Search

Background: Lifting The Burden (LTB) and European Headache Federation (EHF) have developed a set of headache service quality indicators, successfully tested in specialist headache centres. Their intended application includes all levels of care. Here we assess their implementation in primary care. Methods: We included 28 primary-care clinics in Germany (4), Turkey (4), Latvia (5) and Portugal (15). To implement the indicators, we interviewed 111 doctors, 92 nurses and medical assistants, 70 secretaries, 27 service managers and 493 patients, using the questionnaires developed by LTB and EHF. In addition, we evaluated 675 patients' records. Enquiries were in nine domains: diagnosis, individualized management, referral pathways, patient education and reassurance, convenience and comfort, patient satisfaction, equity and efficiency of headache care, outcome assessment and safety. Results: The principal finding was that Implementation proved feasible and practical in primary care. In the process, we identified significant quality deficits. Almost everywhere, histories of headache, especially temporal profiles, were captured and/or assessed inaccurately. A substantial proportion (20%) of patients received non-specific ICD codes such as R51 ("headache") rather than specific headache diagnoses. Headache-related disability and quality of life were not part of routine clinical enquiry. Headache diaries and calendars were not in use. Waiting times were long (e.g., about 60 min in Germany). Nevertheless, most patients (> 85%) expressed satisfaction with their care. Almost all the participating clinics provided equitable and easy access to treatment, and follow-up for most headache patients, without unnecessary barriers. Conclusions: The study demonstrated that headache service quality indicators can be used in primary care, proving both practical and fit for purpose. It also uncovered quality deficits leading to suboptimal treatment, often due to a lack of knowledge among the general practitioners. There were failures of process also. These findings signal the need for additional training in headache diagnosis and management in primary care, where most headache patients are necessarily treated. More generally, they underline the importance of headache service quality evaluation in primary care, not only to identify-quality failings but also to guide improvements. This study also demonstrated that patients' satisfaction is not, on its own, a good indicator of service quality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and purpose: Experimental studies suggest inflammation can contribute to blood barrier disruption and brain injury in cerebral venous thrombosis (CVT). We aimed to determine whether blood biomarkers of inflammation were associated with the evolution of brain lesions, persistent venous occlusion or functional outcome in patients with CVT. Methods: Pathophysiology of Venous Infarction—Prediction of Infarction and Recanalization in CVT (PRIORITy‐CVT) was a multicenter prospective cohort study of patients with newly diagnosed CVT. Evaluation of neutrophil‐to‐lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and C‐reactive protein (CRP) concentrations in peripheral blood samples was performed at admission in 62 patients. Additional quantification of interleukin (IL)‐6 was performed at day 1, 3 and 8 in 35 patients and 22 healthy controls. Standardized magnetic resonance imaging was performed at day 1, 8 and 90. Primary outcomes were early evolution of brain lesion, early recanalization and functional outcome at 90 days. Results: Interleukin‐6 levels were increased in patients with CVT with a peak at baseline. IL‐6, NLR and CRP levels were not related with brain lesion outcomes or early recanalization but had a significant association with unfavourable functional outcome at 90 days (IL‐6: OR = 1.28, 95% CI: 1.05–1.56, P = 0.046; NLR: OR = 1.39, 95% CI: 1.4–1.87, P = 0.014; CRP: OR = 1.756, 95% CI: 1.010–3.051, P = 0.029). Baseline IL‐6 had the best discriminative capacity, with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve to predict unfavourable functional outcome of 0.74 (P = 0.031). Conclusions: Increased baseline levels of NLR, CRP and IL‐6 may serve as new predictive markers of worse functional prognosis at 90 days in patients with CVT. No association was found between inflammatory markers and early evolution of brain lesion or venous recanalization. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Evidence of attack-related cognitive dysfunction in migraine is growing. Controversy exists on whether cognitive dysfunction, mainly executive, may persist between attacks. Measuring the impact of cognitive function is gaining importance in clinical and research settings in migraine. Objective To compare the performance of interictal migraine patients to controls in an assembled neuropsychological battery focused on executive functions and to study the practice effect of its repeated applications. Method Assembly of the battery that was then applied twice within 6 weeks to interictal migraineurs and matched healthy controls. Results Migraine patients ( n = 24) and controls ( n = 24) had similar performance in both applications of the battery. There was a slight practice effect between the first and second evaluation, significant in Stroop Interference test ( P = 0.002, multiplicity corrected); a meaningful score change was determined for each raw test scores. Conclusions Interictal migraineurs and controls performance is identical in a brief cognitive battery focused on executive functions. Repeated applications produced a practice effect that was quantified. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background.- Migraine is a highly prevalent disorder that imposes an important burden of disability to patients and has social and economic impact in developed countries. A good screening tool for migraine diagnosis is useful to improve disease identification and therapeutic approaches, hopefully reducing the burden of migraine. Although Portuguese is currently the sixth most spoken language in the world, no migraine screening instrument exists in Portuguese. Objective.- To validate the Portuguese version of ID-Migraine[TM]. Methods.- Consecutive adults of 2 headache outpatient clinics in Lisbon, Portugal fulfilled the Portuguese version of ID-Migraine[TM] before evaluation by a trained neurologist in clinic, blinded to the questionnaire's results. The gold standard was the neurologists' clinical diagnosis, according to the International Classification of Headache Disorders, 2nd edition. A subset of patients was randomly selected to revaluation, in order to determine test-retest reliability. The validity measures of the test were calculated. Results.- A total of 142 patients were included, 83.8% of which women, with an age average of 39.2 years. Clinical diagnosis of migraine was made in 63.4% of the patients. The Portuguese version of ID-Migraine[TM] presented a sensitivity of 0.94 (95% CI 0.87-0.97), specificity of 0.60 (95% CI 0.46-0.73) and a positive predictive value of 0.80 (95% CI 0.71-0.87). Calculated Cronbachs' alpha was 0.78 and kappa coefficient 0.60. Conclusions.- The Portuguese version of ID-Migraine[TM] was of easy and rapid application and well accepted by patients. Its validity measures were identical to the 3 other versions of the same questionnaire - English (original), Italian, and Turkish. The Portuguese version of ID-Migraine[TM] is a valid screening tool for migraine, the first that can be used in Portuguese speaking communities although the low literacy rates in some of these countries may prevent its generalized application throughout the world. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Presents abstracts of several studies on cluster headache. 'Cluster headache without pain,' by I. Pavao-Martins, R. Gil-Gouveia and J. Joao-Lobo-Antunes; 'Hemicrania continua with contralateral episodic cluster headache: a case report,' by C. Lisotto, F. Dainese and F. Maggioni; 'Pain-relieving measures and behaviour during cluster headache attacks,' by E.P. Parreira, A. Tome, R.G. Gouveia and I.P. Martins.

