Skip Navigation
Skip to contents

Headache and Pain Research : Headache and Pain Research

OPEN ACCESS
SEARCH
Search
Advanced Search
mobile menu button

Articles

Page Path
HOME > Headache Pain Res > Volume 26(3); 2025 > Article
Review Article
 Interictal Burden of Migraine: A Narrative Review
Soo-Kyoung Kim1,2orcid, Todd J. Schwedt3orcid
Headache and Pain Research 2025;26(3):200-208.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.62087/hpr.2025.0018
Published online: October 21, 2025

1Department of Neurology, Gyeongsang National University Hospital, Gyeongsang National University College of Medicine, Jinju, Republic of Korea

2Institute of Medical Science, Gyeongsang National University College of Medicine, Jinju, Republic of Korea

3Headache Division, Department of Neurology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ, USA

Correspondence: Todd J. Schwedt, M.D. Headache Division, Department of Neurology, Mayo Clinic, 5777 East Mayo Blvd, Phoenix, AZ 85054, USA Tel: +1-480-301-8000, Fax: +1-480-342-6546, E-mail: Schwedt.Todd@mayo.edu
• Received: September 14, 2025   • Revised: October 2, 2025   • Accepted: October 5, 2025

© 2025 The Korean Headache Society

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

  • 133 Views
  • 7 Download
prev next
Full Article

Download PDF Download PDF

  • Migraine is a chronic neurological disorder associated with substantial disability and societal costs. Traditionally, research and clinical care have focused on the ictal phase, characterized by headache and accompanying symptoms. However, growing evidence suggests that a considerable portion of migraine-related disability occurs between attacks, known as the interictal burden (IIB). IIB encompasses a wide spectrum of cognitive, emotional, sensory, and functional impairments that persist during headache-free periods, including fatigue, allodynia, photophobia, cognitive dysfunction, anticipatory anxiety, and social withdrawal. These symptoms can markedly reduce quality of life, work productivity, and family functioning, even in individuals with infrequent attacks. In a descriptive survey of 506 migraine respondents, 67% experienced severe IIB. The effects of IIB extend beyond patients themselves, contributing to presenteeism in the workplace and imposing emotional and logistical strain within families. Several instruments, including the Migraine Interictal Burden Scale (MIBS-4), Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire (MSQ v2.1), Headache Impact Test (HIT-6), and Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS), have been employed to assess different dimensions of IIB. Nonetheless, no single comprehensive and standardized tool fully captures the multidimensional nature of IIB. Recognizing and addressing IIB is essential for delivering holistic, patient-centered migraine care. Future research should focus on developing validated assessment instruments and incorporating IIB measures into clinical trials and routine practice to better understand and alleviate the hidden burden of migraine.
  • Keywords: Activities of daily living, Burden of illness, Disability evaluation, Migraine disorders, Quality of life
Migraine is a disabling chronic neurological disease characterized by episodic attacks consisting of headache and non-pain symptoms such as nausea, sensory hypersensitivities, mood changes, and cognitive dysfunction.1,2 Previous studies have demonstrated that migraine imposes a substantial burden on patients, families, the workplace, and society.3,4 At the population level, “migraine-attributed burden” is defined as the sum of the negative impact of migraine on individuals with migraine plus the impact on people without migraine.5 Migraine most commonly occurs between the second and sixth decades of life, which are crucial years for education, career development, and productivity.6,7 Understanding the magnitude of and contributors to both ictal and interictal migraine burden is essential for accurately assessing the true impact of migraine and developing targeted interventions to reduce it.8,9 While its burden has traditionally been quantified based on ictal features such as attack frequency, severity, and duration, a growing body of research emphasizes that migraine is not confined to the ictal phase. Interictal burden (IIB) refers to the constellation of symptoms and restrictions experienced between attacks, including sensory hypersensitivity, cognitive impairment, anticipatory anxiety, and impaired social and occupational functioning.10 For this review, the interictal period is defined as a headache-free interval of at least 24 hours since the last migraine ictus, excluding prodromal and postdromal phases. Prior studies have adopted varying definitions. For example, Lampl et al.11 described IIB as the “loss of health or wellbeing attributable to a headache disorder reportedly experienced while headache-free, affecting all areas of life on any day." Peng and May,12 from a clinical perspective, characterized the interictal phase as the interval between two attacks during which patients are “usually relatively symptom free”. Such heterogeneity in definitions may influence estimates of IIB, particularly in chronic migraine (CM) where headache-free days are scarce.
The objective of this narrative review is to provide an overview of IIB in migraine, focusing on its epidemiology, domains of impact, assessment tools, clinical implications, and future directions.
This article was prepared as a narrative review to provide an overview of current knowledge on IIB in migraine. The review was structured and reported according to the SANRA (Scale for the Assessment of Narrative Review Articles) guidelines to ensure clarity, transparency, and scientific rigor.
We performed a literature search using MEDLINE (via PubMed) and Embase databases. The search covered the period from January 1, 2000 to September 1, 2025, with no geographic restrictions. The search strategy combined controlled vocabulary (MeSH/Emtree terms) and free-text keywords related to migraine and IIB. The core search string included terms such as: “migraine” OR “headache disorders” AND (“interictal burden” OR “interictal symptoms” OR “migraine burden” OR “anxiety” OR “cognitive impairment” OR “presenteeism” OR “quality of life”).
Relevant literature was identified through the review of key published studies and large epidemiological projects as well as other peer-reviewed research articles and systematic reviews. Articles were selected for their relevance to the main themes of this review: (1) epidemiology of IIB, (2) domains of impact (cognitive, psychological, sensory, social, and functional), (3) assessment tools used to measure IIB, and (4) clinical and societal implications.
Inclusion criteria were peer-reviewed English-language publications that reported data on people with migraine, including both episodic and CM, and addressed at least one of the themes above. Exclusion criteria included abstracts without full text, case reports with fewer than 10 participants, and studies unrelated to migraine or IIB.
As this was a narrative review, a formal risk-of-bias tool was not applied. However, study design and methodological quality were considered when interpreting findings, and greater weight was given to systematic reviews and large observational studies.
1. Epidemiology of interictal burden
Epidemiological surveys demonstrate that IIB is common and clinically meaningful. The OVERCOME (Japan) study reported that approximately 41.5% of respondents with migraine had moderate-to-severe IIB, and a comparable proportion (53.8%) was seen in OVERCOME (US).13 Similarly, European data from the Eurolight study revealed that 26.0% of individuals with migraine reported IIB, including 10.6% with interictal anxiety and 14.8% with avoidance behaviors.11 CM is consistently associated with higher interictal impairment than episodic migraine.
2. Domains of interictal burden
IIB can be categorized into several key domains, each contributing to a patient’s overall disability and reduced quality of life (QoL) (Table 1).

