances began after the onset of the visual disturbances with a free interval of less than one hour in 60% (54/90), simultaneously with the visual disturbances in 14% (13/90), and before the onset of the visual disturbances in 26% (23/90) of patients (18 missing values). In 8% (9/112) of patients the reversible visual disturbances fulfilled the ICHD-1 for migrainous disorder with aura. That is, the patients fulfilled all but one of the criteria for MA.
Testing of selected sets of diagnostic criteria for MA
Initially, five sets of selected diagnostic criteria for MA were tested on 200 patients, the training sample. The diagnoses made according to the selected sets of diagnostic criteria (based on the visual aura exclusively) were compared with the diagnosis according to the ICHD-1 for MA (table 4). The set of diagnostic criteria presented at the top of table 4 was suggested by the Classification Committee of the International Headache Society. However, due to low sensitivity (46%) this set of criteria was rejected. The set of diagnostic criteria presented at the bottom of table 4 had high sensitivity (84%) and specificity (97%) and was
Table 4 Testing of selected sets of diagnostic criteria for migraine with aura (training sample, n = 200)
Validation of The
Table 5 Validation of
We verified that we had chosen the set of criteria for MA with the best diagnostic accuracy among the sets of criteria tested by validating the set of criteria showing the second best diagnostic accuracy on the training sample (sensitivity 99%, specificity 76%). This set of criteria had a sensitivity of 99% (219/221) and a specificity of 62% (33/53) when applied to the validation sample.
DISCUSSION
Methodological considerations
The new diagnostic criteria for MA according to the ICHD-29 is based on empirical data collected for the present study. Furthermore, we added a second sample of patients with MA and patients with non-aura visual disturbances and here present a full validation of the new diagnostic criteria.
Diagnostic criteria should be developed using one sample and tested on another to avoid random errors and false positive results. The development of the ICHD-2 for MA was based on analysis of visual symptoms only because the diagnosis of MA is most difficult in patients presenting only one aura symptom. Approximately 99% of patients with MA have visual aura at least in some attacks13,15 and 68% of patients with MA from the general population have exclusively visual aura.15 However, the validation of the ICHD-2 for MA was based on the visual, sensory, or aphasic symptoms of aura. The ICHD-2 for MA is thus ready for application in patients with MA presenting any combination of visual, sensory, or aphasic aura.
The study population was selected from patients with MA consulting a specialist plus the affected relatives of these patients. However, the proportion of patients with MA with unilateral symptoms of aura and the duration of the symptoms of aura are identical to those in a previous population based study.13,15 Yet, a gradual development of the aura was reported less often in the present study than in the population based study (visual aura: 81% v 97%, sensory aura: 75% v 98%)13,15 and more than one aura symptom was reported more often than in the population based study (60% v 31%).13,15 Some of the observed variations might increase the sensitivity and some might decrease the sensitivity of the ICHD-2 for MA when applied to population samples.
The characteristics of the reversible non-aura visual disturbances were similar in patients with a related migraine headache or an unspecified headache. The visual disturbances resembled the transient visual disturbances previously reported in patients with migraine without aura.16 The prevalence of transient visual disturbances is high in both patients with migraine and healthy controls17 but the pathogenesis has not been elucidated. The positive visual symptoms—that is, flickering light in patients with migraine without aura, may be explained by a suggested lower cortical threshold for visual stimulation and presence of cortical hypersensitivity in patients with migraine.18,19
Scientific implications
The reliability of the ICHD-2 for MA is believed to be improved compared with the ICHD-1 for MA as the criteria have been further operationalised and a description of the typical symptoms of aura is included in the criteria (see table 2). As a consequence, the diagnosis of MA now relies less on clinical judgement. The classification of primary headaches according to the ICHD-1 has previously been shown to have quite good reliability but the studies included only 22 patients with MA in total.5,6,20 Future studies will show if the ICHD-2 criteria for MA live up to the expectedly increased reliability. In the present study we aimed at identifying an equal number of patients with MA and patients with non-aura visual disturbances for the validation sample. Recruiting controls with non-aura visual symptoms from headache populations was, however, difficult and we did not get an equal number. Further testing of the MA criteria in patients with non-migraine visual or sensory disturbances would be valuable.