Objective: Diffusional kurtosis imaging (DKI) extends diffusion tensor imaging (DTI), characterizing non-Gaussian diffusion effects but requires longer acquisition times. To ensure the robustness of DKI parameters, data acquisition ordering should be optimized allowing for scan interruptions or shortening. Three methodologies were used to examine how reduced diffusion MRI scans impact DKI histogram-metrics: 1) the electrostatic repulsion model (Opt EEM ); 2) spherical codes (Opt SC ); 3) random (Random TRUNC )., Materials and Methods: Pre-acquired diffusion multi-shell data from 14 female healthy volunteers (29±5 years) were used to generate reordered data. For each strategy, subsets containing different amounts of the full dataset were generated. The subsampling effects were assessed on histogram-based DKI metrics from tract-based spatial statistics (TBSS) skeletonized maps. To evaluate each subsampling method on simulated data at different SNRs and the influence of subsampling on in vivo data, we used a 3-way and 2-way repeated measures ANOVA, respectively., Results: Simulations showed that subsampling had different effects depending on DKI parameter, with fractional anisotropy the most stable (up to 5% error) and radial kurtosis the least stable (up to 26% error). Random TRUNC performed the worst while the others showed comparable results. Furthermore, the impact of subsampling varied across distinct histogram characteristics, the peak value the least affected (Opt EEM : up to 5% error; Opt SC : up to 7% error) and peak height (Opt EEM : up to 8% error; Opt SC : up to 11% error) the most affected., Conclusion: The impact of truncation depends on specific histogram-based DKI metrics. The use of a strategy for optimizing the acquisition order is advisable to improve DKI robustness to exam interruptions., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: The pathophysiology of migraine remains poorly understood, yet a growing number of studies have shown structural connectivity disruptions across large-scale brain networks. Although both structural and functional changes have been found in the cerebellum of migraine patients, the cerebellum has barely been assessed in previous structural connectivity studies of migraine. Our objective is to investigate the structural connectivity of the entire brain, including the cerebellum, in individuals diagnosed with episodic migraine without aura during the interictal phase, compared with healthy controls., Methods: To that end, 14 migraine patients and 15 healthy controls were recruited (all female), and diffusion-weighted and T1-weighted MRI data were acquired. The structural connectome was estimated for each participant based on two different whole-brain parcellations, including cortical and subcortical regions as well as the cerebellum. The structural connectivity patterns, as well as global and local graph theory metrics, were compared between patients and controls, for each of the two parcellations, using network-based statistics and a generalized linear model (GLM), respectively. We also compared the number of connectome streamlines within specific white matter tracts using a GLM., Results: We found increased structural connectivity in migraine patients relative to healthy controls with a distinct involvement of cerebellar regions, using both parcellations. Specifically, the node degree of the posterior lobe of the cerebellum was greater in patients than in controls and patients presented a higher number of streamlines within the anterior limb of the internal capsule. Moreover, the connectomes of patients exhibited greater global efficiency and shorter characteristic path length, which correlated with the age onset of migraine., Conclusions: A distinctive pattern of heightened structural connectivity and enhanced global efficiency in migraine patients compared to controls was identified, which distinctively involves the cerebellum. These findings provide evidence for increased integration within structural brain networks in migraine and underscore the significance of the cerebellum in migraine pathophysiology., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies (anti-CGRP MAbs) are approved and available treatments for migraine prevention. Patients do not respond alike and many countries have reimbursement policies, which hinder treatments to those who might respond. This study aimed to investigate clinical factors associated with good and excellent response to anti-CGRP MAbs at 6 months., Methods: European multicentre, prospective, real-world study, including high-frequency episodic or chronic migraine (CM) patients treated since March 2018 with anti-CGRP MAbs. We defined good and excellent responses as ≥50% and ≥75% reduction in monthly headache days (MHD) at 6 months, respectively. Generalised mixed-effect regression models (GLMMs) were used to identify variables independently associated with treatment response., Results: Of the 5818 included patients, 82.3% were females and the median age was 48.0 (40.0-55.0) years. At baseline, the median of MHD was 20.0 (14.0-28.0) days/months and 72.2% had a diagnosis of CM. At 6 months (n=4963), 56.5% (2804/4963) were good responders and 26.7% (1324/4963) were excellent responders. In the GLMM model, older age (1.08 (95% CI 1.02 to 1.15), p=0.016), the presence of unilateral pain (1.39 (95% CI 1.21 to 1.60), p<0.001), the absence of depression (0.840 (95% CI 0.731 to 0.966), p=0.014), less monthly migraine days (0.923 (95% CI 0.862 to 0.989), p=0.023) and lower Migraine Disability Assessment at baseline (0.874 (95% CI 0.819 to 0.932), p<0.001) were predictors of good response (AUC of 0.648 (95% CI 0.616 to 0.680)). These variables were also significant predictors of excellent response (AUC of 0.691 (95% CI 0.651 to 0.731)). Sex was not significant in the GLMM models., Conclusions: This is the largest real-world study of migraine patients treated with anti-CGRP MAbs. It provides evidence that higher migraine frequency and greater disability at baseline reduce the likelihood of responding to anti-CGRP MAbs, informing physicians and policy-makers on the need for an earlier treatment in order to offer the best chance of treatment success., Competing Interests: Competing interests: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at http://www.icmje.org/disclosure-of-interest/ and declare: EC has received honoraria from Novartis, Chiesi, Lundbeck, MedScape; his salary has been partially funded by Río Hortega grant Acción Estratégica en Salud 2017–2020, Instituto de Salud Carlos III (CM20/00217). He is a junior editor for Cephalalgia. GE received travel grants and honoraria from Eli-Lilly, Novartis, Lusofarmaco, New Penta and Ecupharma. CNC has received honoraria for advisories, educational or commercial symposia from: Abbvie-Allergan, Kern