109 Migraine with and without aura in relation to the menstrual cycle 5 There was a significant interaction between the perimenstrual window and migraine subtype for occurrence of a migraine attack (with and without aura pooled) (β [95%CI]: −0.14 [−0.26; −0.02], p = 0.022) (Table 2). The significant interaction term suggests that the effect of the perimenstrual window was greater for women with MO compared to MA, with an OR (95% CI) of 1.57 (1.45–1.69) for women with MO and 1.36 (1.24–1.49) for women with MA. Table 2. Results of mixed logistic regression model with migraine attack (with and without aura pooled) as dependent variable and perimenstrual window, migraine diagnosis (MO/MA) and interaction-term as fixed effects and the patients as a random effect. The intercept is the estimated odds for the reference category (MO outside of the perimenstrual window). Estimate SE Test-statistic p-value OR (95% CI) Intercept -2.49 0.03 -86.5 <0.001 0.08 (0.08-0.09) Perimenstrual window (ref = outside window) 0.45 0.04 11.4 <0.001 1.57 (1.45–1.69) Migraine diagnosis (ref = MO) 0.02 0.04 0.39 0.700 1.02 (0.93–1.11) Perimenstrual window * migraine diagnosis −0.14 0.06 −2.30 0.022 0.87 (0.77–0.98) There was no significant interaction between perimenstrual window and migraine subtype for occurrence of a migraine attack without aura (β [95%CI]: −0.08 [−0.21; 0.05], p = 0.224) (Table 3), indicating that the increase in migraine attacks without aura during the perimenstrual window was similar for women with MO versus MA. The non-significant interaction term was therefore dropped from the model to provide interpretable estimates for the effect of the perimenstrual window in women with MO and MA (OR women with MO 1.53 [1.44–1.62], OR women with MA 1.53 [1.44–1.62]). In women with MA, the perimenstrual window was not associated with an increase in migraine attacks with aura (OR [95%CI] 1.08 [0.93–1.26], p = 0.314) (Table 4).
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjY0ODMw