Search

Objective: To identify and disseminate research priorities for the headache field that should be areas of research focus during the next 10 years. Background: Establishing research priorities helps focus and synergize the work of headache investigators, allowing them to reach the most important research goals more efficiently and completely. Methods: The Headache Research Priorities organizing and executive committees and working group chairs led a multistakeholder and international group of experts to develop headache research priorities. The research priorities were developed and reviewed by clinicians, scientists, people with headache, representatives from headache organizations, health‐care industry representatives, and the public. Priorities were revised and finalized after receiving feedback from members of the research priorities working groups and after a public comment period. Results: Twenty‐five research priorities across eight categories were identified: human models, animal models, pathophysiology, diagnosis and management, treatment, inequities and disparities, research workforce development, and quality of life. The priorities address research models and methods, development and optimization of outcome measures and endpoints, pain and non‐pain symptoms of primary and secondary headaches, investigations into mechanisms underlying headache attacks and chronification of headache disorders, treatment optimization, research workforce recruitment, development, expansion, and support, and inequities and disparities in the headache field. The priorities are focused enough that they help to guide headache research and broad enough that they are widely applicable to multiple headache types and various research methods. Conclusions: These research priorities serve as guidance for headache investigators when planning their research studies and as benchmarks by which the headache field can measure its progress over time. These priorities will need updating as research goals are met and new priorities arise. Plain Language Summary: The American Headache Society led a large, international, multistakeholder process to identify headache research topics that should be prioritized during the next 10 years. With input from headache clinicians, scientists, people with headache, representatives from headache organizations, health‐care industry representatives, and the public, 25 research priorities within 8 categories were identified. These research priorities can help guide headache researchers when planning their studies and as benchmarks by which the headache field can measure its progress over time. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Utilize machine learning models to identify factors associated with seeking medical care for migraine. Background: Migraine is a leading cause of disability worldwide, yet many people with migraine do not seek medical care. Methods: The web‐based survey, ObserVational survey of the Epidemiology, tReatment and Care Of MigrainE (US), annually recruited demographically representative samples of the US adult population (2018–2020). Respondents with active migraine were identified via a validated diagnostic questionnaire and/or a self‐reported medical diagnosis of migraine, and were then asked if they had consulted a healthcare professional for their headaches in the previous 12 months (i.e., "seeking care"). This included in‐person/telephone/or e‐visit at Primary Care, Specialty Care, or Emergency/Urgent Care locations. Supervised machine learning (Random Forest) and Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator (LASSO) algorithms identified 13/54 sociodemographic and clinical factors most associated with seeking medical care for migraine. Random Forest models complex relationships (including interactions) between predictor variables and a response. LASSO is also an efficient feature selection algorithm. Linear models were used to determine the multivariable association of those factors with seeking care. Results: Among 61,826 persons with migraine, the mean age was 41.7 years (±14.8) and 31,529/61,826 (51.0%) sought medical care for migraine in the previous 12 months. Of those seeking care for migraine, 23,106/31,529 (73.3%) were female, 21,320/31,529 (67.6%) were White, and 28,030/31,529 (88.9%) had health insurance. Severe interictal burden (assessed via the Migraine Interictal Burden Scale‐4, MIBS‐4) occurred in 52.8% (16,657/31,529) of those seeking care and in 23.1% (6991/30,297) of those not seeking care; similar patterns were observed for severe migraine‐related disability (assessed via the Migraine Disability Assessment Scale, MIDAS) (36.7% [11,561/31,529] vs. 14.6% [4434/30,297]) and severe ictal cutaneous allodynia (assessed via the Allodynia Symptom Checklist, ASC‐12) (21.0% [6614/31,529] vs. 7.4% [2230/30,297]). Severe interictal burden (vs. none, OR 2.64, 95% CI [2.5, 2.8]); severe migraine‐related disability (vs. little/none, OR 2.2, 95% CI [2.0, 2.3]); and severe ictal allodynia (vs. none, OR 1.7, 95% CI [1.6, 1.8]) were strongly associated