Search

Abstract Physical activity can worsen migraine, leading to reduced activity levels in adults with chronic migraine. This study investigated the change in average steps per day, as a surrogate marker of physical activity, in adults with chronic migraine successfully treated with monoclonal antibodies against calcitonin gene-related peptide or its receptor. Data were obtained from adults with chronic migraine, who were classified as responders to preventive treatment with monoclonal antibodies. The primary endpoint was the difference in a mean number of steps per day between the 3 months prior to treatment initiation and the first 3 months after treatment initiation. The secondary endpoint was the correlation between the change in steps per day and the change in monthly migraine days. Twenty-two (20 females) participants with a median age of 48.5 years were enrolled. The median number of steps per day increased from 4421 at baseline to 5241 after treatment (P = 0.039). We found a positive correlation between the increase in steps per day and the treatment response (P = 0.013). In conclusion, an increase in physical activity, based on steps per day, positively correlated with treatment response to monoclonal antibodies. Automatically registered daily step count data might be used to monitor physical activity as a response to preventive treatment in adults with chronic migraine.

BackgroundClinical trials demonstrate the efficacy and tolerability of medications targeting calcitonin gene–related peptide (CGRP) signaling for migraine prevention. However, these trials may not accurately reflect the real-world experiences of more diverse and heterogeneous patient populations, who often have higher disease burden and more comorbidities. Therefore, postmarketing safety surveillance is warranted. Regulatory organizations encourage marketing authorization holders to screen digital media for suspected adverse reactions, applying the same requirements as for spontaneous reports. Real-world data from social media platforms constitute a potential venue to capture diverse patient experiences and help detect treatment-related adverse events. However, while social media holds promise for this purpose, its use in pharmacovigilance is still in its early stages. Computational linguistics, which involves the automatic manipulation and quantitative analysis of oral or written language, offers a potential method for exploring this content. ObjectiveThis study aims to characterize adverse events related to monoclonal antibodies targeting CGRP signaling on Reddit, a large online social media forum, by using computational linguistics. MethodsWe examined differences in word frequencies from medication-related posts on the Reddit subforum r/Migraine over a 10-year period (2010-2020) using computational linguistics. The study had 2 phases: a validation phase and an application phase. In the validation phase, we compared posts about propranolol and topiramate, as well as posts about each medication against randomly selected posts, to identify known and expected adverse events. In the application phase, we analyzed posts discussing 2 monoclonal antibodies targeting CGRP signaling—erenumab and fremanezumab—to identify potential adverse events for these medications. ResultsFrom 22,467 Reddit r/Migraine posts, we extracted 402 (2%) propranolol posts, 1423 (6.33%) topiramate posts, 468 (2.08%) erenumab posts, and 73 (0.32%) fremanezumab posts. Comparing topiramate against propranolol identified several expected adverse events, for example, “appetite,” “weight,” “taste,” “foggy,” “forgetful,” and “dizziness.” Comparing erenumab against a random selection of terms identified “constipation” as a recurring keyword. Comparing erenumab against fremanezumab identified “constipation,” “depression,” “vomiting,” and “muscle” as keywords. No adverse events were identified for fremanezumab. ConclusionsThe validation phase of our study accurately identified common adverse events for oral migraine preventive medications. For example, typical adverse events such as “appetite” and “dizziness” were mentioned in posts about topiramate. When we applied this methodology to monoclonal antibodies targeting CGRP or its receptor—fremanezumab and erenumab, respectively—we found no definite adverse events for fremanezumab. However, notable flagged words for erenumab included “constipation,” “depression,” and “vomiting.” In conclusion, computational linguistics applied to social media may help identify potential adverse events for novel therapeutics. While social media data show promise for pharmacovigilance, further work is needed to improve its reliability and usability.

Abstract Objective To explore and critically appraise the evidence supporting the role of estrogen withdrawal in menstrual migraine. Main body Menstrual migraine, impacting about 6% of reproductive-age women, manifests as migraine attacks closely related to the menstrual cycle. The estrogen withdrawal hypothesis posits that the premenstrual drop in estrogen levels serves as a trigger of migraine attacks. Despite its wide acceptance, the current body of evidence supporting this hypothesis remains limited, warranting further validation. Estrogen is believed to exert a modulatory effect on pain, particularly within the trigeminovascular system – the anatomic and physiologic substrate of migraine pathogenesis. Nevertheless, existing studies are limited by methodologic inconsistencies, small sample sizes, and variable case definitions, precluding definitive conclusions. To improve our understanding of menstrual migraine, future research should concentrate on untangling the intricate interplay between estrogen, the trigeminovascular system, and migraine itself. This necessitates the use of robust methods, larger sample sizes, and standardized case definitions to surmount the limitations encountered in previous investigations. Conclusion Further research is thus needed to ascertain the involvement of estrogen withdrawal in menstrual migraine and advance the development of effective management strategies to address unmet treatment needs.

