scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Author

Zaza Katsarava

Bio: Zaza Katsarava is an academic researcher from University of Duisburg-Essen. The author has contributed to research in topics: Migraine & Population. The author has an hindex of 57, co-authored 221 publications receiving 17743 citations. Previous affiliations of Zaza Katsarava include University of Bonn & University Hospital Bonn.


Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
Jes Olesen, André Bes, Robert S. Kunkel, James W. Lance, Giuseppe Nappi, V Pfaffenrath, Frank Clifford Rose, Bruce S. Schoenberg, D. Soyka, Peer Tfelt-Hansen, K. Michael A. Welch, Marica Wilkinson, Marie-Germaine Bousser, Hans-Christoph Diener, David W. Dodick, Michael First, Peter J. Goadsby, Hartmut Göbel, Miguel J. A. Láinez, Richard B. Lipton, Fumihiko Sakai, Jean Schoenen, Stephen D. Silberstein, Timothy J. Steiner, Lars Bendtsen, Anne Ducros, Stefan Evers, Andrew D. Hershey, Zaza Katsarava, Morris Levin, Julio Pascual, Michael Bjørn Russell, Todd J. Schwedt, Cristina Tassorelli, Gisela M. Terwindt, Maurice Vincent, Shuu Jiun Wang, Andrew Charles, R. Lipton, Hayrunnisa Bolay, Michel Lantéri-Minet, E. A. Macgregor, T. Takeshima, Henrik Winther Schytz, S. Ashina, M. T. Goicochea, K. Hirata, Kenneth A. Holroyd, Christian Lampl, Dimos-Dimitrios Mitsikostas, P. Goadsby, C. Boes, C. Bordini, E. Cittadini, Andrew I. Cohen, M. Leone, A. May, L. Newman, J. Pareja, J. W. Park, T. Rozen, E. Waldenlind, Jong Ling Fuh, Aynur Özge, J. A. Pareja, Mario Fernando Prieto Peres, William B. Young, S. Y. Yu, Ishaq Abu-Arafeh, J. Gladstone, S. J. Huang, Rigmor Jensen, J.M. Láinez, D. Obelieniene, Peter S. Sandor, A. I. Scher, Marcel Arnold, Martin Dichgans, E. Houdart, José M. Ferro, Elizabeth Leroux, Y. S. Li, Aneesh B. Singhal, Gretchen E. Tietjen, Deborah I. Friedman, S. Kirby, B. Mokri, A. Purdy, K. Ravishankar, W. Schievink, R. Stark, F. Taylor, A. V. Krymchantowski, A. Tugrul, N. J. Wiendels, E. Marchioni, V. V. Osipova, Lidia Savi, J. R. Berger, Marcelo E. Bigal, J. González Menacho, Federico Mainardi, J. Pereira-Monteiro, M. Serrano-Dueñas, Roger Cady, C. Fernandez de las Peñas, Vincenzo Guidetti, J. Lance, Peter Svensson, Elizabeth Loder, A. E. Lake, Françoise Radat, J. I. Escobar, R. Benoliel, Claudia Sommer, A. Woda, Joanna M Zakrzewska, V. Aggarwal, L. Bonamico, Dominik A Ettlin, S. Graff-Radford, Jean-Paul Goulet, S. Jääskeläinen, Volker Limmroth, Ambra Michelotti, Donald R. Nixdorf, Mark Obermann, Richard Ohrbach, Paul Pionchon, Tara Renton, S. De Siqueira, Çiçek Wöber-Bingöl 
TL;DR: The International Classification of Headache Disorders, 3 edition (beta version), may be reproduced freely for scientific, educational or clinical uses by institutions, societies or individuals as mentioned in this paper. But the authors require the permission of the International Headache Society.
Abstract: The International Classification of Headache Disorders, 3 edition (beta version), may be reproduced freely for scientific, educational or clinical uses by institutions, societies or individuals. Otherwise, copyright belongs exclusively to the International Headache Society. Reproduction of any part or parts in any manner for commercial uses requires the Society’s permission, which will be granted on payment of a fee. Please contact the publisher at the address below. International Headache Society 2013. Applications for copyright permissions should be submitted to Sage Publications Ltd, 1 Oliver’s Yard, 55 City Road, London EC1Y 1SP, United Kingdom (tel: þ44 (0) 20 7324 8500; fax: þ44 (0) 207 324 8600) (www.sagepub.co.uk). Translations

6,519 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The calculations indicate that the disability attributable to tension-type headache is larger worldwide than that due to migraine, which would bring headache disorders into the 10 most disabling conditions for the two genders, and into the five most disabling for women.
Abstract: This study, which is a part of the initiative 'Lifting The Burden: The Global Campaign to Reduce the Burden of Headache Worldwide', assesses and presents all existing evidence of the world prevalence and burden of headache disorders. Population-based studies applying International Headache Society criteria for migraine and tension-type headache, and also studies on headache in general and 'chronic daily headache', have been included. Globally, the percentages of the adult population with an active headache disorder are 46% for headache in general, 11% for migraine, 42% for tension-type headache and 3% for chronic daily headache. Our calculations indicate that the disability attributable to tension-type headache is larger worldwide than that due to migraine. On the World Health Organization's ranking of causes of disability, this would bring headache disorders into the 10 most disabling conditions for the two genders, and into the five most disabling for women.