Pharma, Chiesi, Lilly, Lundbeck, Novartis and Teva Pharmaceuticals And has participated as subinvestigator in Clinical Trials for: Abbvie-Allergan, Amgen, Biohaven, Lilly, Lundbeck, Pfizer and Teva Pharmaceuticals. JAM has received honoraria as consultant and/or speaker for Lilly, Novartis, Teva. FS-C received honoraria from Novartis, Lilly, TEVA, Abbvie. AM has received honoraria from Teva, Lilly, Roche, UCB, Bial, Chiesi, Allergan, Esai, Zambon, Kern Pharma, Pfizer, Biogen Idec, Novartis, TEVA, Merck, Janssen, Neuraxpharm, Genzyme, Sanofi, Bayer, Almirall and/or Celgene. JS received honoraria from Allergan, Lilly, Teva, Novartis. IBB received honoraria for presentations from Novartis, Lilly, Teva, Lundbeck and Abbvie. MW-P received honoraria from Pfizer, Allergan-Abbvie, TEVA, Polpharma. MW-P is member of Editorial Board: The Journal of Headache and Pain. LP received honoraria from Pfizer, Lilly, Abbvie, TEVA, Novartis. AL-R received honoraria for Abbvie, Lilly, Novartis and Teva. IL received honoraria from Novartis, Abbvie, Teva, Eisai, Tecnifar and Bial. LD received honoraria as a speaker for Allergan, Lilly, Teva and Lundbeck. MRA-E, received honoraria from ABBVIE, Lilly, and Novartis. AM has no COI to declare. The University Clinic Hamburg got an unrestricted scientific grant from Novartis (2019-2023). IPM has received honoraria from Allergan Teva, Novartis, Lundbeck and Eli Lilly for lecturing or participating in advisory boards; is principal investigator for phase IV trials sponsored by Novartis, Lundbeck and Teva. CS has received personal fees for lectures/ advisory boards: Novartis, Abbvie and TEVA. PI received honoraria from TEVA, Novartis, Lilly, Abbvie, Lundbeck, Exeltis. ALR received honoraria from TEVA. ABG-V has received speaker honoraria and/or clinical advisor from Novartis, Lilly, TEVA, Exeltis, Chiesi, Abbvie, Pfizer and Lundbeck. RR has received travel grants and/or honoraria for lectures or advisory boards from Allergan/AbbVie, Hormosan, Lilly, Lundbeck, Novartis, Pfizer and Teva. SS reports consultant, speaker or advisory board fees from Abbott, Allergan/Abbvie, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Medscape, Medtronic, Novartis, Pfizer, Starmed, Teva and Uriach. EC-G received honoraria from TEVA. DGA has received personal compensation for consulting/advising from the WHO. Non-profit board membership in the Spanish Society of Neurology, and the European Union of Medical Specialist section of Neurology. Research funding from the Regional Health Administration (Gerencia Regional de Salud SACYL) in Castilla y Leon, Spain and Carlos III institute, Madrid, Spain. Speaker/travel grants/ clinical trials from Teva, Allergan, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Lundbeck, Novartis and Biohaven. JP has received honoraria from Abbvie, Lilly, Lundbeck, Novartis and Teva. RG-G received honoraria from Allergan/ Abbvie, Lilly, Lundbeck, Novartis, Pfizer, Tecnifar, Teva. MH-V has received honoraria for participating on advisory boards and for collaborations as consultant, scientific communications, speaker, research support as well as funding for travel and congress-attending expenses for Abbie-Allergan, Novartis, Lundbeck, Lilly, Almirall, Chiesi, Esai, Exeltis, Kern Pharma, Menarini, TEVA and Zambon. His research group has received research grants from Abbie-Allergan and has received funding for clinical trials from Lilly, Novartis, TEVA. JVR received honoraria from Novartis, Abbvie, Lilly, TEVA, Lundbeck. SS-L received honoraria from Allergan, Almirall, Amgen, Chiesi, Eisai, Exeltis, Lilly, Lündbeck, Novartis, Pfizer y Teva. MG-S has received honoraria and been involved in research, education and advisory boards with Teva, Lily, Novartis and Abbvie. CT received personal fees for participating in advisory or for speaking at scientific events from AbbVie, Allergan, Biohaven, Dompé, Eli Lilly, Lundbeck, Novartis and Teva. CT has received research funding from the European Commission, the Italian Ministry of Health and Migraine Research Foundation. JDdT has received honoraria as consultant and/or speaker for Lilly, Novartis, Teva. SDI has received honoraria for advisories, educational or commercial symposia from: Abbvie-Allergan, Fundació Universitat-Empresa, Ipsen Pharma, Kern Pharma, Lilly, Lundbeck, MSD-Organon, Novartis and Teva Pharmaceuticals And has participated as PI in Clinical Trials for: Abbvie-Allergan, Alder, Amgen, Biohaven, Ipsen Pharma, Lilly, Lundbeck, Pfizer and Teva Pharmaceuticals. CGO participated in clinical trials from Novartis, St Jude Medical, Lilly, Lundbeck; TEVA, Biohaven, Pfizer. CGO received honoraria as consultant for Novartis, Lilly, Allergan-abbvie, Lundbeck, TEVA, Pfizer. CGO received honoraria as speaker for Allergan-Abbvie, TEVA, Novartis,Lilly, Chiesi, MSD, Almirall. PB reports personal compensation for consulting, serving on a scientific advisory board, speaking, research support, collaborated for clinical trials or other activities with Abbvie, Alder, Allergan, Amgen, Angelini, Assosalute, Bayer, Biohaven, ElectroCore, Eli-Lilly, Fondazione Ricerca e Salute, GSK, Lundbeck, Lusofarmaco, 1MED, MSD, New Penta, Noema Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Stx-Med, Teva, Visufarma, Zambon and serves as President with Italian Association of Headache Sufferers. PP-R has received, in the last 3 years, honoraria as a consultant and speaker for: AbbVie, Biohaven, Chiesi, Eli Lilly, Lundbeck, Medscape, Novartis, Pfizer and Teva. Her research group has received research grants from AbbVie, Novartis and Teva; as well as, Instituto Salud Carlos III, EraNet Neuron, European Regional Development Fund (001-P-001682) under the framework of the FEDER Operative Programme for Catalunya 2014-2020 - RIS3CAT; has received funding for clinical trials from AbbVie, Amgen, Biohaven, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Teva. She is the Honorary Secretary of the International Headache Society. She is in the editorial board of Revista de Neurologia. She is an associate editor for Cephalalgia, Headache, Neurologia, The Journal of Headache and Pain and Frontiers of Neurology. She is a member of the Clinical Trials Guidelines Committee of the International Headache Society. She has edited the Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Headache of the Spanish Neurological Society. She is the founder of www.midolordecabeza.org. PP-R does not own stocks from any pharmaceutical company. VJG, MMV, GV, JR-M, NFF, AJS, RO, GG, YG-O, GC, AL-B, FVJ, JR-V and VO reports no disclosures. RO reports personal fees from Eli Lilly, Novartis, Teva, and Pfizer, and non-financial support from Novartis, Teva, and Allergan/AbbVie. CT has received honoraria for lectures from TEVA, Lundbeck and for advisory boards from TEVA. He has received travel support from TEVA and Lundbeck. SS received honoraria from TEVA. AH declares