Abstract Most individuals with access to the internet use social media platforms. These platforms represent an excellent opportunity to disseminate knowledge about management and treatment to the benefit of patients. The International Headache Society, The European Headache Federation, and The American Headache Society have electronic media committees to promote and highlight the organizations’ expertise and disseminate research findings. A growing mistrust in science has made dealing with infodemics (i.e., sudden access to excessive unvetted information) an increasing part of clinical management. An increasing role of these committees will be to address this challenge. As an example, recent studies have demonstrated that the most popular online content on migraine management is not evidence-based and is disseminated by for-profit organizations. As healthcare professionals and members of professional headache organizations, we are obliged to prioritize knowledge dissemination. A progressive social media strategy is associated not only with increased online visibility and outreach, but also with a higher scientific interest. To identify gaps and barriers, future research should assess the range of available information on headache disorders in electronic media, characterize direct and indirect consequences on clinical management, and recognize best practice and strategies to improve our communication on internet-based communication platforms. In turn, these efforts will reduce the burden of headache disorders by facilitating improved education of both patients and providers.

Abstract Introduction Worldwide, far from all of those who would benefit make use of headache services, largely because of clinical, social, and political barriers to access. Identifying the factors contributing to low healthcare utilization can generate evidence to guide health policy. Our purpose here is better to characterize healthcare utilization patterns in Denmark. Methods The Headache in Denmark (HINDER) study is a nationwide cross-sectional survey of people with headache, conducted using SurveyXact (Rambøll Group A/S, Copenhagen). Healthcare utilization was assessed in a study sample generated by population screening and recruitment. Data collection occurred over two weeks, from September 23rd until October 4th, 2021. The questions enquired into disease characteristics, management, burden, medication intake and healthcare utilization. Results The number of participants included in the HINDER panel was 4,431, with 2,990 (67.5%: 2,522 [84.3%] female, 468 [15.7%] male; mean age 40.9 ± 11.6 years) completing the survey. One quarter of participants (27.7%) disagreed or strongly disagreed that they were able to manage their headache attacks. Most participants (81.7%) agreed or strongly agreed that their headache was a burden in their everyday lives. The most reported acute medications, by 87.2% of participants, were simple analgesics; of note, 8.6% reported using opioids for their headache. One quarter of participants (24.4%) had never consulted a medical doctor for their headache; one in six (16.5%: more than two thirds of the 24.4%) had never done so despite agreeing or strongly agreeing that their headache was a burden in their everyday lives. Two thirds (65.3%) of participants overall, and almost three quarters (72.4%) of those with weekly headache, had tried one or more complementary or alternative therapies outside conventional medical care. Conclusions Our findings are indicative of inadequate delivery of headache care in a country that provides free and universal coverage for all its residents. The implications are twofold. First, it is not sufficient merely to make services available: public education and increased awareness are necessary to encourage uptake by those who would benefit. Second, educational interventions in both pre- and postgraduate settings are necessary, but a prerequisite for these is a resetting of policy priorities, properly to reflect the very high population ill-health burden of headache.