2,067 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: This is the first comprehensive estimation of how economic resources are lost to headache in Europe, and it is hoped that this will help clarify the financial costs of headaches in Europe.
Abstract: Background and purpose: Headache disorders are very common, but their monetary costs in Europe are unknown. We performed the first comprehensive estimation of how economic resources are lost to headache in Europe. Methods: From November 2008 to August 2009, a cross-sectional survey was conducted in eight countries representing 55% of the adult EU population. Participation rates varied between 11% and 59%. In total, 8412 questionnaires contributed to this analysis. Using bottom-up methodology, we estimated direct (medications, outpatient health care, hospitalization and investigations) and indirect (work absenteeism and reduced productivity at work) annual per-person costs. Prevalence data, simultaneously collected and, for migraine, also derived from a systematic review, were used to impute national costs. Results: Mean per-person annual costs were €1222 for migraine (95% CI 1055–1389; indirect costs 93%), €303 for tension-type headache (TTH, 95% CI 230–376; indirect costs 92%), €3561 for medication-overuse headache (MOH, 95% CI 2487–4635; indirect costs 92%), and €253 for other headaches (95% CI 99–407; indirect costs 82%). In the EU, the total annual cost of headache amongst adults aged 18–65 years was calculated, according to our prevalence estimates, at €173 billion, apportioned to migraine (€111 billion; 64%), TTH (€21 billion; 12%), MOH (€37 billion; 21%) and other headaches (€3 billion; 2%). Using the 15% systematic review prevalence of migraine, calculated costs were somewhat lower (migraine €50 billion, all headache €112 billion annually). Conclusions: Headache disorders are prominent health-related drivers of immense economic losses for the EU. This has immediate implications for healthcare policy. Health care for headache can be both improved and cost saving.

521 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The Eurolight study illuminates the worldwide neglect of a major public-health problem, and reveals the inadequacies of responses to it in countries throughout the world.
Abstract: If it were needed, more evidence of the disconcerting under-treatment of headache disorders has come from the Eurolight study [1]. The topic is not new. Twenty years ago, the International and American Headache Societies jointly voiced their dismay at the inadequacies of health care for headache [2]. In 2006, the European Headache Federation and World Headache Alliance described migraine as a “forgotten epidemic” [3]. Meanwhile, in 2003, the Global Campaign against Headache [4–6] engaged the World Health Organization (WHO) as partner in this cause [7], embarking on a worldwide action programme which began by assessing the magnitude of headache in the world [4, 8]. In 2011, WHO’s global survey of headache disorders and resources, a Global Campaign project, laid bare the scale and scope of under-treated headache everywhere, and its consequences [9]. WHO wrote, in a message sent inter alia to the world’s Ministries of Health: “This first global enquiry into these matters illuminates the worldwide neglect of a major public-health problem, and reveals the inadequacies of responses to it in countries throughout the world” [9]. No words could be clearer but, to make sure, WHO repeated the message soon after [10]. Eurolight was a cross-sectional survey of over 8000 participants, conducted by multiple partners (scientific and lay) in 10 European countries [11]. A considerable strength of this study, apart from its size and geographical scope, was the use in all countries of the same questionnaire [12], a derivative of the HARDSHIP questionnaire already employed in many different countries, cultures and translations [13]. Also a strength was its scope of

364 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The authors followed 532 consecutive patients with episodic migraine (<15 days/month) for 1 year andixty-four patients (14%) developed chronic headache (CH), with odds ratios higher in patients with and without medication overuse.
Abstract: The authors followed 532 consecutive patients with episodic migraine (<15 days/month) for 1 year. Sixty-four patients (14%) developed chronic headache (≥15 days/month). The odds ratios for developing CH were 20.1 (95% CI 5.7 to 71.5) comparing patients with a critical (10 to 14 days/month) vs low (0 to 4 days/month) and 6.2 (95% CI 1.7 to 26.6) in patients with an intermediate (6 to 9 days/month) vs low headache frequency and 19.4 (95% CI 8.7 to 43.2) comparing patients with and without medication overuse.

