Final Research Report
View this project's final research report.
Article Highlight: Many people with chronic migraines use medication more often than recommended. This overuse can have the undesired effect of more migraines and headaches and other serious side effects. The MOTS (Medication Overuse Treatment Strategy) Trial compared two ways to treat adult patients who have chronic migraine and medication overuse. It found that not switching or limiting medication wasn’t worse than switching medication, according to results published in Neurology. But the study also found that patients who stopped the overused medicine took it to treat symptoms less often than patients who continued it. They were also less likely to overuse migraine medicines.
Read an accompanying editorial in Neurology.
Results of This Project
Related Journal Citations
Stories and Videos
Neurology Podcast (April 4, 2022): Patient-Centered Treatment of Migraine with Medication Overuse
In this episode, Principal Investigator Todd J. Schwedt, MD, MS, discusses the treatment of chronic migraine with medication overuse through the patient-centered MOTS clinical trial.
Peer review of PCORI-funded research helps make sure the report presents complete, balanced, and useful information about the research. It also assesses how the project addressed PCORI’s Methodology Standards. During peer review, experts read a draft report of the research and provide comments about the report. These experts may include a scientist focused on the research topic, a specialist in research methods, a patient or caregiver, and a healthcare professional. These reviewers cannot have conflicts of interest with the study.
The peer reviewers point out where the draft report may need revision. For example, they may suggest ways to improve descriptions of the conduct of the study or to clarify the connection between results and conclusions. Sometimes, awardees revise their draft reports twice or more to address all of the reviewers’ comments.
Peer reviewers commented and the researchers made changes or provided responses. Those comments and responses included the following:
- The reviewers were laudatory in their reviews of this report, stating that the study was well-designed and the report well-written.
- One reviewer asked how much the COVID-19 pandemic affected study recruitment and participant attrition. The researchers acknowledged that the pandemic limited in-person research and clinical visits. With approval from the study sites and stakeholders, the researchers changed the protocol to allow for telehealth study visits in place of in-person visits.
- The reviewer also questioned whether the mostly White makeup of the study participants was related to barriers to care for non-White patients to access adequate migraine care. The researchers acknowledged that there have been significant barriers to receiving adequate migraine care for people from the underrepresented racial and ethnic groups and added this study limitation to their report discussion.
Conflict of Interest Disclosures
- Has Results