1) Cognitive and behavioral dysfunction

Many patients report cognitive impairments during the interictal phase, often described as “brain fog.” These difficulties may include reduced selective attention and deficits in executive function, impacting the ability to concentrate, remember, and perform complex tasks.14 One study found evidence of mild executive dysfunction in patients with migraine without aura during the interictal period.15 Patients with CM demonstrate poorer frontal lobe–related cognitive performance, especially in executive function, compared with episodic migraine and healthy controls. Deficits in executive tasks such as the Trail Making Test and Wisconsin Card Sorting Test have been documented in CM, and higher migraine severity has been associated with reduced attention and slower processing speed.15-18

2) Psychological distress

The constant threat of an impending attack often leads to anticipatory anxiety, which may result in avoidance behaviors that limit daily activities and affect the ability to make plans or commitments. Anxiety and depression may be associated with more severe migraine disease. In the Nord-Trøndelag Health Study (HUNT) cohort study, anxiety was associated with a two-fold increased risk and depression with a 2.6-fold increased risk of developing medication overuse headache (MOH).19 Depression is associated with a higher risk of transformation from episodic to CM, the risk of which is greatest among those with more severe depression.20

3) Social stigma and isolation

Migraine is frequently misunderstood as a simple headache, leading to social stigma. Patients may hide their condition from colleagues, friends, and family, resulting in social isolation and feelings of being misunderstood.21 Stigma also contributes to underreporting and delays in diagnosis, while reinforcing avoidance behaviors. In the OVERCOME (US) cohort, 45.1% of migraine patients reported ever hesitating to seek care, with hiding migraine and perceived stigma being among the strongest associated factors.22 Higher stigma scores were strongly associated with greater disability, poorer QoL, and reduced care seeking.23 Over time, these dynamics can affect career advancement, education, and family planning.24 Additionally, stigma may discourage patients from seeking treatment, exacerbating the emotional burden and resulting in unnecessary suffering from untreated migraine.24,25 To better quantify stigma, the migraine-related stigma (MiRS) questionnaire was recently developed and validated using OVERCOME data, providing a standardized tool for measuring perceived stigma and its clinical impact.26

4) Persistent non-pain symptoms

Many symptoms associated with the ictal phase—such as allodynia, photophobia, phonophobia, osmophobia, vestibular disturbances and motion sickness—can persist into the interictal phase at lower intensity. In the OVERCOME (US) cohort, 31.7% of participants reported frequent interictal symptoms such as sensitivity to light or sound, cognitive difficulties, and fatigue, even on non-headache days.8,23 Neuroimaging studies, including functional magnetic resonance imaging and structural analyses, demonstrate persistent cortical hyperexcitability and alterations in regional brain structure in pain-processing regions and regions responsible for processing other sensory stimuli, supporting a neurobiological basis for these ongoing symptoms.9,27,28