no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. HB received honoraria from Novartis, Teva and Lundbeck. NPRP received honoraria from ABBVIE, Lilly and Novartis. CF received honoraria from Novartis and Abbvie. AAL received honoraria for Abbvie, Lilly, Novartis and Teva. EMS received a grant from the Portuguese Headache Society, supported by Teva. MTF has received honoraria from Allergan-AbbVie, Novartis, Chiesi and Teva. AA has received honoraria from Allergan-AbbVie, Novartis, Chiesi. PT received grants and honoria from Novartis, Teva, Eli-Lilly and Allergan. CA received travel grants from FB-Health, Lusofarmaco, Almirall, Eli-Lilly Novartis and Teva. RDI received speaker honoraria from Eli-Lilly, TEVA and Lundbeck. GS received personal fees as speaker or advisory board from Eli Lilly, Novartis, Teva, Lundbeck, Pfizer. SB has received honoraria from Teva. SC has received honoraria from Teva, Lilly, Roche, UCB, Bial, Chiesi, Allergan, Esai, Zambon, Kern Pharma, Pfizer, Biogen Idec, Novartis, TEVA, Merck, Janssen, Neuraxpharm, Genzyme, Sanofi, Bayer, Almirall and/or Celgene. EP reports personal fees from Novartis, Teva and Lilly. ALGP Research funding from the Regional Health Administration (Gerencia Regional de Salud SACYL) in Castilla y Leon, Spain. Speaker/travel grants/ clinical trials from Teva, Allergan, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Lundbeck, Novartis, Pfizer and Biohaven. AS has received honoraria for advisory boards and lectures from Allergan/AbbVie, Hormosan, Lilly, Lundbeck, Novartis, Sanofi, Teva. AGM has received speaker honoraria from TEVA. SQ has received speaker honoraria from Novartis, Lilly and Exeltis. MSR has received consulting fees and honoraria for lectures/presentations from Eli Lily, Lundbeck, Novartis, Teva and Pfizer. Intellectual as Secretary of the European Headache Federation, Review Editor on the Editorial Board of Headache and Neurogenic Pain (specialty section of Frontiers in Neurology). Margarita Sanchez-del-Rio serves as a member of the Board of Directors in the European Headache Federation. ET has received personal fees for lectures/ advisory boards: Novartis, Eli Lilly, Abbvie, TEVA, Roche, Lundbeck, Pfizer, Biogen. Consultant for and owner of stocks and IP in Man & Science. Stocks and IP in Nordic Brain Tech and Keimon Medical. Non-personal research grants from EU, Norwegian Research Council, Dam foundation, KlinBeForsk. Commissioned research (non-personal): Lundbeck, Pfizer. BVP received honoraria from ABBVIE. AOD received honoraria from ABBVIE, Lilly, Teva, Novartis. MR received honoraria from Lilly, Novartis. BC received grants and honoria from Eli-Lilly, Novartis, Teva; SC received travel grants, honoraria for advisory boards, speaker panels or clinical investigation studies from Novartis, Teva, Lilly, Allergan, Abvie, Ibsa, Amgen, Angelini and Lundbeck; FF has received fees for participation on advisory boards, speaker honoraria or consulting activities from Angelini, Cristalfarma, Ecupharma, IBSA, Lundbeck, Novartis, PIAM, Teva; FdO received travel grant, honoraria as a speaker or for partecipating in advisory boards from Novartis, Teva, Neopharmed Gentili, Qbgroup srl, K link srl and Eli-Lilly; MA received grants from Novartis and Lilly; RR received honoraria for speaker panels from Teva, Lilly, Novartis, Allergan, Lundbeck; MZ received travel grants and honoraria from Novartis; MA received travel grants and honoraria from Novartis, Teva, Eli-Lilly and Lundbeck; CF received grants and honoraria from Novartis, Eli Lilly, TEVA, AIM group; AR received travel grants and honoraria from Teva and Eli-Lilly; SZ, RLP, MJRC, VGQ, HCO, SA, IKZ, DGA, IFL, BFP, SB, PRA, AC, AEU, AGG, IM, JPS, VC, AFR, YVE, MT, AS, AC, FZ and MA has no disclosures to declare., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Importance: Patients with chronic migraine and medication overuse headaches (CM-MOH) represent a particularly burdened subpopulation. This trial provides first, to our knowledge, American Academy of Neurology class I evidence for a preventive therapy in CM-MOH., Objective: To assess erenumab efficacy and safety in patients with nonopioid CM-MOH., Design, Settings, and Participants: This randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled trial took place at 67 centers in North America, Europe, and Australia from October 7, 2019, to November 2, 2022. This report reflects the primary analysis conducted in January 2023, using a database snapshot from December 1, 2022, which contains the complete dataset of the double-blind treatment period (DBTP). Participants included adults with CM-MOH who had 1 or more preventive treatment failure(s). There were 992 participants screened and 620 participants enrolled (584 in nonopioid cohort and 36 in opioid cohort)., Interventions: Erenumab, 70 mg, 140 mg, or placebo, once monthly for 24 weeks., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was MOH remission at month 6. Secondary end points included change from baseline in mean monthly acute headache medication days (AHMD) at month 6 and sustained MOH remission throughout the DBTP. Safety end points were adverse events and changes in vital signs., Results: The primary analysis population included 584 participants in the nonopioid-treated cohort with a mean age of 44 years and 482 participants were female (82.5%). Baseline demographics and disease characteristics were balanced across groups. At month 6, 134 participants in the erenumab, 140 mg group (69.1%) (odds ratio [OR], 2.01; 95% CI, 1.33-3.05; P < .001 vs placebo) and 117 in the erenumab, 70 mg group (60.3%) (OR, 1.37; 95% CI, 0.92-2.05; P = .13 vs placebo) achieved MOH remission vs 102 participants in the placebo group (52.6%). AHMD use was also reduced in the erenumab groups vs placebo. Least squares mean (standard error) change from baseline in average monthly AHMD was -9.4 (0.4) days in the erenumab, 140 mg group (difference from placebo, -2.7; 95% CI, -3.9 to -1.6; P < .001) and -7.8 (0.4) days in the erenumab, 70 mg group (difference from placebo, -1.2; 95% CI, -2.4 to -0.1; P = .03), vs -6.6 (0.4) days in the placebo group. MOH remission throughout the DBTP was sustained in 119 participants (61.3%,) 96 participants (49.5%), and 73 participants (37.6%) in the erenumab, 140 mg, 70 mg, and placebo groups, respectively. Adverse events were consistent with the known safety profile of erenumab. Treatment-emergent adverse events incidence in the combined erenumab group was 66.8% (259 participants; constipation 15.2% (59 participants) and COVID-19 13.9% (54 participants) were most common., Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, monthly, 140 mg, erenumab injections safely and effectively achieved MOH remission in patients with nonopioid CM-MOH within 6 months., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03971071.

