Search

( Headache 2010;50:943-952) Interventional procedures such as peripheral nerve blocks (PNBs) and trigger point injections (TPIs) have long been used in the treatment of various headache disorders. There are, however, little data on their efficacy for the treatment of specific headache syndromes. Moreover, there is no widely accepted agreement among headache specialists as to the optimal technique of injection, type, and doses of the local anesthetics used, and injection regimens. The role of corticosteroids in this setting is also debated. We performed a PubMed search of the literature to find studies on PNBs and TPIs for headache treatment. We classified the abstracted studies based on the procedure performed and the treated condition. We found few controlled studies on the efficacy of PNBs for headaches, and virtually none on the use of TPIs for this indication. The most widely examined procedure in this setting was greater occipital nerve block, with the majority of studies being small and non-controlled. The techniques, as well as the type and doses of local anesthetics used for nerve blockade, varied greatly among studies. The specific conditions treated also varied, and included both primary (eg, migraine, cluster headache) and secondary (eg, cervicogenic, posttraumatic) headache disorders. Trigeminal (eg, supraorbital) nerve blocks were used in few studies. Results were generally positive, but should be taken with reservation given the methodological limitations of the available studies. The procedures were generally well tolerated. Evidently, there is a need to perform more rigorous clinical trials to clarify the role of PNBs and TPIs in the management of various headache disorders, and to aim at standardizing the techniques used for the various procedures in this setting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

( Headache 2010;50:937-942) Background.- Many clinicians use peripheral nerve blocks (NBs) and trigger point injections (TPIs) for the treatment of headaches. Little is known, however, about the patterns of use of these procedures among practitioners in the USA. Objectives.- The aim of this study was to obtain information on patterns of office-based use of peripheral NBs and TPIs by headache practitioners in the USA. Methods.- Using an Internet-based questionnaire, the Interventional Procedures Special Interest Section of the American Headache Society (AHS) conducted a survey among practitioners who were members of AHS on patterns of use of NBs and TPIs for headache treatment. Results.- Electronic invitations were sent to 1230 AHS members and 161 provided useable data (13.1%). Of the responders, 69% performed NBs and 75% performed TPIs. The most common indications for the use of NBs were occipital neuralgia and chronic migraine (CM), and the most common indications for the use of TPIs were chronic tension-type headache and CM. The most common symptom prompting the clinician to perform these procedures was local tenderness at the intended injection site. The most common local anesthetics used for these procedures were lidocaine and bupivacaine. Dosing regimens, volumes of injection, and injection schedules varied greatly. There was also a wide variation in the use of corticosteroids when performing the injections. Both NBs and TPIs were generally well tolerated. Conclusions.- Nerve blocks and TPIs are commonly used by headache practitioners in the USA for the treatment of various headache disorders, although the patterns of their use vary greatly. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A letter to the editor is presented in response to the article "Nummular headache: a series with symptomatic and primary cases" by L. C. Alvaro, J. M. Garcia, and E. Areitio in the March 29, 2009 issue.

The objective of this study was to estimate and contrast the occurrence of ictal and interictal cutaneous allodynia (CA) in individuals with migraine with and without temporomandibular disorders (TMD). Both TMD and CA are common in migraine and may be associated with migraine transformation from episodic into a chronic form. Herein we hypothesize that TMD contributes to the development of CA and to more severe headaches. In a clinic-based sample of individuals with episodic migraine, the presence of TMD was assessed using the research diagnostic criteria for myofascial or mixed (myofascial and arthralgic) TMD. Ictal CA was quantified using the validated Allodynia Symptom Checklist (ASC-12). The ASC-12 measures CA over the preceding month by asking 12 questions about the frequency of allodynia symptoms during headaches. Interictal CA was assessed in the domains of heat, cold and mechanical static allodynia using quantitative sensory testing. Our sample consists of 55 individuals; 40 (73%) had TMD (23 with myofascial TMD and 17 with the mixed type). CA of any severity (as assessed by ASC-12) occurred in 40% of those without TMD (reference group), 86.9% of those with myofascial TMD (P¼0.041, RR¼3.2, 95% CI¼1.5–7.0) and in 82.3% of those with mixed TMD (P ¼ 0.02, RR ¼ 2.5, 95% CI¼ 1.2–5.3). Individuals with TMD were more likely to have moderate or severe CA associated with their headaches. Interictally (quantitative sensory testing), thresholds for heat and mechanical nociception were significantly lower in individuals with TMD. Cold nociceptive thresholds were not significantly different in migraine patients with and without TMD. TMDs were also associated with change in extra-cephalic pain thresholds. In logistical regression, TMD remained associated with CA after adjusting for aura, gender and age. TMD and CA are associated in individuals with migraine. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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.