5) Work and productivity loss

Workplace productivity is profoundly affected by migraine, especially through presenteeism—working while symptomatic but at reduced capacity. One study estimated that 89% of total productivity loss due to migraine was attributable to presenteeism rather than absenteeism.29 In the Japanese OVERCOME cohort, presenteeism accounted for a substantial portion of work time impairment—up to 49.9% of work hours—while absenteeism rates remained low (3.8%–6.2%). This suggests that presenteeism-related costs far exceed those from absence in this population. Although direct data linking interictal fatigue or reduced vitality to presenteeism costs in Japanese cohorts are lacking, the high proportion of productivity impairment attributable to presenteeism supports the possibility that interictal symptoms contribute meaningfully to economic burden.30,31 Furthermore, higher Migraine Interictal Burden Scale (MIBS-4) scores have been shown to correlate with greater activity impairment and lower workplace productivity.8,32

6) Family and social burden

Longitudinal data from the Chronic Migraine Epidemiology and Outcomes (CaMEO) study highlight the widespread impact of migraine on family functioning. Nearly half of respondents with migraine reported reduced participation in family activities, with the highest burden observed among those with CM. They felt their partner did not understand the severity of their condition, and a substantial proportion believed they would be better parents without migraine.33 Furthermore, adolescents living with a parent with CM experienced greater anxiety, missed activities, and assumed more household responsibilities than those with a parent who had episodic migraine.34 In a study of headache specialty clinic patients with migraine in the United States, 19.9% of women avoided pregnancy due to their migraine, mostly because of concerns about negative impacts of migraine on their pregnancy and child.35 These findings demonstrate that migraine is not only a personal condition but also a family disease, with implications for emotional health and household dynamics.
3. Assessment tools for interictal burden
Recognition of IIB as a major contributor to migraine-related disability has led to the development and adaptation of various assessment tools. Although a fully comprehensive, validated instrument for IIB remains unavailable, both migraine-specific and general instruments are used (Table 2).

1) Migraine-specific instruments

Most migraine-specific instruments were originally developed to assess global headache-related disability, with particular emphasis on ictal burden. While not specifically designed to evaluate interictal effects, certain items—such as those addressing fatigue, concentration difficulties, or reduced vitality—may inadvertently capture functional limitations that persist during headache-free intervals. Accordingly, these measures should be interpreted as providing only partial and indirect insights into IIB rather than as dedicated assessments. This limitation highlights the need for rigorously validated instruments explicitly designed to quantify IIB, such as the MIBS-4.

(1) Migraine Interictal Burden Scale

The MIBS-4 is currently the only instrument explicitly designed to assess IIB. It comprises four items assessing emotional distress, difficulty in making plans or commitments, social or leisure disruption, and impairment in work or school life. Each item is rated on a 0–3 scale (total score 0–12), with higher scores indicating greater burden. Scores are categorized as none (0), mild (1–2), moderate (3–4), or severe (≥5). Validation data from real-world studies such as OVERCOME (Japan, US) show correlation with health-related QoL, productivity loss, and daily functioning.9 In the OVERCOME (Japan) study, higher MIBS-4 scores were associated with greater activity impairment, productivity loss, absenteeism, and presenteeism within Headache Impact Test (HIT-6) strata.8

(2) Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire

The Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire (MSQ v2.1) is a widely used instrument for assessing the impact of migraine on health-related QoL. It consists of three domains: Role Function–Restrictive, Role Function–Preventive, and Emotional Function. While originally developed to measure ictal-related quality-of-life impairment, items within the Role Function–Restrictive domain are sensitive to interictal functional limitations, such as reduced energy, motivation, and social participation on non-headache days.36 In a validation study of the Greek version of MSQ v2.1, significant moderate correlations were observed between MSQ scores and the Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS), with correlation coefficients ranging from ρ=–0.562 to –0.519 (p<0.001).37 These findings support that the Role Function–Restrictive domain reflects functional limitations in daily life and is relevant for assessing the broader impact of migraine beyond headache episodes.36

(3) Headache Impact Test

HIT-6 measures headache-related disability, including difficulty concentrating, fatigue, and role limitations. Although not designed specifically for IIB, psychometric studies suggest that some items indirectly reflect interictal cognitive and functional impairment.38,39

(4) Migraine Disability Assessment

MIDAS assesses productivity loss over the past three months due to migraine. Although it aggregates both ictal and interictal days, it can indirectly reflect persistent functional limitations in individuals with frequent attacks, providing a partial estimate of IIB.40,41

2) Generic and complementary instruments

In addition to migraine-specific tools, several broadly applicable instruments can be utilized to capture specific domains of IIB that are otherwise underrepresented (Table 3).