Objective: The aim of this paper is to critically re-appraise the published trials assessing propranolol for migraine prophylaxis., Methods: We report methods and results following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews (PRISMA), by searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, and ClinicalTrials.gov for randomized trials of pharmacologic treatments for migraine prophylaxis. We included randomized trials that compared propranolol with placebo for migraine prophylaxis in adults. The outcomes of interest were informed by the Core outcome set for preventive intervention trials in chronic and episodic migraine (COSMIG) and include the proportion of patients who experience a 50% or more reduction in monthly migraine days, the reduction of monthly migraine days, and the number of adverse events leading to discontinuation. We assessed risk of bias by using a modified Cochrane RoB (risk of bias) 2.0 tool and the certainty of evidence by using the GRADE approach., Results: Our search yielded twenty trials (n = 1291 patients) eligible for data synthesis and analysis. The analysis revealed a moderate certainty evidence that propranolol leads to a reduction in monthly migraine days versus placebo (-1.27; 95% CI: -2.25 to -0.3). We found moderate certainty evidence that propranolol increases the proportion of patients who experience a 50% or more reduction in monthly migraine days, compared to placebo with a relative risk of 1.65 (95% CI 1.41 to 1.93); absolute risk difference: 179 more per 1,000 (95% CI 113 to 256). We found high certainty evidence that propranolol increases the proportion of patients who discontinue due to adverse events compared to placebo with a risk difference of 0.02 (95% CI 0.00 to 0.03); absolute risk difference: 20 more per 1,000 (95% CI 0 to 30)., Conclusions: The present meta-analysis shows that propranolol has a prophylactic role in migraine, with an overall acceptable tolerability profile. Combining these results with its long-standing use and its global availability at a low cost confirms its role as a first line agent in the prophylaxis of migraine., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Importance: Patients with migraine often cycle through multiple nonspecific preventive medications due to poor tolerability and/or inadequate efficacy leading to low adherence and increased disease burden., Objective: To compare the efficacy, tolerability, patient adherence, and patient satisfaction between erenumab and nonspecific oral migraine preventive medications (OMPMs) in patients with episodic migraine (EM) who had previously failed 1 or 2 preventive treatments., Design, Setting, and Participants: The 12-month prospective, interventional, global, multicenter, active-controlled, randomized clinical trial comparing sustained benefit of 2 treatment paradigms (erenumab qm vs oral prophylactics) in adult episodic migraine patients (APPRAISE) trial was a 12-month open-label, multicenter, active-controlled, phase 4 randomized clinical trial conducted from May 15, 2019, to October 1, 2021. This pragmatic trial was conducted at 84 centers across 17 countries. Overall, participants 18 years or older with a 12-month or longer history of migraine, and 4 or more but fewer than 15 monthly migraine days (MMDs) were included., Interventions: Patients were randomized (2:1) to receive erenumab or OMPMs. Dose adjustment was permitted (label dependent)., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was the proportion of patients completing 1 year of the initially assigned treatment and achieving a reduction of 50% or greater from baseline in MMDs at month 12. Secondary end points included the cumulative mean change from baseline in MMDs during the treatment period and the proportion of responders according to the Patients' Global Impression of Change (PGIC) scale at month 12 for patients taking the initially assigned treatment., Results: A total of 866 patients were screened, of whom 245 failed the screening and 621 completed the screening and baseline period. Of the 621 randomized patients (mean [SD] age, 41.3 [11.2] years; 545 female [87.8%]; 413 [66.5%] in the erenumab group; 208 [33.5%] in the OMPM group), 523 (84.2%) completed the treatment phase, and 98 (15.8%) discontinued the study. At month 12, significantly more patients assigned to erenumab vs OMPM achieved the primary end point (232 of 413 [56.2%] vs 35 of 208 [16.8%]; odds ratio [OR], 6.48; 95% CI, 4.28-9.82; P <.001). Compared with OMPMs, treatment with erenumab showed higher responder rate (314 of 413 [76.0%] vs 39 of 208 [18.8%]; OR, 13.75; 95% CI, 9.08-20.83; P <.001) on the PGIC scale (≥5 at month 12). Significant reduction in cumulative average MMDs was reported with erenumab treatment vs OMPM treatment (-4.32 vs -2.65; treatment difference [SE]: -1.67 [0.35] days; P < .001). Substantially fewer patients in the erenumab arm compared with the OMPM arm switched medication (9 of 413 [2.2%] vs 72 of 208 [34.6%]) and discontinued treatment due to adverse events (12 of 408 [2.9%] vs 48 of 206 [23.3%]). No new safety signals were identified., Conclusions and Relevance: Results of this randomized clinical trial demonstrated that earlier use of erenumab in patients with EM who failed 1 or 2 previous preventive treatments provided greater and sustained efficacy, safety, and adherence than continuous OMPM., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03927144.

Background: Chronic migraine is a highly debilitating condition that is often difficult to manage, particularly in the presence of medication overuse headache. Drugs targeting the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP), or its receptor have shown promising results in treating this disorder., Methods: We searched Pubmed and Embase to identify randomized clinical trials and real-world studies reporting on the use of medication targeting the calcitonin gene-related peptide in patients with chronic migraine., Results: A total of 270 records were identified. Nineteen studies qualified for the qualitative analysis. Most studies reported on monoclonal antibodies targeting CGRP (anti-CGRP mAbs), that overall prove to be effective in decreasing monthly migraine days by half in about 27.6-61.4% of the patients. Conversion from chronic to episodic migraine was seen in 40.88% of the cases, and 29-88% of the patients stopped medication overuse. Obesity seems to be the main negative predictor of response to anti-CGRP mAbs. There is no evidence to suggest the superiority of one anti-CGRP mAb. Despite the lack of strong evidence, the combination of anti-CGRP medication with onabotulinumtoxinA in chronic migraine is likely to bring benefits for resistant cases. Atogepant is the first gepant to demonstrate a significant decrease in monthly migraine days compared to placebo in a recent trial. Further, anti-CGRP mAb and gepants have a good safety profile., Conclusion: There is strong evidence from randomized trials and real-world data to suggest that drugs targeting CGRP are a safe and effective treatment for chronic migraine., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Cluster headache is a primary headache disorder characterized by bouts with circadian and circannual patterns. The CLOCK gene has a central role in regulating circadian rhythms. Here, we investigate the circannual CLOCK expression in a population of cluster headache patients in comparison to matched controls., Methods: Patients with cluster headache were sampled two to four times over at least one year, both in or outside bouts, one week after each solstice and equinox. The expression of CLOCK was measured by quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) in the peripheral blood., Results: This study included 50 patients and 58 matched controls. Among the patient population, composed of 42/50 males (84%) with an average age of 44.6 years, 45/50 (90%) suffered from episodic cluster headache. Two to four samples were collected from each patient adding up to 161 samples, 36 (22.3%) of which were collected within a bout. CLOCK expression for cluster headache patients was considerably different from that of the control population in winter (p-value mean = 0.006283), spring (p-value mean = 0.000006) and summer (p-value mean = 0.000064), but not in autumn (p-value mean = 0.262272). For each season transition, the variations in CLOCK expression were more pronounced in the control group than in the cluster headache population. No statistically significant differences were found between bout and non-bout samples. No individual factors (age, sex, circadian chronotype, smoking and coffee habits or history of migraine) were related to CLOCK expression., Conclusions: We observed that CLOCK expression in cluster headache patients fluctuates less throughout the year than in the control population. Bout activity and lifestyle factors do not seem to influence CLOCK expression., Competing Interests: Declaration of conflicting interestsThe authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Objective: To investigate the neural correlates of working memory during a spontaneous migraine attack compared to the interictal phase, using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI)., Background: Cognitive disturbances are commonly observed during migraine attacks, particularly in the headache phase. However, the neural basis of these changes remains unknown., Methods: In a fMRI within-subject test-retest design study, eleven women (32 years of age, average) with episodic migraine were evaluated twice, first during a spontaneous migraine attack, and again in a pain-free period. Each session consisted in a cognitive assessment and fMRI while performing a working memory task (N-back)., Results: Cognitive test scores were lower during the ictal session than in the pain-free session. Regions typically associated with working memory were activated during the N-back task in both sessions. A voxel wise between session comparison showed significantly greater activation in the left frontal pole and orbitofrontal cortex during the attack relative to the interictal phase., Conclusion: Migraine patients exhibited greater activation of the left frontal pole and orbitofrontal cortex while executing a verbal working memory task during a spontaneous migraine attack when compared to the interictal state. Given the association of these regions with pain processing and inhibitory control, these findings suggest that patients