Search

Objective: The objective of this pilot study was to assess physical therapists' (PTs) knowledge and needs regarding headache diagnosis and management., Background: While there is significant research on physical therapy and cervicogenic headache, studies suggest that migraine is often under-recognized, misdiagnosed, and inadequately treated across society despite its high prevalence and burden. Because migraine commonly includes concurrent neck pain and/or vestibular symptoms, patients with migraine may present to PTs for treatment. Very little is known about PTs' headache and migraine education, knowledge, and clinical practices., Methods: A team of headache specialists and PTs adapted a previously used headache knowledge and needs assessment survey to help ascertain PTs' knowledge and needs regarding headache treatment. The cross-sectional survey was distributed online via Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) to PTs within a large healthcare system in Connecticut., Results: An estimated 50.5% (101/200) of PTs invited to complete the survey did so. Only 37.6% (38/101) of respondents reported receiving any formal headache or migraine education in their professional training, leading to knowledge gaps in differentiating and responding to headache subtypes. Only 45.5% (46/101) were able to identify that migraine is characterized by greater pain intensity than tension-type headache, and 22.8% (23/101) reported not knowing the duration of untreated migraine. When asked about the aspects of care they believe their patients with headache would like to see improved, PTs reported education around prevention and appropriate medication use (61/100 [61.0%]), provider awareness of the degree of disability associated with migraine (51/100 [51.0%]), and diagnostics (47/100 [47.0%])., Conclusion: This sample of PTs from one healthcare system demonstrates knowledge gaps and variations in clinical practice for managing their patients with headache. Future research on integrating additional opportunities for headache education for physical therapists, including evidence-based behavioral therapies, is needed to ascertain whether it is likely to improve patient care., (© 2024 American Headache Society.)

Objective: The objective of this study was to assess women's healthcare providers' treatment practices for pregnant women with migraine., Background: Migraine is associated with several maternal and fetal complications during pregnancy, including preeclampsia and preterm birth. Migraine treatment during pregnancy can present significant challenges due to lack of controlled clinical trials and risks associated with specific medications., Methods: Women's healthcare providers were queried regarding practice patterns and comfort with use of acute and preventive migraine treatments during pregnancy. The survey was distributed online., Results: The survey was completed by 92 women's healthcare providers (response rate 22.9% [92/402]), with most specializing in general obstetrics and gynecology (91% [83/92]). Approximately one-fourth (26% [24/92]) of respondents indicated they counseled women on migraine treatment in pregnancy as early as before pregnancy contemplation, while over one-third (35% [32/92]) counseled on migraine treatment once the patient became pregnant. The majority of respondents reported feeling somewhat or very comfortable with recommending (63% [58/92]) or continuing (64% [59/92]) acute treatments for pregnant patients with migraine, with highest comfort levels for acetaminophen (100% [92/92] for prescribing or continuing) and caffeine (94% [85/90] prescribing, 91% [82/90] continuing). Higher levels of discomfort were reported with triptans (88% [80/91] rarely or never prescribe during pregnancy). Survey respondents felt less comfortable with recommending preventive migraine treatments to pregnant patients (40% [37/92] somewhat or very comfortable), compared with a higher comfort level with continuing preventive medications (63% [58/92] somewhat or very comfortable). Highest comfort levels were reported with use of magnesium (69% [63/91] comfortable prescribing, 82% [75/92] comfortable continuing) and non-pharmacologic approaches (70% [62/89] comfortable prescribing, 84% [75/89] comfortable continuing). Nearly 40% (35/92) of respondents reported that they typically refer to neurologists or headache specialists for migraine treatment during pregnancy., Conclusion: This survey of women's healthcare providers revealed varying levels of comfort regarding migraine management during pregnancy, and highlights the need for additional education regarding migraine treatment safety data during pregnancy., (© 2023 American Headache Society.)