(1) Cognitive Failures Questionnaire

The Cognitive Failures Questionnaire (CFQ) is a self-reported survey that assesses daily memory, attention, and execution failures. In migraine patients, CFQ scores have been shown to correlate significantly with subjective cognitive impairment during attacks, supporting its utility as a complementary tool for evaluating cognitive dysfunction.42

(2) Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale

The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) assesses anxiety (HADS-A) and depression (HADS-D), which are key components of anticipatory anxiety and emotional distress between migraine attacks. In a cross-sectional study, individuals with migraine scoring ≥11 on HADS-A had over twice the odds of interictal anxiety compared to those with lower scores. Elevated HADS-A and HADS-D scores are also common in patients with MOH and significantly decrease following detoxification treatment, highlighting their clinical relevance. Furthermore, higher monthly headache days are associated with a dose-dependent increase in psychological distress, with ≥3 days linked to anxiety and ≥19 days to depression and severe disability.43-45

(3) Work Productivity and Activity Impairment questionnaire

The Work Productivity and Activity Impairment questionnaire (WPAI) measures absenteeism, presenteeism, and overall activity impairment.46 In Japan, presenteeism has been shown to consume 29.8%–49.9% of work time in migraine patients, far exceeding absenteeism rates (3.8%–6.2%).31 WPAI scores have also been found to increase with headache frequency, with presenteeism rising from 41.7% in patients with 0–3 monthly headache days to 67.5% in those with ≥15 days.47

(4) World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 and 36-item short-form/EuroQol-5 Dimensions

Generic health-related QoL instruments such as World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 (WHODAS 2.0), 36-item short-form (SF-36), and EuroQol-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) have been used in headache and pain research to capture interictal functional impairments, particularly in domains of vitality, social participation, and role limitations.48-50 A large European study demonstrated that higher frequency of headache days (≥4 monthly headache days) is associated with significantly lower health-related QoL (SF-6D, EQ-5D, and SF-36 summary scores) and increased work/activity impairment.51 Clinical data using 5-level EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L) confirm that patients with CM report lower health utility scores compared to those with episodic migraine, even outside of headache episodes.39 Population-based data from England using SF-36 show broad impairment across vitality, role limitation, and social functioning domains among those with migraine, particularly in those with moderate to severe disability.52
The construct of IIB in migraine demonstrates that the impact from migraine extends beyond the ictal phase, encompassing persistent cognitive, emotional, sensory, and functional impairments even during headache-free periods. Epidemiological studies have shown that IIB is highly prevalent across all migraine subtypes, even including individuals with low-frequency episodic migraine. This highlights the limitation of traditional metrics, such as monthly headache days, which primarily focus on ictal symptoms and do not fully capture the full burden of migraine. Even when headache frequency is relatively low, the psychological burden of anticipating the next attack, along with ongoing symptoms such as fatigue, allodynia, photophobia, and cognitive dysfunction, can significantly reduce health-related QoL. These findings highlight the need to redefine migraine as a persistent neurological disorder rather than an episodic condition. They also emphasize the importance of integrating IIB into clinical assessment and treatment strategies.
IIB has widespread functional and societal implications. Beyond the direct suffering experienced by those with migraine, migraine significantly impacts the workplace, family life, and social interactions. Reduced workplace productivity is a major concern, with presenteeism consistently identified as the primary driver of economic loss. IIB not only affects individuals, but also imposes a substantial economic burden on employers and society.
The impact of migraine on families is also profound. The CaMEO study demonstrates that migraine interferes with family activities and relational dynamics, with the highest burden observed among those with CM. These findings emphasize that migraine is a family disease, influencing relationships, emotional well-being, and the daily functioning of household members.
Assessing IIB remains challenging due to methodological limitations. The MIBS-4 is the only tool specifically designed to measure IIB. Other instruments such as MSQ v2.1, HIT-6, and MIDAS were originally developed for ictal assessment but can provide partial insights into interictal effects. In addition, generic tools like the CFQ, HADS, WPAI, WHODAS 2.0, SF-36, and EQ-5D can complement migraine-specific measures by evaluating cognitive, psychological, and social dimensions. However, there is no single comprehensive tool that addresses all aspects of IIB, and many instruments lack cross-cultural validation, particularly for patients with CM. Furthermore, IIB is rarely included as a primary outcome measure in clinical trials, limiting our understanding of its responsiveness to treatment. Nonetheless, recent evidence indicates that IIB can be improved by preventive therapies. In a prospective cohort of 150 CM patients, onabotulinumtoxinA treatment reduced MIBS-4 scores by approximately 29% at 3 months and 42% at 12 months, reflecting sustained improvements in daily functioning.53 Similarly, clinical data with CGRP monoclonal antibodies, such as galcanezumab, demonstrate reductions in interictal symptoms including allodynia and fatigue.54 These findings highlight the potential of recent preventive treatments to alleviate both ictal and IIB, underscoring the need to systematically include IIB endpoints in future trials and clinical practice to provide a more comprehensive and patient-centered assessment of therapeutic benefit.
To address these gaps, several key steps are needed. First, a standardized definition of the interictal period should be established, particularly for CM, where headache-free days are less common. Second, new multidimensional instruments must be developed to comprehensively assess the cognitive, emotional, sensory, and social aspects of IIB and validated across diverse cultures and age groups. Third, both clinical trials and real-world registries should incorporate IIB measures to better evaluate its prognostic value and the effectiveness of preventive and behavioral interventions on reducing IIB. Finally, future research should investigate how cultural and sociodemographic factors influence the perception and reporting of IIB, thereby enhancing the global relevance and applicability of migraine management strategies.
In conclusion, IIB is a substantial yet underrecognized component of migraine-related burden. Even in the absence of headache, individuals with migraine may experience persistent symptoms that significantly impact QoL, work productivity, and family relationships. The development of comprehensive, validated assessment tools and the integration of IIB into longitudinal studies and clinical trials are essential steps toward addressing this hidden burden.
Table 1.
Domains of interictal burden
Domain Description Symptoms
Cognitive dysfunction Cognitive inefficiency persisting between attacks “Brain fog,” poor concentration, reduced attention, impaired memory, executive dysfunction
Psychological distress Anticipatory anxiety and emotional comorbidities Anxiety, depression, avoidance behaviors, fear of next attack
Sensory symptoms Persistent sensory hypersensitivity outside ictal periods Allodynia, photophobia, phonophobia, osmophobia, vestibular disturbance
Social stigma & isolation Impact of misunderstanding migraine as “just a headache” Concealment, social withdrawal, delayed diagnosis, underreporting
Work productivity loss Limitations in occupational performance between attacks Presenteeism, reduced efficiency, economic cost
Family burden Effect on family functioning and relationships Reduced participation in family activities, parental strain, adolescent stress
Table 2.
Migraine-specific instruments for measuring IIB
Purpose Domains Limitations
MIBS-4 Specific IIB Emotional distress, planning difficulty, social disruption, work/school impairment Brief, easy to use, but limited scope
MSQ v2.1 Migraine-specific QoL Role Function–Restrictive, Preventive, and Emotional Sensitive to functional changes, but partial interictal coverage
HIT-6 Headache impact and disability Pain, fatigue, cognitive impairment, role limitation Not interictal-specific, indirect measure
MIDAS Headache-related productivity loss Absenteeism, reduced productivity, overall disability Mixed ictal/interictal contributions