recruit inhibitory areas to accomplish the cognitive task during migraine attacks, a neural signature of their cognitive difficulties., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background: Previous functional magnetic resonance imaging studies have identified brain-connectivity alterations across multiple regions in people with migraine when compared to healthy controls. Few studies have focused on such changes throughout the different phases of the migraine cycle. We aimed to investigate functional connectivity during spontaneous occurring episodic migraine attacks, in comparison to interictal periods., Methods: Eleven women with episodic migraine without aura underwent two sessions of resting-state fMRI, during and outside of a spontaneous migraine attack. Functional connectivity changes were assessed across canonical resting-state networks, identified by independent component analysis. Significantly altered connectivity was correlated with migraine attack symptoms., Results: Decreased functional connectivity between subregions of the sensorimotor network (specifically, the primary somatosensory and motor cortices) and the posterior insula, bilaterally, was found during attacks. In both sessions, the functional connectivity between these regions was lower in patients who usually suffered longer attacks., Discussion: The sensorimotor and insular regions are involved in nociceptive, autonomic, and somatosensory processing so the finding of reduced connectivity between these structures within a migraine attack is likely associated to the perception of pain and the heighten sensitivity to stimuli experienced in this disorder., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development sets out, through 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), a path for the prosperity of people and the planet. SDG 3 in particular aims to ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages and includes several targets to enhance health. This review presents a "headache-tailored" perspective on how to achieve SDG 3 by focusing on six specific actions: targeting chronic headaches; reducing the overuse of acute pain-relieving medications; promoting the education of healthcare professionals; granting access to medication in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC); implementing training and educational opportunities for healthcare professionals in low and middle income countries; building a global alliance against headache disorders. Addressing the burden of headache disorders directly impacts on populations' health, as well as on the possibility to improve the productivity of people aged below 50, women in particular. Our analysis pointed out several elements, and included: moving forward from frequency-based parameters to define headache severity; recognizing and managing comorbid diseases and risk factors; implementing a disease management multi-modal management model that incorporates pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments; early recognizing and managing the overuse of acute pain-relieving medications; promoting undergraduate, postgraduate, and continuing medical education of healthcare professionals with specific training on headache; and promoting a culture that favors the recognition of headaches as diseases with a neurobiological basis, where this is not yet recognized. Making headache care more sustainable is an achievable objective, which will require multi-stakeholder collaborations across all sectors of society, both health-related and not health-related. Robust investments will be needed; however, considering the high prevalence of headache disorders and the associated disability, these investments will surely improve multiple health outcomes and lift development and well-being globally., (© 2023. Springer-Verlag Italia S.r.l., part of Springer Nature.)

Objective: Topiramate is a repurposed first-line treatment for migraine prophylaxis. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to critically re-appraise the existing evidence supporting the efficacy and tolerability of topiramate., Methods: A systematic search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, and ClinicalTrials.gov was performed for trials of pharmacological treatment in migraine prophylaxis as of August 13, 2022, following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews (PRISMA). Randomized controlled trials in adult patients that used topiramate for the prophylactic treatment of migraine, with placebo as active comparator, were included. Two reviewers independently screened the retrieved studies and extracted all data. Outcomes of interest were the 50% responder rates, the reduction in monthly migraine days, and adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation. Results were pooled and meta-analyzed, with sensitivity analysis based on the risk of bias of the studies, the monthly migraine days at baseline, and the previous use of other prophylactic treatments. Certainty evidence was judged according to the GRADE framework., Results: Eight out of 10,826 studies fulfilled the inclusion/exclusion criteria, accounting for 2,610 randomized patients. Six studies included patients with episodic migraine and two with chronic migraine. Topiramate dose ranged from 50 to 200 mg/day, and all studies included a placebo arm. There was a high certainty that topiramate: 1) increased the proportion of patients who achieved a 50% responder rate in monthly migraine days, compared to placebo [relative risk: 1.61 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.29-2.01); absolute risk difference: 168 more per 1,000 (95% CI: 80 to 278 more)]; 2) was associated with 0.99 (95% CI: 1.41-0.58) fewer migraine days than placebo; 3) and had a higher proportion of patients with adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation [absolute risk difference 80 patients more per 1,000 (95% CI: 20 to 140 more patients)]., Conclusions: There is high-quality evidence of the efficacy of topiramate in the prophylaxis of migraine, albeit its use poses a risk of adverse events that may lead to treatment discontinuation, with a negative effect on patient satisfaction and adherence to care., (© 2023. Springer-Verlag Italia S.r.l., part of Springer Nature.)

Purpose: The consensus for the clinical implementation of arterial spin labeling (ASL) perfusion imaging recommends a segmented 3D Gradient and Spin-Echo (GRASE) readout for optimal signal-to-noise-ratio (SNR). The correction of the associated susceptibility-induced geometric distortions has been shown to improve diagnostic precision, but its impact on ASL data has not been systematically assessed and it is not consistently part of pre-processing pipelines. Here, we investigate the effects of susceptibility-induced distortion correction on perfusion imaging by pseudo-continuous ASL (pCASL) with a segmented 3D GRASE readout., Methods: Data acquired from 28 women using pCASL with 3D GRASE at 3T was analyzed using three pre-processing options: without distortion correction, with distortion correction, and with spatial smoothing (without distortion correction) matched to control for blurring effects induced by distortion correction. Maps of temporal SNR (tSNR) and relative perfusion were analyzed in eight regions-of-interest (ROIs) across the brain., Results: Distortion correction significantly affected tSNR and relative perfusion across the brain. Increases in tSNR were like those produced by matched spatial smoothing in most ROIs, indicating that they were likely due to blurring effects. However, that was not the case in the frontal and temporal lobes, where we also found increased relative perfusion with distortion correction even compared with matched spatial smoothing. These effects were found in both controls and patients, with no interactions with the participant group., Conclusion: Correction of susceptibility-induced distortions significantly impacts ASL perfusion imaging using a segmented 3D GRASE readout, and this step should therefore be considered in ASL pre-processing pipelines. This is of special importance in clinical studies, reporting perfusion across ROIs defined on relatively undistorted images and when conducting group analyses requiring the alignment of images across different subjects., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest There is no conflict of interest to declare., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Novel disease-specific and mechanism-based treatments sharing good evidence of efficacy for migraine have been recently marketed. However, reimbursement by insurers depends on treatment failure with classic anti-migraine drugs. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we aimed to identify and rate the evidence for efficacy of flunarizine, a repurposed, first- or second-line treatment for migraine prophylaxis., Methods: A systematic search in MEDLINE, Cochrane CENTRAL, and ClinicalTrials.gov was performed for trials of pharmacological treatment in migraine prophylaxis, following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews (PRISMA). Eligible trials for meta-analysis were randomized, placebo-controlled studies comparing flunarizine with placebo. Outcomes of interest according to the Outcome Set for preventive intervention trials in chronic and episodic migraine (COSMIG) were the proportion of patients reaching a 50% or more reduction in monthly migraine days, the change in monthly migraine days (MMDs), and Adverse Events (AEs) leading to discontinuation., Results: Five trials were eligible for narrative description and three for data synthesis and analysis. No studies reported the predefined outcomes, but one study assessed the 50% reduction in monthly migraine attacks with flunarizine as compared to placebo showing a benefit from flunarizine with a low or probably low risk of bias. We found that flunarizine may increase the proportion of patients who discontinue due to adverse events compared to placebo (risk difference: 0.02; 95% CI -0.03 to 0.06)., Conclusions: Published flunarizine trials predate the recommended endpoints for evaluating migraine prophylaxis drugs, hence the lack of an adequate assessment for these endpoints. Further, modern-day, large-scale studies would be valuable in re-evaluating the efficacy of flunarizine for the treatment of migraines, offering additional insights into its potential benefits., (© 2023. Springer-Verlag Italia S.r.l., part of Springer Nature.)

