Stability, Responsiveness, and Reproducibility of a Visual Analog Scale for Treatment Satisfaction in Migraine

Objectives.— To evaluate the stability, responsiveness, and reproducibility of a simple visual analog scale (VAS). Background.— In order to help physicians in the management of migraine in everyday general practice and assess whether the treatments that they are currently prescribing are actually effective, a VAS of treatment satisfaction with acute migraine treatments has been developed. Methods.— The study used an open‐label, multicenter, prospective design. Adult patients fulfilling diagnostic criteria for migraine and who consulted a participating hospital or community neurology clinic were eligible. At inclusion, patients rated their satisfaction with their current treatment on the VAS. Those scoring 7‐10 (satisfied) on the VAS were allocated to the VASCO cohort, and those scoring 0‐4 (dissatisfied) were switched to almotriptan and allocated to the ALMO cohort. Patients scoring between 4 and 7 were assigned to 1 or other cohort at the physician's discretion. The VAS was re‐administered at home the next day and also after the treatment of 3 further headaches, both at home and at a follow‐up visit. Results.— Ninety‐eight patients in the VASCO cohort and 102 in the ALMO cohort were analyzed. Stability was evaluated in the VASCO cohort: 55/98 patients initially satisfied with treatment remained so at study end, whereas 7/98 became dissatisfied. Responsiveness of the VAS to a change in treatment was evaluated in the ALMO cohort: 64/102 patients moved to a higher treatment satisfaction category, whereas 6/102 moved to a lower one. Reproducibility of the VAS was determined in 4 settings (both at the inclusion visit and at study closure in both cohorts). In each setting, VAS scores were compared between consultation and at‐home ratings. In 3 of the 4 settings (both measures in the ALMO cohort and at study closure in the VASCO cohort), good agreement was observed between the 2 ratings (κ = 0.62‐0.69). At inclusion in the VASCO cohort, agreement was only fair (κ = 0.33). Conclusions.— The VAS scale described here is a responsive and easy‐to‐use tool for evaluating treatment satisfaction and for monitoring changes to treatment if these are required.