IIB, interictal burden; MIBS-4, Migraine Interictal Burden Scale; MSQ, Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire; QoL, quality of life; HIT-6, Headache Impact Test; MIDAS, Migraine Disability Assessment.

Table 3.
Generic and complementary instruments
Purpose Domains Application in migraine research
CFQ Cognitive performance in daily activities Memory, attention, executive failures Elevated in both ictal and interictal periods
HADS Emotional well-being Anxiety (HADS-A), depression (HADS-D) Identifies anticipatory anxiety, emotional distress
WPAI Work productivity and activity impairment Presenteeism, absenteeism, total activity loss Estimates economic and occupational impact
WHODAS 2.0, SF-36, EQ-5D General health-related quality of life Physical, psychological, and social functioning Assesses vitality, role function, social participation

CFQ, Cognitive Failures Questionnaire; HADS, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale; WPAI, Work Productivity and Activity Impairment questionnaire; WHODAS 2.0, World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0; SF-36, 36-item short-form; EQ-5D, EuroQol-5 Dimensions.

  • 1. Dodick DW. Migraine. Lancet 2018;391:1315-1330.ArticlePubMed
  • 2. Ashina M. Migraine. N Engl J Med 2020;383:1866-1876.ArticlePubMed
  • 3. Hazard E, Munakata J, Bigal ME, Rupnow MF, Lipton RB. The burden of migraine in the United States: current and emerging perspectives on disease management and economic analysis. Value Health 2009;12:55-64.ArticlePubMed
  • 4. Seddik AH, Branner JC, Ostwald DA, Schramm SH, Bierbaum M, Katsarava Z. The socioeconomic burden of migraine: an evaluation of productivity losses due to migraine headaches based on a population study in Germany. Cephalalgia 2020;40:1551-1560.ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 5. Steiner TJ, Terwindt GM, Katsarava Z, et al. Migraine-attributed burden, impact and disability, and migraine-impacted quality of life: Expert consensus on definitions from a Delphi process. Cephalalgia 2022;42:1387-1396.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
  • 6. Stewart WF, Wood C, Reed ML, Roy J, Lipton RB; AMPP Advisory Group. Cumulative lifetime migraine incidence in women and men. Cephalalgia 2008;28:1170-1178.ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 7. GBD 2016 Headache Collaborators. Global, regional, and national burden of migraine and tension-type headache, 1990-2016: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016. Lancet Neurol 2018;17:954-976.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 8. Takizawa T, Danno D, Ishii R, et al. The dual impact of ictal and interictal burden in migraine: an analysis from the ObserVational survey of the Epidemiology, tReatment, and Care Of MigrainE (OVERCOME) Japan second study. J Headache Pain 2025;26:140.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
  • 9. Vincent M, Viktrup L, Nicholson RA, Ossipov MH, Vargas BB. The not so hidden impact of interictal burden in migraine: a narrative review. Front Neurol 2022;13:1032103.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 10. Duan S, Ren Z, Xia H, et al. Associations between anxiety, depression with migraine, and migraine-related burdens. Front Neurol 2023;14:1090878.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 11. Lampl C, Thomas H, Stovner LJ, et al. Interictal burden attributable to episodic headache: findings from the Eurolight project. J Headache Pain 2016;17:9.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
  • 12. Peng KP, May A. Redefining migraine phases - a suggestion based on clinical, physiological, and functional imaging evidence. Cephalalgia 2020;40:866-870.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
  • 13. Shapiro RE, Nicholson RA, Seng EK, et al. Migraine-related stigma and its relationship to disability, interictal burden, and quality of life: results of the OVERCOME (US) study. Neurology 2024;102:e208074.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 14. Topbaş U, Taşdelen B, Gürlen NÖ, Özge A. Premonitory symptoms in migraine: implications for disease burden and cognitive impairment, with some promising answers. Headache Pain Res 2025;26:130-141.ArticlePDF