Abstract Background Despite the pervasiveness of migraine, the underlying pathophysiological mechanisms initiating migraine attacks are far from well understood and are matter of scientific debate. Objective In this narrative review, we discuss key evidence for that suggest a peripheral origin or central origin and provide directions for future studies that may provide further clarification. Discussion Migraine pathogenesis is considered to involve the trigeminovascular system, a term that encompasses the trigeminal nerve and its axonal projections to the intracranial blood vessels. Beyond any doubt both peripheral and central mechanisms are involved in migraine pathogenesis, but an unresolved question is the how the initial activation occurs in a migraine attack. Evidence favoring a peripheral origin of migraine attacks, i.e., initial events occur outside of the blood–brain barrier, include the importance of sensitization of perivascular sensory afferents early on in a migraine attack. Evidence favoring a central origin include the occurrence of prodromal symptoms, migraine aura, and activation of structures within the central nervous system early in and during a migraine attack. Conclusions Both peripheral and central mechanisms are likely involved in a migraine attack, e.g., peripheral nociceptive input is necessary for pain transmission and cortical activity is necessary for pain perception. Yet, the debate of whether migraine attacks are initiated a peripheral or central site remains unresolved. The increased focus on prodromal symptoms and on the development of a human model of migraine aura will possibly provide key arguments needed to answer this question in the near future. Until then, we cannot draw firm conclusions and the debate goes on. Video link Video recording of the debate held at the 1st International Conference on Advances in Migraine Sciences (ICAMS 2022, Copenhagen, Denmark) is available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NC0nlcKohz0 . Graphical Abstract

Abstract Objective To ascertain whether intravenous infusion of calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) can induce migraine-like headache in people with persistent post-traumatic headache attributed to mild traumatic brain injury (TBI) and no pre-existing migraine. Methods A non-randomized, single-arm, open-label study at a single site in Denmark. Eligible participants were aged 18 to 65 years and had a known history of persistent post-traumatic headache attributed to mild TBI for ≥ 12 months. All participants received continuous intravenous infusion of CGRP (1.5 µg/min) over 20 min. A headache diary was used to collect outcome data until 12 h after the start of CGRP infusion. The primary end point was the incidence of migraine-like headache during 12-hour observational period. Results A total of 60 participants completed the study protocol and provided data for the analysis of the primary end point. The median age was 32.5 (IQR, 25.5–43.0) years; 43 participants (72%) were female. Following CGRP infusion, 43 (72%) of 60 participants developed migraine-like headache during the 12-hour observational period. The median time to peak headache intensity was 40 min (IQR, 20–60), and the median peak headache intensity was 6 (IQR, 5–8) on the 11-point numeric rating scale. Conclusion Intravenous infusion of CGRP is a potent inducer of migraine-like headache in people with persistent post-traumatic headache attributed to mild TBI. This observation underscores the importance of CGRP in the genesis of migraine-like headache that is often experienced by individuals who are afflicted by persistent post-traumatic headache. Further research is warranted to ascertain whether other signaling molecules also contribute to the disease mechanisms underlying post-traumatic headache.

BackgroundFollowing the promising pre-marketing placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials of fremanezumab, post-marketing studies are necessary to verify efficacy and tolerability in various real-world settings. The present study assessed real-world efficacy and safety of fremanezumab.MethodsA 3-month, single-center, prospective, observation study of adults with chronic migraine who were treated with monthly subcutaneous injections of 225 mg fremanezumab in Denmark. The primary outcome was defined as proportion of patients who achieved ≥30% reduction in monthly migraine days (MMDs) from baseline to weeks 9–12. Among secondary outcomes were ≥50 and ≥75% responder rates and the proportion of patients reporting adverse events.ResultsA total of 91 patients with chronic migraine were enrolled and received at least one dose of fremanezumab of whom 89 patients (98%) completed the 3-months treatment period. At baseline, the mean (SD) number of monthly headache days was 24.3 ± 5.8 and mean number of MMDs was 18.5 ± 7.4. The number of patients who achieved ≥30% reduction in MMDs from baseline to weeks 9–12 was 58 (65%), while 45 (51%) and 21 (24%) had ≥50 and 75% reduction in MMD, respectively. Twenty-one patients (23%) reported adverse event, in which the most common were constipation (4.4%), fatigue (4.4%) and dizziness (3.3%). No serious adverse events were reported.ConclusionIn adult chronic migraine patients with previous failure of conventional oral migraine preventives, fremanezumab was found to be effective and well-tolerated.