340 citations


Cited by
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
01 Jan 2011-Stroke
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors provided evidence-based recommendations for the prevention of future stroke among survivors of ischemic stroke or transient ischemi-chemic attack, including the control of risk factors, intervention for vascular obstruction, antithrombotic therapy for cardioembolism, and antiplatelet therapy for noncardioembolic stroke.
Abstract: The aim of this updated guideline is to provide comprehensive and timely evidence-based recommendations on the prevention of future stroke among survivors of ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack. The guideline is addressed to all clinicians who manage secondary prevention for these patients. Evidence-based recommendations are provided for control of risk factors, intervention for vascular obstruction, antithrombotic therapy for cardioembolism, and antiplatelet therapy for noncardioembolic stroke. Recommendations are also provided for the prevention of recurrent stroke in a variety of specific circumstances, including aortic arch atherosclerosis, arterial dissection, patent foramen ovale, hyperhomocysteinemia, hypercoagulable states, antiphospholipid antibody syndrome, sickle cell disease, cerebral venous sinus thrombosis, and pregnancy. Special sections address use of antithrombotic and anticoagulation therapy after an intracranial hemorrhage and implementation of guidelines.

4,545 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors (GBD) study provides such information but does not routinely aggregate results that are of interest to clinicians specialising in neurological conditions as discussed by the authors.
Abstract: Summary Background Comparable data on the global and country-specific burden of neurological disorders and their trends are crucial for health-care planning and resource allocation. The Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors (GBD) Study provides such information but does not routinely aggregate results that are of interest to clinicians specialising in neurological conditions. In this systematic analysis, we quantified the global disease burden due to neurological disorders in 2015 and its relationship with country development level. Methods We estimated global and country-specific prevalence, mortality, disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs), years of life lost (YLLs), and years lived with disability (YLDs) for various neurological disorders that in the GBD classification have been previously spread across multiple disease groupings. The more inclusive grouping of neurological disorders included stroke, meningitis, encephalitis, tetanus, Alzheimer's disease and other dementias, Parkinson's disease, epilepsy, multiple sclerosis, motor neuron disease, migraine, tension-type headache, medication overuse headache, brain and nervous system cancers, and a residual category of other neurological disorders. We also analysed results based on the Socio-demographic Index (SDI), a compound measure of income per capita, education, and fertility, to identify patterns associated with development and how countries fare against expected outcomes relative to their level of development. Findings Neurological disorders ranked as the leading cause group of DALYs in 2015 (250·7 [95% uncertainty interval (UI) 229·1 to 274·7] million, comprising 10·2% of global DALYs) and the second-leading cause group of deaths (9·4 [9·1 to 9·7] million], comprising 16·8% of global deaths). The most prevalent neurological disorders were tension-type headache (1505·9 [UI 1337·3 to 1681·6 million cases]), migraine (958·8 [872·1 to 1055·6] million), medication overuse headache (58·5 [50·8 to 67·4 million]), and Alzheimer's disease and other dementias (46·0 [40·2 to 52·7 million]). Between 1990 and 2015, the number of deaths from neurological disorders increased by 36·7%, and the number of DALYs by 7·4%. These increases occurred despite decreases in age-standardised rates of death and DALYs of 26·1% and 29·7%, respectively; stroke and communicable neurological disorders were responsible for most of these decreases. Communicable neurological disorders were the largest cause of DALYs in countries with low SDI. Stroke rates were highest at middle levels of SDI and lowest at the highest SDI. Most of the changes in DALY rates of neurological disorders with development were driven by changes in YLLs. Interpretation Neurological disorders are an important cause of disability and death worldwide. Globally, the burden of neurological disorders has increased substantially over the past 25 years because of expanding population numbers and ageing, despite substantial decreases in mortality rates from stroke and communicable neurological disorders. The number of patients who will need care by clinicians with expertise in neurological conditions will continue to grow in coming decades. Policy makers and health-care providers should be aware of these trends to provide adequate services. Funding Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