  • 15. Camarda C, Monastero R, Pipia C, Recca D, Camarda R. Interictal executive dysfunction in migraineurs without aura: relationship with duration and intensity of attacks. Cephalalgia 2007;27:1094-1100.ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 16. Castro Zamparella T, Carpinella M, Peres M, et al. Specific cognitive and psychological alterations are more strongly linked to increased migraine disability than chronic migraine diagnosis. J Headache Pain 2024;25:37.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 17. Migliore S, D’Aurizio G, Altamura C, et al. Task-switching abilities in episodic and chronic migraine. Neurol Sci 2022;43:3803-3810.ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 18. Lee SH, Lee Y, Song M, Lee JJ, Sohn JH. Differences in frontal lobe dysfunction in patients with episodic and chronic migraine. J Clin Med 2021;10:2779.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 19. Hagen K, Linde M, Steiner TJ, Stovner LJ, Zwart JA. Risk factors for medication-overuse headache: an 11-year follow-up study. The Nord-Trøndelag Health Studies. Pain 2012;153:56-61.ArticlePubMed
  • 20. Ashina S, Serrano D, Lipton RB, et al. Depression and risk of transformation of episodic to chronic migraine. J Headache Pain 2012;13:615-624.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
  • 21. Casas-Limón J, Quintas S, López-Bravo A, et al. Unravelling migraine stigma: a comprehensive review of its impact and strategies for change. J Clin Med 2024;13:5222.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 22. Shapiro RE, Muenzel EJ, Nicholson RA, et al. Factors and reasons associated with hesitating to seek care for migraine: results of the OVERCOME (US) study. Neurol Ther 2025;14:135-155.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
  • 23. Buse DC, Cady R, Starling AJ, et al. Headache/migraine-related stigma, quality of life, disability, and most bothersome symptom in adults with current versus previous high-frequency headache/migraine and medication overuse: results of the Migraine Report Card survey. BMC Neurol 2024;24:232.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
  • 24. Buse DC, Fanning KM, Reed ML, et al. Life With migraine: effects on relationships, career, and finances from the Chronic Migraine Epidemiology and Outcomes (CaMEO) Study. Headache 2019;59:1286-1299.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
  • 25. Young WB, Park JE, Tian IX, Kempner J. The stigma of migraine. PLoS One 2013;8:e54074.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 26. Seng EK, Muenzel EJ, Shapiro RE, et al. Development of the migraine-related stigma (MiRS) questionnaire: results of the OVERCOME (US) study. Headache 2025;65:269-279.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 27. Russo A, Esposito F, Conte F, et al. Functional interictal changes of pain processing in migraine with ictal cutaneous allodynia. Cephalalgia 2017;37:305-314.ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 28. Datta R, Aguirre GK, Hu S, Detre JA, Cucchiara B. Interictal cortical hyperresponsiveness in migraine is directly related to the presence of aura. Cephalalgia 2013;33:365-374.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
  • 29. Begasse de Dhaem O, Sakai F. Migraine in the workplace. eNeurologicalSci 2022;27:100408.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 30. Shimizu T, Sakai F, Miyake H, et al. Disability, quality of life, productivity impairment and employer costs of migraine in the workplace. J Headache Pain 2021;22:29.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
  • 31. Matsumori Y, Ueda K, Komori M, et al. Burden of migraine in Japan: results of the ObserVational Survey of the Epidemiology, tReatment, and Care Of MigrainE (OVERCOME [Japan]) study. Neurol Ther 2022;11:205-222.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
  • 32. Hubig LT, Smith T, Williams E, et al. Measuring interictal burden among people affected by migraine: a descriptive survey study. J Headache Pain 2022;23:97.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
  • 33. Buse DC, Scher AI, Dodick DW, et al. Impact of migraine on the family: perspectives of people with migraine and their spouse/domestic partner in the CaMEO study. Mayo Clin Proc 2016;91:596-611.ArticlePubMed
  • 34. Buse DC, Powers SW, Gelfand AA, et al. Adolescent perspectives on the burden of a parent’s migraine: results from the CaMEO study. Headache 2018;58:512-524.ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 35. Ishii R, Schwedt TJ, Kim SK, Dumkrieger G, Chong CD, Dodick DW. Effect of migraine on pregnancy planning: insights from the American Registry for Migraine Research. Mayo Clin Proc 2020;95:2079-2089.ArticlePubMed