Background: We sought to assess a novel, noninvasive, portable vagal nerve stimulator (nVNS) for acute treatment of migraine., Methods: Participants with migraine with or without aura were eligible for an open-label, single-arm, multiple-attack study. Up to four migraine attacks were treated with two 90-second doses, at 15-minute intervals delivered to the right cervical branch of the vagus nerve within a six-week time period. Subjects were asked to self-treat at moderate or severe pain, or after 20 minutes of mild pain., Results: Of 30 enrolled patients (25 females, five males, median age 39), two treated no attacks, and one treated aura only, leaving a Full Analysis Set of 27 treating 80 attacks with pain. An adverse event was reported in 13 patients, notably: neck twitching (n = 1), raspy voice (n = 1) and redness at the device site (n = 1). No unanticipated, serious or severe adverse events were reported. The pain-free rate at two hours was four of 19 (21%) for the first treated attack with a moderate or severe headache at baseline. For all moderate or severe attacks at baseline, the pain-free rate was 12/54 (22%)., Conclusions: nVNS may be an effective and well-tolerated acute treatment for migraine in certain patients., (© International Headache Society 2014 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav.)

Objective: This study assessed the efficacy of diclofenac potassium for oral solution, a novel water-soluble buffered powder formulation, versus placebo for the acute treatment of migraine. Diclofenac potassium for oral solution has a time to maximum plasma concentration (Tmax) of 15 minutes, suggesting the potential for a rapid onset of therapeutic effects., Methods: This was a randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled study conducted in 23 US centers. Adult sufferers with an established migraine diagnosis according to the International Classification of Headache Disorders, second edition (ICHD-II), treated one moderate or severe attack with 50 mg diclofenac potassium for oral solution (dissolved in approximately 2 ounces of water; N=343) or matching placebo (N=347). Four co-primary endpoints included the percentage of subjects who at two hours post-treatment reported no headache pain, no nausea, no photophobia and/or no phonophobia., Results: Significantly more subjects treated with diclofenac potassium for oral solution (N=343) achieved a two-hour pain-free response (25% vs. 10%, p<.001), no nausea (65% vs. 53%; p=.002), no photophobia (41% vs. 27%; p<.001) and no phonophobia (44% vs. 27%; p<.001) compared to placebo. Pain intensity differences between treatments were significantly lower in the diclofenac potassium oral solution group, starting at 30 minutes post-treatment (p=.013) with significant differences at all time points thereafter (p<.001). Twenty-four-hour sustained pain-free response favored diclofenac potassium oral solution treatment versus placebo (19% vs. 7%, p<.0001). The most common adverse event considered to be treatment related was nausea (diclofenac potassium for oral solution [4.6%]; placebo [4.3%])., Conclusions: This study shows that this formulation of diclofenac potassium for oral solution is effective in reducing pain intensity within 30 minutes, which may be related to the 15-minute T(max) associated with this formulation. The rapid-onset benefits were sustained through 24 hours post-treatment.

Study Objective: Although almost 2 decades have passed since the International Headache Society first introduced its International Classification of Headache Disorders (ICHD), the applicability of this classification scheme in the emergency department (ED) has not been assessed. As a first step toward identifying the role the ICHD should play in the ED, we address 2 questions: Can a structured interview and adherence to the ICHD allow ED headache patients to be classified in a reproducible manner? With the ICHD, how often can one specific diagnosis be assigned to each ED headache presentation?, Methods: This was a structured interview and medical record review of patients with nontraumatic headache, performed in an urban ED from March 2004 through August 2005. Using the data from the interview and the subject's ED record, 2 emergency medicine investigators independently classified each of the headaches twice: first, to determine presence or absence of a primary headache disorder, and then to determine presence or absence of a secondary headache disorder. If a primary headache was present, it was further classified as migraine, tension-type headache, trigeminal autonomic cephalalgia, chronic daily headache, or primary headache unclassifiable. Interobserver discordance was adjudicated by an experienced headache specialist., Results: Four hundred eighty patients were enrolled in the study. The emergency medicine investigators had a high level of interobserver agreement on secondary headaches (agreement 94% [95% confidence interval (CI) 92% to 96%]) and primary headaches (agreement 91% [95% CI 88% to 93%]). Among the 480 subjects, 122 (25%) had a secondary headache disorder, 309 (64%) had a primary headache disorder, 49 (10%) had a coexisting primary and secondary headache, and for 95 (20%) subjects, neither a primary nor a secondary headache could be diagnosed. Of 309 subjects with a primary headache, 186 (60%) had migraine, 34 (11%) had tension-type headache, 2 (1%) had trigeminal autonomic cephalalgia, and 77 (26%) had an unclassifiable primary headache. Overall, a specific ICHD headache diagnosis could not be assigned to 36% of subjects either because a specific primary headache disorder could not be identified or because neither a primary nor a secondary headache disorder could be diagnosed., Conclusion: Although a detailed structured interview in the ED and adherence to the ICHD resulted in reproducible classification of headache patients, more than one third of acute headache patients could not readily be given a specific ICHD diagnosis in the ED.