2,995 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The newly recommended evidence-based new DC/TMD protocol is appropriate for use in both clinical and research settings and includes both a valid screener for detecting any pain-related TMD as well as valid diagnostic criteria for differentiating the most common pain- related TMD.
Abstract: Temporomandibular disorders (TMD) are a significant public health problem affecting approximately 5% to 12% of the population.1 TMD is the second most common musculoskeletal condition (after chronic low back pain) resulting in pain and disability.1 Pain-related TMD can impact the individual's daily activities, psychosocial functioning, and quality of life. Overall, the annual TMD management cost in the USA, not including imaging, has doubled in the last decade to $4 billion.1 Patients often seek consultation with dentists for their TMD, especially for pain-related TMD. Diagnostic criteria for TMD with simple, clear, reliable, and valid operational definitions for the history, examination, and imaging procedures are needed to render physical diagnoses in both clinical and research settings. In addition, biobehavioral assessment of pain-related behavior and psychosocial functioning—an essential part of the diagnostic process—is required and provides the minimal information whereby one can determine whether the patient's pain disorder, especially when chronic, warrants further multidisciplinary assessment. Taken together, a new dual-axis Diagnostic Criteria for TMD (DC/TMD) will provide evidence-based criteria for the clinician to use when assessing patients, and will facilitate communication regarding consultations, referrals, and prognosis.2 The research community benefits from the ability to use well-defined and clinically relevant characteristics associated with the phenotype in order to facilitate more generalizable research. When clinicians and researchers use the same criteria, taxonomy, and nomenclature, then clinical questions and experience can be more easily transferred into relevant research questions, and research findings are more accessible to clinicians to better diagnose and manage their patients. The Research Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders (RDC/TMD) have been the most widely employed diagnostic protocol for TMD research since its publication in 1992.3 This classification system was based on the biopsychosocial model of pain4 that included an Axis I physical assessment, using reliable and well-operationalized diagnostic criteria, and an Axis II assessment of psychosocial status and pain-related disability. The intent was to simultaneously provide a physical diagnosis and identify other relevant characteristics of the patient that could influence the expression and thus management of their TMD. Indeed, the longer the pain persists, the greater the potential for emergence and amplification of cognitive, psychosocial, and behavioral risk factors, with resultant enhanced pain sensitivity, greater likelihood of additional pain persistence, and reduced probability of success from standard treatments.5 The RDC/TMD (1992) was intended to be only a first step toward improved TMD classification, and the authors stated the need for future investigation of the accuracy of the Axis I diagnostic algorithms in terms of reliability and criterion validity—the latter involving the use of credible reference standard diagnoses. Also recommended was further assessment of the clinical utility of the Axis II instruments. The original RDC/TMD Axis I physical diagnoses have content validity based on the critical review by experts of the published diagnostic approach in use at that time and were tested using population-based epidemiologic data.6 Subsequently, a multicenter study showed that, for the most common TMD, the original RDC/TMD diagnoses exhibited sufficient reliability for clinical use.7 While the validity of the individual RDC/TMD diagnoses has been extensively investigated, assessment of the criterion validity for the complete spectrum of RDC/TMD diagnoses had been absent until recently.8 For the original RDC/TMD Axis II instruments, good evidence for their reliability and validity for measuring psychosocial status and pain-related disability already existed when the classification system was published.9–13 Subsequently, a variety of studies have demonstrated the significance and utility of the original RDC/TMD biobehavioral measures in such areas as predicting outcomes of clinical trials, escalation from acute to chronic pain, and experimental laboratory settings.14–20 Other studies have shown that the original RDC/TMD biobehavioral measures are incomplete in terms of prediction of disease course.21–23 The overall utility of the biobehavioral measures in routine clinical settings has, however, yet to be demonstrated, in part because most studies have to date focused on Axis I diagnoses rather than Axis II biobehavioral factors.24 The aims of this article are to present the evidence-based new Axis I and Axis II DC/TMD to be used in both clinical and research settings, as well as present the processes related to their development.

2,283 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Current human findings regarding sex differences in experimental pain indicate greater pain sensitivity among females compared with males for most pain modalities, including more recently implemented clinically relevant pain models such as temporal summation of pain and intramuscular injection of algesic substances.

2,178 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The epidemiologic profile of migraine has remained stable in the United States during the past 15 years and more than one in four migraineurs are candidates for preventive therapy, and a substantial proportion of those who might benefit from prevention do not receive it.
Abstract: Objectives: 1) To reassess the prevalence of migraine in the United States; 2) to assess patterns of migraine treatment in the population; and 3) to contrast current patterns of preventive treatment use with recommendations for use from an expert headache panel. Methods: A validated self-administered headache questionnaire was mailed to 120,000 US households, representative of the US population. Migraineurs were identified according to the criteria of the second edition of the International Classification of Headache Disorders. Guidelines for preventive medication use were developed by a panel of headache experts. Criteria for consider or offer prevention were based on headache frequency and impair- ment. Results: We assessed 162,576 individuals aged 12 years or older. The 1-year period prevalence for migraine was 11.7% (17.1% in women and 5.6% in men). Prevalence peaked in middle life and was lower in adolescents and those older than age 60 years. Of all migraineurs, 31.3% had an attack frequency of three or more per month, and 53.7% reported severe impairment or the need for bed rest. In total, 25.7% met criteria for "offer prevention," and in an additional 13.1%, prevention should be considered. Just 13.0% reported current use of daily preventive migraine medication. Conclusions: Compared with previous studies, the epidemiologic profile of migraine has remained stable in the United States during the past 15 years. More than one in four migraineurs are candidates for preventive therapy, and a substantial proportion of those who might benefit from prevention do not receive it.

1,932 citations