The aim of the study was to design and test a new, easy to use, assessment tool, the Migraine Assessment of Current Therapy (Migraine-ACT), for identifying patients who require a change in their acute treatment. A 27-item questionnaire was developed by an international advisory board including questions formulated in four domains: headache impact, global assessment of relief, consistency of response and emotional response. Migraine patients entered a multinational, prospective study to investigate the test-retest reliability and construct validity of the tool, which was completed by the patients on two occasions. Test-retest reliability was assessed by Pearson's and by Spearman correlation coefficients. Construct validity was assessed by correlating patients' answers to the 27-item questionnaire with those of well-reported measures: SF-36, MIDAS and Migraine Therapy Assessment Questionnaire (MTAQ). The test-retest reliability of the 27 initial questions ranged from good to excellent. Correlations of all items with SF-36, MIDAS and MTAQ scores--assessed by discriminatory t-tests--indicated that the following 4 were the most discriminating items: Does your migraine medication work consistently, in the majority of your attacks? Does the headache pain disappear within 2 hours? Are you able to function normally within 2 hours? Are you comfortable enough with your medication to be able to plan your daily activities? The 4-item Migraine-ACT is a brief, simple, and reliable assessment tool to identify patients who require a change in their acute migraine treatment, and can be recommended for primary care physicians, neurologists and headache clinicians.

The 4-item Migraine-ACT questionnaire is an assessment tool for use by primary care physicians to identify patients who require a change in their current acute migraine treatment. It is brief and simple to complete and score, and has demonstrated reliability, accuracy and simplicity. Migraine-ACT can therefore be recommended for everyday clinical use by clinicians.

Migraine is frequently undertreated, perhaps because impaired communication between patients and physicians underestimate the disability associated with migraine attacks. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the benefits of a structured migraine diary used during a prospective open-label study of triptan-naive patients in Spain for recording information on response to therapy for a pre-study migraine attack and three consecutive migraine attacks, the first and third treated with rizatriptan 10-mg wafer and the second with usual non-triptan therapy. Of 97 patients (83% women; mean age, 39 years) who completed the study, all reported moderate to severe pain, and two-thirds reported severe to total impairment during migraine attacks. At study end, 72% of patients reported that the migraine diary helped communication with their doctor about migraine, and 70% were more or much more satisfied than before the study with level of overall medical care provided by their doctor. Patients who reported the diary to be useful also reported higher overall satisfaction with medical care (p < 0.001). Most of the 22 physicians (91%) reported that the diary enabled them to better communicate with their patients about migraine, and all reported that it enabled them to assess differences in pain intensity and disability across patients. We conclude that a structured migraine diary can be a valuable aid for improving communication between physicians and patients regarding migraine disability and treatment outcomes.

The Migraine-ACT questionnaire is a simple but sensitive and specific tool to predict improvements at 3 months resulting from changes in migraine treatment and can be used to detect patients with suboptimal migraine management and to monitor treatment effectiveness.

These data confirm the excellent reliability and validity of the Migraine-ACT questionnaire and provide further evidence for its utility in clinical practice.