Abstract Introduction Large numbers of people with headache who would benefit are not reached by headache services. Among the causes are poor or disorganized provision of headache services, but reluctance to seek healthcare has frequently been identified as a significant barrier. We conducted a national survey of people with headache to assess the extent of this problem in Denmark, a country with well organized, highly resourced, and readily accessible services. Methods We conducted a nationwide cross-sectional survey of adults ≥ 18 years old in Denmark reporting at least one headache day in the last year. We used social media (Facebook) to publicize and drive a recruitment campaign. The survey investigated five items: (1) disease burden, (2) social life, (3) presenteeism, (4) social support, and (5) healthcare utilization. Results We included 6,567 respondents from May 2021 to June 2021; 70.2% were female, 39.8% male, and mean age was 43.2 ± 13.4 years. Of the respondents, 54.2% reported headache at least once a week, 33.4% reported headache a couple of times a month, and 12.4% reported headache a couple of times a year. Two-thirds of respondents (66.6%) reported that headache limited their social lives occasionally or frequently. Most respondents (86.8%) reported going to work or attending educational activities occasionally or more frequently even though they had headache. Half of the respondents (49.5%) experienced lack of understanding of their headaches from people occasionally or more frequently. Almost half of respondents (43.7%) had never consulted a medical doctor for their headache; even of those with weekly headache, more than a quarter (28.3%) had never done so in their lifetimes. Conclusions Headache disorders continue to be a problem, even in a high-income country with free and easily accessible headache services. Further studies are needed to investigate and clarify why even people with the highest burden are hesitant to seek and make use of widely available headache services.

Abstract Background Clinical trials have shown that erenumab is effective and well-tolerated for the preventive treatment of chronic migraine. To extend the results from clinical trials, we assessed the real-world efficacy and safety of erenumab in patients with chronic migraine from the outpatient clinic at the Danish Headache Center. Methods A 52-week, single-center, prospective, observation study of erenumab in adults with chronic migraine who are eligible for treatment with monoclonal antibodies against CGRP or its receptor in Denmark. The primary outcome was defined as proportion of patients who achieved ≥ 30% reduction in monthly migraine days (MMDs) from baseline to weeks 9–12. Results A total of 300 adult patients with chronic migraine were enrolled and received at least one dose of erenumab. At baseline, the mean (SD) number of monthly headache days was 23 ± 4.9 and mean number of MMDs was 16.8 ± 6.4. Of 300 enrolled patients, 273 (91.0%) patients completed 12 weeks of treatment, and 119 (39.7%) completed 52 weeks of treatment. The number of patients who achieved ≥ 30% reduction in MMDs from baseline to weeks 9–12 was 195 (71.4%) of 273 patients. Sustained ≥ 30% reduction in MMDs at all assessment periods throughout the 52-week treatment period was achieved by 102 (34%) of 300 patients. Adverse events occurred in 220 (73.3%) out of 300 patients. The most common adverse event was constipation. Treatment discontinuation due to lack of tolerability occurred in 41 (13.7%) patients. Conclusions Among adult patients with chronic migraine and previous failure of medications for migraine prevention, erenumab was found to be effective and well-tolerated.

Abstract Background A major barrier to adequate headache care is the relative lack of formal education and training of healthcare professionals. Concerted efforts should be made to pinpoint major gaps in knowledge in healthcare professionals to facilitate better educational policies in headache training. The aim of this study was to identify deficiencies and barriers in headache training among residents in neurology in Denmark. Methods We conducted a national cross-sectional survey of residents in neurology in Denmark from April 2019 to September 2019. The survey included questions on participant demographics, knowledge of and barriers in headache disorders, guidelines and diagnostic tools usage, contact with primary and tertiary care, medication overuse, and non-pharmacological interventions. Furthermore, respondents were asked to provide a ranked list from most to least interesting for six sub-specializations/disorders, i.e., cerebrovascular disease, dementia, epilepsy, headache, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson's disease. Results Sixty (40%) out of estimated a population of ~ 150 resident across Denmark accepted the invitation. Of these, 54/60 (90%) completed the survey. Although two-thirds, 35/54 (65%), of the respondents had prior formalized training in headache disorders, we identified gaps in all explored domains including diagnosis, management, and referral patterns. Particularly, there was an inconsistent use of guidelines and diagnostic criteria from the Danish Headache Society (2.74 (± 1.14)), the Danish Neurological Society (3.15 (± 0.86)), and the International Classification of Headache Disorders (2.33 (± 1.08)); 1: never/have not heard of, 4: always. Headache was ranked second to last out of six sub-specializations in interest. Conclusions Overall knowledge on headache disorders amongst neurology residents in Denmark do not meet the expectations set out by national and international recommendations. Stakeholders should make strategic initiatives for structured education in headache for improved clinical outcomes in parallel with costs reduction through resource optimization.