Aim: The current study compared the effectiveness of remote electrical neuromodulation (REN) to that of standard-care medications for acute treatments of migraine, using a within-subjects design. Materials & methods: Post-hoc within-subject analysis was performed on data from 78 adult chronic migraine patients who participated in a clinical trial with REN, on four end points: single-treatment pain relief, single-treatment pain freedom, consistency of pain relief and consistency of pain freedom. Results: No statistical differences were found between REN and the tested medications, in any of the effectiveness outcomes: single-treatment pain relief p = 0.056, single-treatment pain freedom p = 0.532, consistency of pain relief p = 0.369, consistency of pain freedom p = 1.00. Conclusion: The results suggest that REN may provide an effective non-pharmacological alternative for standard care abortive medications in individuals impacted by chronic migraine.

Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of concurrent non-invasive stimulation of occipital and trigeminal nerves in acute treatment of migraine with or without aura., Background: Non-invasive neuromodulation devices stimulating a single peripheral nerve or anatomic distribution are routinely used by patients with migraine refractory to the first-line drugs or those who opt out of pharmaceutical treatment. Concurrent occipital and trigeminal stimulation was described in an invasive setting, and its safety cost outweighed its efficacy gain. This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of an external concurrent occipital and trigeminal device in acute treatment of migraine., Design and Methods: This was a randomized, sham-controlled, double-blind, multi-center trial. Patients 18 years of age or older who met the International Classification of Headache Disorders (2018) diagnostic criteria for migraine with or without aura, reported 1-6 migraine attacks per month, and other headaches no more than 6 days per month were enrolled. Of 131 intention-to-treat participants (67 and 64 in the active and sham groups, respectively), 109 (50 and 59 in the active and sham groups, respectively) treated at least one migraine episode. Reduction of migraine headache (pain relief) 2 h after treatment initiation was the primary efficacy endpoint. Pain relief at 1 h, and pain freedom and relief in most bothersome symptom at 2 h after treatment initiation were the secondary endpoints. Freedom from most bothersome symptom at 2 h and sustained pain freedom 24 h after treatment initiation were among the exploratory endpoints., Results: Sixty percent of participants (30/50) in the active arm reported pain relief at 2 h after initiation of the first eligible treatment (primary outcome) compared to 37% (22/59) in the control arm (difference, 23%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2%-41%; p = 0.018). Pain freedom at 2 h without rescue medication was reported by 46% (23/50) of participants in the active arm and by 12% (7/59) of participants in the sham arm (p < 0.001). Pain freedom 2 h after the treatment and, subsequently, at 24 h, was reported by 4.25 times more participants in the active arm (36%; 18/50) than in the sham arm (8%; 5/59). The 28% difference was statistically significant (95% CI, 1%-43%; p < 0.001). A 4.25-fold difference was also observed comparing the proportion of participants free from pain and most bothersome symptom 2 h after the stimulation (47% [17/36] and 11% [5/45] in the active and sham arms, respectively; 95% CI, 14%-54%; p < 0.001). Adverse events were not serious or severe. All study-related events resolved without treatment., Conclusion: External concurrent occipital and trigeminal neurostimulation is a well-tolerated, safe, and effective migraine treatment that provided a fast and durable relief and freedom from migraine pain and associated symptoms in a randomized setting. The observed safety and performance suggest external concurrent occipital and trigeminal neurostimulation is a viable alternative to the currently available acute migraine treatments., Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT03631550., (© 2022 American Headache Society.)