The validity of the ICHD-2 for MA is believed to be fair because the criteria are based on the statistical analysis of empirical data from a large sample. The diagnosis of MA in our patients was supported by a long history of MA, a history of previous diagnosis of migraine, and antimigraine treatment and a strong family predisposition to MA.13,21 Furthermore, the criteria were developed using the cardinal characteristics of migraine aura agreed by experts and in agreement with previous empirical findings.15,22–24 Assessment of validity is difficult when analysing the diagnostic criteria for MA because it is a clinical entity with no biological markers to confirm the diagnosis. Even the ICHD-1 for MA is not a valid gold standard as it was based on the opinion of experts and partly allowed subjective interpretations. The validation criteria must be independent from the diagnostic criteria tested. Previous validation studies of the ICHD-1 encountered similar methodological problems.25–28 The validity of the ICHD-1 for migraine without aura has been evaluated using logistic regression models with subjective distress as a validation criterion.25,26 However, this criterion is generally regarded as not suitable. Eventually the validity of the criteria for MA will have to be tested against the genetic constitution of MA,29 against the response to novel selective drugs such as tonabersat that might prevent cortical spreading depression,30 or against the characteristic changes in cerebral blood flow during MA attacks.31,32 MA will continue to be diagnosed on the basis of the description of symptoms until the diagnosis can be based on biological mechanisms or genetics.
The individual symptoms of aura forming the components of the ICHD-2 for MA were chosen a priori by the Classification Committee of the International Headache Society. The new criteria for MA (see table 2) are tighter than the more open criteria of the ICHD-1 (see table 1) accepting only three kinds of aura symptoms: visual, sensory, and aphasic. Other symptoms (except hemiplegia) additional to the typical symptoms of aura do not affect the diagnosis. Thus the new criteria will enable an analysis of how often other symptoms such as distorted vision, micropsia/macropsia, deja/jamais vue, and olfactory and auditory hallucinations may occur together with the typical symptoms of aura. It also remains to be studied how often so-called basilar-type symptoms occur together with typical symptoms of aura. An analysis of further aura characteristics using logistic regression models may reveal whether the present criteria for MA are the best option or if including other aura characteristics will further improve the validity and reliability of these criteria.
Clinical implications
The major principles of the diagnosis of MA according to the ICHD-2 have not been changed compared with the ICHD-1. This ensures continuity in the way MA is diagnosed. The existing body of evidence gained using the ICHD-1 for MA remains valid for the diagnosis made using the ICHD-2 for MA. Therefore, patients who fulfil the ICHD-2 diagnostic criteria for MA will usually respond to specific antimigraine treatment such as triptans. The ICHD-2 for MA is intended equally for research and for clinical practice and it can be used at different levels of specialisation.9 This ensures increased diagnostic reliability and promotes the research/clinical interface.
The new criteria for MA of the ICHD-2 are more operational and probably delineate a more homogeneous sample of patients with MA than the ICHD-1. By narrowing the definition of the trait one will include only individuals likely to have similar aetiology leading to the disease phenotype. The ICHD-2 is the basis for worldwide teaching in headache classification and diagnosis and will therefore benefit patient management.9 The ICHD-2 works to destigmatise individuals with headache and to gain recognition for these disorders as neurobiological conditions. It is imperative for the success of these efforts that researchers and clinicians use the same diagnostic system and that this system is as precise as possible.9
The International Headache Society was involved in developing the ICD-10 for neurological disorders (ICD-10 NA).7,33 The ICD-10 NA is not meant to compete with the ICHD-2 classification, but is intended to allow users to transfer their data from one system to the other to take advantage of the universally
Table 6 Classification of migraine according to the International Headache Society (IHS) ICHD-2 codes and the WHO ICD-10 NA codes
Alhough the ICHD-2 for MA describes the common features of MA it still takes specialised neurological knowledge to diagnose the more challenging presentations of MA. In the ICHD-2 for MA the presence or absence of a headache and the nature of the headache is used only for sub-diagnosing in patients with MA (see table 2). A headache is not essential to establish the MA diagnosis, though a headache following the aura strengthens the diagnosis of migraine. Diagnostic caution is required when aura is not followed by headache and in patients with sensory and aphasic symptoms without visual aura.13 In such cases and in cases with other diagnostic uncertainty, appropriate investigations should be undertaken to rule out intracranial pathology even if the patient fulfils the ICHD-2 criteria for MA.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors thank the participants, medical students I Andersen, F Nazim, and S Roemer, and many other colleagues for their excellent collaboration.
REFERENCES
Headache Classification Committee of the International Headache Society. Classification and diagnostic criteria for headache disorders, cranial neuralgias and facial pain. Cephalalgia 1988;8:1–96.
Edmeads J, Findlay H, Tugwell P, et al. Impact of migraine and tension-type headache on life-style, consulting behaviour, and medication use: a Canadian population survey. Can J Neurol Sci 1993;20:131–7.
Henry P, Michel P, Brochet B, et al. A nationwide survey of migraine in France: prevalence and clinical features in adults. GRIM. Cephalalgia. 1992;12: 229–37; discussion 186,.
Treatment of migraine attacks with sumatriptan. The Subcutaneous Sumatriptan International Study Group. N Engl J Med 1991;325:316–21.
Russell MB, Rasmussen BK, Brennum J, et al. Presentation of a new instrument: the diagnostic headache diary. Cephalalgia 1992;12:369–74.
Leone M, Filippini G, D’Amico D, et al. Assessment of International Headache Society diagnostic criteria: a reliability study. Cephalalgia 1994;14:280–4.