Abstract Background Headache is a frequent symptom following COVID-19 immunization with a typical onset within days post-vaccination. Cases of cerebral venous thrombosis (CVT) have been reported in adenovirus vector-based COVID-19 vaccine recipients. Findings We reviewed all vaccine related CVT published cases by April 30, 2021. We assessed demographic, clinical variables and the interval between the vaccination and onset of headache. We assessed whether the presence of headache was associated with higher probability of death or intracranial hemorrhage. We identified 77 cases of CVT after COVID-19 vaccination. Patients’ age was below 60 years in 74/77 (95.8%) cases and 61/68 (89.7%) were women. Headache was described in 38/77 (49.4%) cases, and in 35/38 (92.1%) was associated with other symptoms. Multiple organ thrombosis was reported in 19/77 (24.7%) cases, intracranial hemorrhage in 33/77 (42.9%) cases and 19/77 (24.7%) patients died. The median time between vaccination and CVT-related headache onset was 8 (interquartile range 7.0–9.7) days. The presence of headache was associated with a higher odd of intracranial hemorrhage (OR 7.4; 95% CI: 2.7–20.8, p

IntroductionAccessibility 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.MethodsWe 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).ResultsWe 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).ConclusionEven 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.

Background and Objective:ClinicalTrials.gov is a centralized venue for monitoring clinical research and allows access to information on publicly and privately funded studies. To better recognize influential institutions in the field of headache, we identified major organizations conducting clinical trials in migraine research. Furthermore, we examined the frequency of different study designs.Methods: Utilizing the ClinicalTrials.gov application programming interface, we extracted studies including individuals with migraine from February 29, 2000, to July 28, 2020, for the following: (1) host organization, (2) study type, (3) primary purpose, (4) intervention model, and (5) allocation.Results: We included 921 entries encompassing 423 organizations. Thirty-two organizations produced ≥5 entries each and 40.0% of all entries. Most, 86%, were interventional studies while 13.6% were observational studies. The most common study design had a randomized allocation of participants. The most frequent primary purpose was treatment (62.4%) followed by prevention (13.0%). There were 56.9% parallel assignment models, 15.2% single group assignment models, and 12.4% crossover assignment models.Conclusion: A minority of organizations contribute to a significant number of registrations of clinical migraine trials, suggesting that clinical research in migraine is oligarchic. The most common study is interventional and randomized, with parallel assignment of participants with treatment as the primary purpose. This likely reflects the need to evaluate novel putative pharmacological medications.

Abstract Background Migraine aura (MA) is a common and disabling neurological condition, characterized by transient visual, and less frequently sensory and dysphasic aura disturbances. MA is associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disorders and is often clinically difficult to distinguish from other serious neurological disorders such as transient ischemic attacks and epilepsy. Optimal clinical classification of MA symptoms is important for more accurate diagnosis and improved understanding of the pathophysiology of MA through clinical studies. Main body A systematic review of previous prospective and retrospective systematic recordings of visual aura symptoms (VASs) was performed to provide an overview of the different types of visual phenomena occurring during MA and their respective frequencies in patients. We found 11 retrospective studies and three prospective studies systematically describing VASs. The number of different types of VASs reported by patients in the studies ranged from two to 23. The most common were flashes of bright light, “foggy” vision, zigzag lines, scotoma, small bright dots and ‘like looking through heat waves or water’. Conclusions We created a comprehensive list of VAS types reported by migraine patients based on all currently available data from clinical studies, which can be used for testing and validation in future studies. We propose that, based on this work, an official list of VAS types should be developed, preferably within the context of the International Classification of Headache Disorders of the International Headache Society.

Abstract Background In the past decade, migraine research has identified novel drug targets. In this review, we discuss recent data on emerging anti-migraine therapies. Main body The development of ditans, gepants and anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies for the treatment of migraine is one of the greatest advances in the migraine field. Lasmiditan, rimegepant and ubrogepant will extend our therapeutic armamentarium for managing acute migraine attacks when triptans are not effective or contraindicated due to cardiovascular disorders. The monoclonal antibodies are migraine specific prophylactic drugs with high responder rates and favorable adverse event profiles. Furthermore, they offer convenient treatment regimens of 4- or 12-week intervals. Conclusion Collectively, novel migraine therapies represent a major progress in migraine treatment and will undoubtedly transform headache medicine.