Objective: While there are several trials that support the efficacy of various drugs for migraine prophylaxis against placebo, there is limited evidence addressing the comparative safety and efficacy of these drugs. We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis to facilitate comparison between drugs for migraine prophylaxis., Methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and clinicaltrials.gov from inception to August 13, 2022, for randomized trials of pharmacological treatments for migraine prophylaxis in adults. Reviewers worked independently and in duplicate to screen references, extract data, and assess risk of bias. We performed a frequentist random-effects network meta-analysis and rated the certainty (quality) of evidence as either high, moderate, low, or very low using the GRADE approach., Results: We identified 74 eligible trials, reporting on 32,990 patients. We found high certainty evidence that monoclonal antibodies acting on the calcitonin gene related peptide or its receptor (CGRP(r)mAbs), gepants, and topiramate increase the proportion of patients who experience a 50% or more reduction in monthly migraine days, compared to placebo. We found moderate certainty evidence that beta-blockers, valproate, and amitriptyline increase the proportion of patients who experience a 50% or more reduction in monthly migraine days, and low certainty evidence that gabapentin may not be different from placebo. We found high certainty evidence that, compared to placebo, valproate and amitriptyline lead to substantial adverse events leading to discontinuation, moderate certainty evidence that topiramate, beta-blockers, and gabapentin increase adverse events leading to discontinuation, and moderate to high certainty evidence that (CGRP(r)mAbs) and gepants do not increase adverse events., Conclusions: (CGRP(r)mAbs) have the best safety and efficacy profile of all drugs for migraine prophylaxis, followed closely by gepants., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Objective: The aim of this paper is to critically re-appraise the published trials assessing amitriptyline for migraine prophylaxis., Methods: We report our methods and results following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews (PRISMA), by searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, and ClinicalTrials.gov for randomized trials of pharmacologic treatments for migraine prophylaxis. We included randomized trials that compared amitriptyline with placebo for migraine prophylaxis in adults. Our outcomes of interest were informed by the Outcome Set for preventive intervention trials in chronic and episodic migraine (COSMIG) and include the proportion of patients who experience a 50% or more reduction in migraine days per month, migraine days per month, and adverse events leading to discontinuation. We assessed risk of bias by using a modified Cochrane RoB 2.0 tool and the certainty of evidence by using the GRADE approach., Results: Our search yielded 10.826 unique records, of which three trials (n = 622) were eligible for data synthesis and analysis. We found moderate certainty evidence that amitriptyline increases the proportion of patients who experience a 50% or more reduction in monthly migraine days, compared to placebo (relative risk: 1.60 (95% CI 1.17 to 2.19); absolute risk difference: 165 more per 1,000 (95% CI 47 more to 327 more). We found moderate certainty evidence that amitriptyline increases the proportion of patients who discontinue due to adverse events compared to placebo (risk difference: 0.05 (95% CI 0.01 to 0.10); absolute risk difference: 50 more per 1,000 (95% CI 10 more to 100 more)., Conclusions: Our meta-analysis showed that amitriptyline may have a prophylactic role in migraine patients, however these results are far from robust. This warrants further large-scale research to evaluate the role of amitriptyline in migraine prevention., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Cranial autonomic symptoms and neck pain have been reported to be highly prevalent in migraine, although they are rarely considered in clinical evaluation. The aim of this review is to focus on the prevalence, pathophysiology, and clinical characteristics of these two symptoms, and their importance in the differential diagnosis between migraines and other headaches. The most common cranial autonomic symptoms are aural fullness, lacrimation, facial/forehead sweating, and conjunctival injection. Migraineurs experiencing cranial autonomic symptoms are more likely to have more severe, frequent, and longer attacks, as well as higher rates of photophobia, phonophobia, osmophobia, and allodynia. Cranial autonomic symptoms occur due to the activation of the trigeminal autonomic reflex, and the differential diagnosis with cluster headaches can be challenging. Neck pain can be part of the migraine prodromal symptoms or act as a trigger for a migraine attack. The prevalence of neck pain correlates with headache frequency and is associated with treatment resistance and greater disability. The convergence between upper cervical and trigeminal nociception via the trigeminal nucleus caudalis is the likely mechanism for neck pain in migraine. The recognition of cranial autonomic symptoms and neck pain as potential migraine features is important because they often contribute to the misdiagnosis of cervicogenic problems, tension-type headache, cluster headache, and rhinosinusitis in migraine patients, delaying appropriate attack and disease management.