  • 36. Speck RM, Shalhoub H, Wyrwich KW, et al. Psychometric validation of the role function restrictive domain of the Migraine Specific Quality-of-Life Questionnaire version 2.1 electronic patient-reported outcome in patients with episodic and chronic migraine. Headache 2019;59:756-774.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
  • 37. Giannouli E, Giannouli E, Alexoudi A, et al. Validity and reliability of the Greek Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire (MSQ version 2.1-GR). J Patient Rep Outcomes 2024;8:72.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
  • 38. Houts CR, Wirth RJ, McGinley JS, et al. Content validity of HIT-6 as a measure of headache impact in people with migraine: a narrative review. Headache 2020;60:28-39.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
  • 39. Oliveira Gonçalves AS, Panteli D, Neeb L, Kurth T, Aigner A. HIT-6 and EQ-5D-5L in patients with migraine: assessment of common latent constructs and development of a mapping algorithm. Eur J Health Econ 2022;23:47-57.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
  • 40. Stewart WF, Lipton RB, Kolodner KB, Sawyer J, Lee C, Liberman JN. Validity of the Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) score in comparison to a diary-based measure in a population sample of migraine sufferers. Pain 2000;88:41-52.ArticlePubMed
  • 41. Steiner TJ, Lipton RB; Lifting The Burden: The Global Campaign against Headache. The Headache-Attributed Lost Time (HALT) Indices: measures of burden for clinical management and population-based research. J Headache Pain 2018;19:12.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 42. Gil-Gouveia R, Oliveira AG, Martins IP. A subjective cognitive impairment scale for migraine attacks. The MIG-SCOG: development and validation. Cephalalgia 2011;31:984-991.ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 43. Zigmond AS, Snaith RP. The hospital anxiety and depression scale. Acta Psychiatr Scand 1983;67:361-370.ArticlePubMed
  • 44. Bendtsen L, Munksgaard S, Tassorelli C, et al. Disability, anxiety and depression associated with medication-overuse headache can be considerably reduced by detoxification and prophylactic treatment. Results from a multicentre, multinational study (COMOESTAS project). Cephalalgia 2014;34:426-433.ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 45. Irimia P, Garrido-Cumbrera M, Santos-Lasaosa S, et al. Impact of monthly headache days on anxiety, depression and disability in migraine patients: results from the Spanish Atlas. Sci Rep 2021;11:8286.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
  • 46. Reilly MC, Zbrozek AS, Dukes EM. The validity and reproducibility of a work productivity and activity impairment instrument. Pharmacoeconomics 1993;4:353-365.ArticlePubMed
  • 47. Ishii R, Sakai F, Sano H, Nakai M, Koga N, Matsukawa M. Quality of life and work productivity and activity impairment among online survey respondents with migraine across a range of headache frequency. Front Neurol 2024;15:1440733.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 48. D’Amico D, Tepper SJ, Guastafierro E, et al. Mapping assessments instruments for headache disorders against the ICF biopsychosocial model of health and disability. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2020;18:246.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 49. Ware JE Jr, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 1992;30:473-483.ArticlePubMed
  • 50. Rabin R, de Charro F. EQ-5D: a measure of health status from the EuroQol Group. Ann Med 2001;33:337-343.ArticlePubMed
  • 51. Doane MJ, Gupta S, Vo P, Laflamme AK, Fang J. Associations between headache-free days and patient-reported outcomes among migraine patients: a cross-sectional analysis of survey data in Europe. Pain Ther 2019;8:203-216.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
  • 52. Lipton RB, Liberman JN, Kolodner KB, Bigal ME, Dowson A, Stewart WF. Migraine headache disability and health-related quality-of-life: a population-based case-control study from England. Cephalalgia 2003;23:441-450.ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 53. Sánchez-Huertas A, Camejo-Mas O, Garcia-Roldan S, et al. OnabotulinumtoxinA is an effective treatment for reducing the interictal burden in patients with chronic migraine: a prospective observational study. Toxins (Basel) 2025;17:463.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 54. Danno D, Imai N, Kitamura S, Ishizaki K, Kikui S, Takeshima T. Efficacy of galcanezumab in migraine central sensitization. Sci Rep 2024;14:21824.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF

Figure & Data

References

    Citations

    Citations to this article as recorded by  

      • PubReader PubReader
      • ePub LinkePub Link
      • Cite this Article
        Cite this Article
        export Copy Download
        Close
        Download Citation
        Download a citation file in RIS format that can be imported by all major citation management software, including EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and Reference Manager.
        Format:
        • RIS — For EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and most other reference management software
        • BibTeX — For JabRef, BibDesk, and other BibTeX-specific software
        Include:
        • Citation for the content below
        Interictal Burden of Migraine: A Narrative Review
        Headache Pain Res. 2025;26(3):200-208.   Published online October 21, 2025
        DOI: https://doi.org/10.62087/hpr.2025.0018
        Close
      • XML DownloadXML Download
      Interictal Burden of Migraine: A Narrative Review
      Interictal Burden of Migraine: A Narrative Review
      Domain Description Symptoms
      Cognitive dysfunction Cognitive inefficiency persisting between attacks “Brain fog,” poor concentration, reduced attention, impaired memory, executive dysfunction
      Psychological distress Anticipatory anxiety and emotional comorbidities Anxiety, depression, avoidance behaviors, fear of next attack
      Sensory symptoms Persistent sensory hypersensitivity outside ictal periods Allodynia, photophobia, phonophobia, osmophobia, vestibular disturbance
      Social stigma & isolation Impact of misunderstanding migraine as “just a headache” Concealment, social withdrawal, delayed diagnosis, underreporting
      Work productivity loss Limitations in occupational performance between attacks Presenteeism, reduced efficiency, economic cost
      Family burden Effect on family functioning and relationships Reduced participation in family activities, parental strain, adolescent stress
      Purpose Domains Limitations
      MIBS-4 Specific IIB Emotional distress, planning difficulty, social disruption, work/school impairment Brief, easy to use, but limited scope
      MSQ v2.1 Migraine-specific QoL Role Function–Restrictive, Preventive, and Emotional Sensitive to functional changes, but partial interictal coverage
      HIT-6 Headache impact and disability Pain, fatigue, cognitive impairment, role limitation Not interictal-specific, indirect measure
      MIDAS Headache-related productivity loss Absenteeism, reduced productivity, overall disability Mixed ictal/interictal contributions
      Purpose Domains Application in migraine research
      CFQ Cognitive performance in daily activities Memory, attention, executive failures Elevated in both ictal and interictal periods
      HADS Emotional well-being Anxiety (HADS-A), depression (HADS-D) Identifies anticipatory anxiety, emotional distress
      WPAI Work productivity and activity impairment Presenteeism, absenteeism, total activity loss Estimates economic and occupational impact
      WHODAS 2.0, SF-36, EQ-5D General health-related quality of life Physical, psychological, and social functioning Assesses vitality, role function, social participation
      Table 1. Domains of interictal burden

      Table 2. Migraine-specific instruments for measuring IIB

      IIB, interictal burden; MIBS-4, Migraine Interictal Burden Scale; MSQ, Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire; QoL, quality of life; HIT-6, Headache Impact Test; MIDAS, Migraine Disability Assessment.

      Table 3. Generic and complementary instruments

      CFQ, Cognitive Failures Questionnaire; HADS, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale; WPAI, Work Productivity and Activity Impairment questionnaire; WHODAS 2.0, World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0; SF-36, 36-item short-form; EQ-5D, EuroQol-5 Dimensions.

      Table 1.

      Table 2.

      Table 3.

      Headache and Pain Research : Headache and Pain Research
      © The Korean Headache Society.
      TOP