Introduction: Remote electrical neuromodulation (REN) is an acute treatment of migraine. The results from several studies in patients with episodic migraine suggest that REN is an effective and safe acute treatment of migraine. A recent pilot study provided initial support that REN is effective in patients with chronic migraine as well., Objectives: The current study aimed to validate and provide further evidence for the safety and efficacy of REN in a large sample of patients impacted by chronic migraine., Methods: In this open-label, single-arm study, patients with chronic migraine treated their headaches with the REN device (Nerivio, Theranica Bio-Electronics Ltd, Israel) for 4 weeks. Participants used an electronic diary to record their symptoms at treatment initiation, 2 hours after treatment, and 24 hours after treatment. The primary end point was the percentage of subjects who achieved pain relief at 2 hours posttreatment. Secondary end points included pain freedom and improvement of associated symptoms and functional disability., Results: One hundred twenty-six subjects were enrolled into the study, of which 91 subjects had an evaluable treatment with REN. Pain relief and pain disappearance at 2 hours were achieved by 59.3% (54/91) and 20.9% (19/91) of modified intent-to-treat subjects, respectively (with worst-case sensitivity analysis indicating 54.5% and 19.2%, respectively). Sustained pain relief at 24 hours was observed in 64.4% (29/45) of those who achieved pain relief at 2 hours (with worst-case sensitivity analysis indicating 45.6%). The findings of the study show that REN has a favorable effect on nausea, photophobia, and phonophobia and improves functional ability. One device-related adverse event was reported., Conclusions: Remote electrical neuromodulation treatments results in the relief of migraine headaches and associated symptoms, thus offering a drug-free acute treatment option for people with chronic migraine., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04194008., Competing Interests: B. Grosberg has received book royalties or website access from Wiley and Medlink Neurology; has received research funds directly to his institution from Theranica, electroCore, Dr. Reddy, Migraine Research Foundation, and Neurolief; and is on the Medical Advisory Board of the Migraine Research Foundation, Amgen, Alder, Eli Lilly, Theranica, Neurolief, Lifegraph, Biohaven Pharmaceuticals, and Allergan. C. P. O'Carroll has served as speaker for Lilly, Biohaven, Teva, Amgen, and Allergan. T. Lin, M. Vizel, D. Harris, and A. Ironi are employees of Theranica. J. Schim has been a consultant for Aeon, Allergan, Amgen, Biohaven, electroCore, Impel, Lilly, Lundbeck, Novartis, Promius, Revance, Teva, and Upsher-Smith; has received research funds to his institution from Aeon, Allergan, Amgen, electroCore, Lilly, Lundbeck, Satsuma, Teva, and Zosano; and has served as a speaker for Allergan, Amgen, Biohaven, electroCore, Lilly, Lundbeck, Novartis, Promius, Teva, and Upsher-Smith. The remaining author has no conflicts of interest to declare. This work was supported by Theranica Bio-Electronics LtdTD.Sponsorships or competing interests that may be relevant to content are disclosed at the end of this article., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of The International Association for the Study of Pain.)

Migraine is common in celiac disease (CD) and usually improves on a gluten-free diet (GFD). The benefit for people impacted by migraine without CD is poorly evidenced. A GFD may have adverse health consequences and is expensive., (© 2020 American Headache Society.)

Primary empty sella (PES) syndrome is a misnomer as it is not a syndrome but a radiological finding with possible endocrine abnormalities. No specific headache type has been shown to be caused by PES. Endocrine screening may be considered for asymptomatic persons with PES., (© 2020 American Headache Society.)

Background: Status migrainosus is a condition with limited epidemiological knowledge, and no evidence-based treatment guideline or rational-driven assessment of successful treatment outcome. To fill this gap, we performed a prospective observational study in which we documented effectiveness of treatment approaches commonly used in a tertiary headache clinic., Material and Methods: Patients with episodic and chronic migraine who experienced continuous and prolonged attacks for more than 72 hours were treated with dexamethasone (4 mg orally twice daily for 3 days), ketorolac (60 mg intramuscularly), bilateral nerve blocks (1-2% lidocaine, 0.1-0.2 ml for both supraorbital and supratrochlear nerves, 1 ml for both auriculotemporal nerves, and 1 ml for both greater occipital nerves), or naratriptan (2.5 mg twice daily for 5 days). Hourly (for the first 24 hours) and daily (for first 30 days) change in headache intensity was documented using appropriate headache diaries., Results: Fifty-four patients provided eligible data for 60 treatment attempts. The success rate of rendering patients pain free within 24 hours and maintaining the pain-free status for 48 hours was 4/13 (31%) for dexamethasone, 7/29 (24%) for nerve blocks, 1/9 (11%) for ketorolac and 1/9 (11%) for naratriptan. These success rates depended on time to remission, as the longer we allowed the treatments to begin to work and patients to become pain free (i.e. 2, 12, 24, 48, 72, or 96 hours), the more likely patients were to achieve and maintain a pain-free status for at least 48 hours., Discussion: These findings suggest that current treatment approaches to terminating status migrainosus are not satisfactory and call attention to the need to develop a more scientific approach to define a treatment response for status migrainosus.