Background: Triptans are migraine-specific acute treatments. A well-accepted definition of triptan failure is needed in clinical practice and for research. The primary aim of the present Consensus was to provide a definition of triptan failure. To develop this definition, we deemed necessary to develop as first a consensus definition of effective treatment of an acute migraine attack and of triptan-responder., Main Body: The Consensus process included a preliminary literature review, a Delphi round and a subsequent open discussion. According to the Consensus Panel, effective treatment of a migraine attack is to be defined on patient well-being featured by a) improvement of headache, b) relief of non-pain symptoms and c) absence of adverse events. An attack is considered effectively treated if patient's well-being, as defined above, is restored within 2 hours and for at least 24 hours. An individual with migraine is considered as triptan-responder when the given triptan leads to effective acute attack treatment in at least three out of four migraine attacks. On the other hand, an individual with migraine is considered triptan non-responder in the presence of failure of a single triptan (not matching the definition of triptan-responder). The Consensus Panel defined an individual with migraine as triptan-resistant in the presence of failure of at least 2 triptans; triptan refractory, in the presence of failure to at least 3 triptans, including subcutaneous formulation; triptan ineligibile in the presence of an acknowledged contraindication to triptan use, as specified in the summary of product characteristics., Conclusions: The novel definitions can be useful in clinical practice for the assessment of acute attack treatments patients with migraine. They may be helpful in identifying people not responding to triptans and in need for novel acute migraine treatments. The definitions will also be of help in standardizing research on migraine acute care., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Erenumab is a monoclonal antibody (mAb) approved for the preventive treatment of migraine. While preclinical studies on calcitonin gene-related peptide mAbs did not identify any reproductive toxicity, pregnant and breastfeeding women were excluded from the pivotal human studies, and therefore the safety of calcitonin gene-related peptide medications in this population must be studied. So far, postmarketing data of accidental exposures have not brought to light any specific toxicities. Three women treated with erenumab in our series conceived while exposed to the drug. All had previous successful pregnancies, were on erenumab for more than 6 months, and had ≥80% reduction in headache frequency. The one who stopped erenumab only 1 month before conceiving had a spontaneous abortion during the first trimester due to a gestational trophoblastic neoplasia and has since conceived with an uneventful gestation. The other two women stopped treatment during the first trimester, and both pregnancies went to term with no complications. All babies have shown normal development. No plausible explanation relates the mechanism of action of erenumab and the serious complication that occurred in one patient. Continuous follow-up and reporting of all exposures are encouraged to gather safety data on pregnant and nursing women and on the development of the newborns. So far, immediately stopping the drug is advised and may contribute to decreasing the potential risks., (© 2022 American Headache Society.)

Introduction: Accessibility of treatment with monoclonal antibodies targeting the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) signaling pathway is impeded by regulatory restrictions. Affected individuals may seek out other services including non-pharmacological therapies. Thus, we found it timely to ascertain the use of non-pharmacological therapies in individuals with treatment-resistant migraine eligible for and naïve to treatment with CGRP-signaling targeting monoclonal antibodies., Methods: We conducted a single-center cross-sectional observational study of patients eligible for and naïve to treatment with monoclonal antibodies targeting CGRP or its receptor. We recorded demographical information (gender, age, educational level, employment status, and income), disease burden (frequency of headache days and migraine days), previous use of preventive pharmacological medications for migraine, and use of non-pharmacological therapies over the past 3 months including frequency of interventions, costs, and patient-reported assessment of efficacy on a 6-point scale (0: no efficacy, 5: best possible efficacy)., Results: We included 122 patients between 17 June 2019 and 6 January 2020; 101 (83%) were women and the mean age was 45.2 ± 13.3 years. One-third ( n = 41 [34%]) had used non-pharmacological therapy within the past 3 months. Among these participants, the median frequency of different interventions was 1 (IQR: 1-2), the median number of monthly visits was 2.3 (IQR: 1.3-4), mean and median monthly costs were 1,086 ± 1471, and 600 (IQR: 0-1200) DKK (1 EUR = ~7.5 DKK), respectively, and median patient-reported assessment of the efficacy of interventions was 2 (IQR: 0-3)., Conclusion: Even in a high-income country with freely accessible headache services and universal healthcare coverage, there was a non-negligible direct cost in parallel with low satisfaction for non-pharmacological therapies among patients at a tertiary headache center., Competing Interests: SS reports grants, personal fees and/or non-financial support from Allergan, Novartis, Teva, Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, Abbott, Medscape, Pfizer, Bayer, Medtronic, Starmed, Bristol-Meyer-Squibb, Daiichi-Sankyo, Lundbeck, Uriach and Neurodiem Ology Medical Education. RG-G reports Honoraria for conferences, consulting or educational activities: Novartis, Allergan/ Abbvie, Teva, Lilly, Lundbeck, Tecnifar, Pfizer, FLOAT, CMBE. Research grants: Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia (project 29675, MigN2Treat, 02/SAICT/2017), Novartis-Sociedade Portuguesa de Cefaleias and Learning-Health, Luz Saúde (Research group LiON, Luz Innovation on Neurosciences). DU reports grants, personal fees and/or non-financial support from Allergan, Novartis, Teva, Eli Lilly. FA has received honoraria and personal fees from Teva, Lundbeck, Novartis, Eli Lilly for lecturing or participating in advisory boards. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Rundblad, Cullum, Sacco, Gil-Gouveia, Uludüz, Do and Amin.)

Background: A previous European Headache Federation (EHF) guideline addressed the use of monoclonal antibodies targeting the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) pathway to prevent migraine. Since then, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and real-world evidence have expanded the evidence and knowledge for those treatments. Therefore, the EHF panel decided to provide an updated guideline on the use of those treatments., Methods: The guideline was developed following the Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. The working group identified relevant questions, performed a systematic review and an analysis of the literature, assessed the quality of the available evidence, and wrote recommendations. Where the GRADE approach was not applicable, expert opinion was provided., Results: We found moderate to high quality of evidence to recommend eptinezumab, erenumab, fremanezumab, and galcanezumab in individuals with episodic and chronic migraine. For several important clinical questions, we found not enough evidence to provide evidence-based recommendations and guidance relied on experts' opinion. Nevertheless, we provided updated suggestions regarding the long-term management of those treatments and their place with respect to the other migraine preventatives., Conclusion: Monoclonal antibodies targeting the CGRP pathway are recommended for migraine prevention as they are effective and safe also in the long-term., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Introduction: Headaches associated with personal protective equipment were reported in health-care workers in previous epidemiological studies., Methods: National web-based survey advertised by the Portuguese Headache Society and National Headache and Migraine patient´s organization between September-December 2020 screening for personal protective equipment usage pattern, pre-existing and de novo headaches after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, and its relation to personal protective equipment use., Results: Of 5064 participants, 90.6% (4562/5034) were women, mean age was 37.2 ± 11 years. Most questions had a completion rate above 87% (non-completion rate ranging from 0-12.7%). Twenty percent were health-care professionals (993/5046). Surgical and cloth masks were the most common personal protective equipment type, whereas protective eyewear and FFP2/FFP3 masks were mostly used by health-care professionals. About 97% (1814/1870) of migraine and headache participants reported aggravation of pre-existing headaches with personal protective equipment use, and 56% (2476/4420) had de novo headaches. Participants with de novo headaches had a higher frequency of pre-existing migraine (1118/1226, 91.2% vs 1408/1600, 88%, P = .042), and wore personal protective equipment for longer periods of time (7 ± 2 h 42 vs 6 ± 2 h 54 min per day, P < .001). In multivariate analysis longer mean duration of personal protective equipment use (OR of 1.1, 95% CI 1-1.2) and previous migraine (OR of 1.2, 95% CI 1-1.4) were predictors of developing de novo headaches., Conclusions: Almost all participants with pre-existing headache reported worsening of their headaches, and more than half of the study population developed de novo headaches following personal protective equipment use. Duration of personal protective equipment usage and pre-existing migraine were the strongest predictors of de novo headaches.