Abstract Background A myofascial trigger point is defined as a hyperirritable spot in skeletal muscle that is associated with a hypersensitive palpable nodule in a taut band. It has been suggested that myofascial trigger points take part in chronic pain conditions including primary headache disorders. The aim of this narrative review is to present an overview of the current imaging modalities used for the detection of myofascial trigger points and to review studies of myofascial trigger points in migraine and tension-type headache. Findings Different modalities have been used to assess myofascial trigger points including ultrasound, microdialysis, electromyography, infrared thermography, and magnetic resonance imaging. Ultrasound is the most promising of these modalities and may be used to identify MTrPs if specific methods are used, but there is no precise description of a gold standard using these techniques, and they have yet to be evaluated in headache patients. Active myofascial trigger points are prevalent in migraine patients. Manual palpation can trigger migraine attacks. All intervention studies aiming at trigger points are positive, but this needs to be further verified in placebo-controlled environments. These findings may imply a causal bottom-up association, but studies of migraine patients with comorbid fibromyalgia syndrome suggest otherwise. Whether myofascial trigger points contribute to an increased migraine burden in terms of frequency and intensity is unclear. Active myofascial trigger points are prevalent in tension-type headache coherent with the hypothesis that peripheral mechanisms are involved in the pathophysiology of this headache disorder. Active myofascial trigger points in pericranial muscles in tension-type headache patients are correlated with generalized lower pain pressure thresholds indicating they may contribute to a central sensitization. However, the number of active myofascial trigger points is higher in adults compared with adolescents regardless of no significant association with headache parameters. This suggests myofascial trigger points are accumulated over time as a consequence of TTH rather than contributing to the pathophysiology. Conclusions Myofascial trigger points are prevalent in both migraine and tension-type headache, but the role they play in the pathophysiology of each disorder and to which degree is unclarified. In the future, ultrasound elastography may be an acceptable diagnostic test.

Background: Tension-type headache patients have previously been shown to have increased muscle tone, stiffness and tenderness in the trapezius muscle compared to healthy volunteers. Shear wave elastography is a non-invasive method to measure muscle stiffness. The aim of the study was to use shear wave elastography to investigate if tension-type headache patients had increased pericranial muscle stiffness and whether pericranial muscle stiffness correlated to muscle tenderness. Methods: Seventeen patients with very frequent or chronic tension-type headache associated with pericranial tenderness and 29 healthy volunteers were included. Muscle stiffness was measured using shear wave elastography and muscle tenderness was measured using local tenderness score and total tenderness score. Results: There was no statistically significant difference in muscle stiffness between tension-type headache patients and healthy volunteers. The local tenderness and total tenderness scores were higher in tension-type headache patients compared with healthy volunteers. There was no correlation between muscle stiffness and tenderness. Conclusion: We found no sign of increased pericranial muscle stiffness in tension-type headache patients compared with healthy volunteers using shear wave elastography. Our findings do not suggest a generalized pericranial increase in muscle tone in very frequent and chronic tension-type headache patients.

After publication of the original article 1, the authors have notified us that the row corresponding to the “Alniditan” drug shouldn’t have been included in Table 1. Table 1 should therefore be presented as below:

Background: Following the promising pre-marketing placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials of fremanezumab, post-marketing studies are necessary to verify efficacy and tolerability in various real-world settings. The present study assessed real-world efficacy and safety of fremanezumab. Methods: A 3-month, single-center, prospective, observation study of adults with chronic migraine who were treated with monthly subcutaneous injections of 225 mg fremanezumab in Denmark. The primary outcome was defined as proportion of patients who achieved =30% reduction in monthly migraine days (MMDs) from baseline to weeks 9-12. Among secondary outcomes were =50 and =75% responder rates and the proportion of patients reporting adverse events. Results: A total of 91 patients with chronic migraine were enrolled and received at least one dose of fremanezumab of whom 89 patients (98%) completed the 3-months treatment period. At baseline, the mean (SD) number of monthly headache days was 24.3 ± 5.8 and mean number of MMDs was 18.5 ± 7.4. The number of patients who achieved =30% reduction in MMDs from baseline to weeks 9-12 was 58 (65%), while 45 (51%) and 21 (24%) had =50 and 75% reduction in MMD, respectively. Twenty-one patients (23%) reported adverse event, in which the most common were constipation (4.4%), fatigue (4.4%) and dizziness (3.3%). No serious adverse events were reported. Conclusion: In adult chronic migraine patients with previous failure of conventional oral migraine preventives, fremanezumab was found to be effective and well-tolerated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]