World Health Organization. Application of the International Classification of Diseases to Neurology, 2nd edn. Genova: World Health Organization 1997.
Olesen J. Classification of Headaches. In: Olesen J, Tfelt-Hansen P, Welch K, eds. The Headaches, 2nd edn. Philadelphia: Lippincot Williams & Wilkins, 2000:13–14.
International Classification of Headache Disorders, 2nd edn. Cephalalgia 2004;24:1–160.
Thomsen LL, Eriksen MK, Roemer SF, et al. A population-based study of familial hemiplegic migraine suggests revised diagnostic criteria. Brain 2002;125 (Pt 6) :1379–91.
Thomsen LL, Ostergaard E, Olesen J, et al. Evidence for a separate type of migraine with aura: sporadic hemiplegic migraine. Neurology 2003;60:595–601.
Lykke Thomsen L, Kirchmann Eriksen M, Faerch Romer S, et al. An epidemiological survey of hemiplegic migraine. Cephalalgia 2002;22:361–75.
Eriksen M, Thomsen L, Olesen J. Clinical characteristics of 362 patients with familial migraine with aura. Cephalalgia 2004;24:564–75.
Russell MB, Rasmussen BK, Thorvaldsen P, et al. Prevalence and sex-ratio of the subtypes of migraine. Int J Epidemiol 1995;24:612–18.
Russell MB, Olesen J. A nosographic analysis of the migraine aura in a general population. Brain 1996;119 (Pt 2) :355–61.
Cologno D, Torelli P, Manzoni GC. Transient visual disturbances during migraine without aura attacks. Headache 2002;42:930–3.
Mattsson P, Lundberg PO. Characteristics and prevalence of transient visual disturbances indicative of migraine visual aura. Cephalalgia 1999;19:479–84.
Mulleners WM, Chronicle EP, Palmer JE, et al. Suppression of perception in migraine: evidence for reduced inhibition in the visual cortex. Neurology 2001;56:178–83.
Mulleners WM, Aurora SK, Chronicle EP, et al. Self-reported photophobic symptoms in migraineurs and controls are reliable and predict diagnostic category accurately. Headache 2001;41:31–9.
Granella F, D’Alessandro R, Manzoni GC, et al. International Headache Society classification: interobserver reliability in the diagnosis of primary headaches. Cephalalgia 1994;14:16–20.
Kendell RE. Clinical validity. Psychol Med 1989;19:45–55.
Russell MB, Rasmussen BK, Fenger K, et al. Migraine without aura and migraine with aura are distinct clinical entities: a study of four hundred and eighty-four male and female migraineurs from the general population. Cephalalgia 1996;16:239–45.
Jensen K, Tfelt-Hansen P, Lauritzen M, et al. Classic migraine. A prospective recording of symptoms. Acta Neurol Scand 1986;73:359–62.
Manzoni GC, Farina S, Lanfranchi M, et al. Classic migraine-clinical findings in 164 patients. Eur Neurol 1985;24:163–9.
Merikangas KR, Dartigues JF, Whitaker A, et al. Diagnostic criteria for migraine. A validity study. Neurology 1994;44 (6 suppl 4) :S11–16.
Merikangas KR, Whitaker AE, Angst J. Validation of diagnostic criteria for migraine in the Zurich longitudinal cohort study. Cephalalgia 1993;13 (suppl 12) :47–53.
Michel P, Dartigues JF, Henry P, et al. Validity of the International Headache Society criteria for migraine. GRIM. Groupe de Recherche Interdisciplinaire sur la Migraine. Neuroepidemiology 1993;12:51–7.
Iversen HK, Langemark M, Andersson PG, et al. Clinical characteristics of migraine and episodic tension-type headache in relation to old and new diagnostic criteria. Headache 1990;30:514–19.
Wessman M, Kallela M, Kaunisto MA, et al. A susceptibility locus for migraine with aura, on chromosome 4q24. Am J Hum Genet 2002;70:652–62.
Bradley DP, Smith MI, Netsiri C, et al. Diffusion-weighted MRI used to detect in vivo modulation of cortical spreading depression: comparison of sumatriptan and tonabersat. Exp Neurol 2001;172:342–53.
Olesen J, Larsen B, Lauritzen M. Focal hyperemia followed by spreading oligemia and impaired activation of rCBF in classic migraine. Ann Neurol 1981;9:344–52.
Cutrer FM, Sorensen AG, Weisskoff RM, et al. Perfusion-weighted imaging defects during spontaneous migrainous aura. Ann Neurol 1998;43:25–31.
Orgogozo J, Van Drimmelen-Krabbe J, Bradley W, et al. The World Health Organization view on disease classification and diagnosis. In: Olesen J, ed. Headache Classification and Epidemiology. New York: Raven Press, Ltd, 1994:27–35.(M K Eriksen, L L Thomsen )