with seeking care for migraine. Conclusions: Seeking medical care for migraine is associated with higher interictal burden, disability, and allodynia. These findings could support interventions to promote care‐seeking among people with migraine, encourage assessment of these factors during consultation, and prioritize these domains in selecting treatments and measuring their benefits. Plain Language Summary: In this study, we looked at factors that related to a person's decision to seek medical care for migraine in a representative sample of over 60,000 adults with migraine in the United States. We found that only about half (51.0%) of the participants reported seeking care for migraine. We also found that people were more likely to seek medical care when migraine got in the way of their lives during and between migraine attacks, and when they had allodynia (pain from stimuli that do not normally cause pain). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The small molecule calcitonin gene–related peptide receptor antagonists (gepants) are the only drug class with medicines indicated for both the acute and preventive treatment of migraine. Given this dual capacity to both treat and prevent, along with their favorable tolerability profiles and lack of an association with medication‐overuse headache, headache specialists have begun to use gepants in ways that transcend the traditional categories of acute and preventive treatment. One approach, called situational prevention, directs patients to treat during the interictal phase, before symptoms develop, in situations of increased risk for migraine attacks. Herein, we present three patients to illustrate scenarios of gepant use for situational prevention. In each case, a gepant was started in anticipation of a period of increased headache probability (vulnerability) and continued for a duration of 1 day to 5 consecutive days. Although this approach may expose patients to medication when headache may not have developed, the tolerability and safety profile and preventive effect of gepants may represent a feasible approach for some patients. Situational prevention is an emerging strategy for managing migraine before symptoms develop in individuals who can identify periods when the probability of headache is high. This paper is intended to increase awareness of this strategy and stimulate future randomized, placebo‐controlled trials to rigorously assess this strategy. Plain Language Summary: A new class of migraine medicines, the gepants, does not cause medication‐overuse headache; these drugs can be taken in periods of increased headache risk, even before symptoms begin, to keep headaches from coming on. This new way of treating migraine is called "situational prevention." Experience in clinical practice suggests that treating migraine patients without current symptoms during times of increased headache risk, for example in connection with the menstrual cycle, travel, stress, or relaxation after stress, may be good times for situational prevention, but studies are needed to confirm when this strategy is most likely to be beneficial. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: This study compared the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of rimegepant 75 mg oral tablet – a small molecule calcitonin-gene receptor peptide (CGRP) receptor antagonist – with placebo in the acute treatment of migraine. Methods: This double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial enrolled adults aged ≥ 18 years with at least a 1-year history of migraine. Participants randomized to rimegepant 75 mg oral tablet or placebo treated a single migraine attack of moderate or severe pain intensity. The coprimary endpoints, pain freedom and freedom from the most bothersome symptom ([MBS] nausea, photophobia, or phonophobia) at 2 hours postdose, were evaluated using Mantel–Haenszel risk estimation. Results: Of the 1485 participants enrolled, 1162 (78.2%) were randomized to rimegepant (n = 582) or placebo (n = 580). Most participants (85.5%) were female; the population had a mean (SD) age of 41.6 (12.2) years and a history of 4.7 (1.8) migraine attacks per month. At 2 hours postdose, rimegepant-treated participants had higher pain freedom rates (19.2% [104/543] vs 14.2% [77/541]; risk difference 4.9; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.5 to 9.3; P=0.0298) and MBS freedom rates (36.6% [199/543] vs 27.7% [150/541]; risk difference 8.9; 95% CI 3.4 to 14.4; P=0.0016) than placebo-treated participants. Rimegepant-treated participants also had higher rates of pain relief (56.0% [304/543] vs 45.7% [247/541]; risk difference 10.3; 95% CI 4.4 to 16.2, P=0.0006) at 2 hours postdose. The most common adverse events were nausea (0.9% [5/546] vs 1.1% [6/549]) and dizziness (0.7% [4/546] vs 0.4% [2/549]). No signal of drug-induced liver injury due to rimegepant was identified. Conclusion: Rimegepant 75 mg oral tablet was effective in the acute treatment of migraine. Tolerability and safety were similar to placebo, with no evidence of hepatotoxicity. Trial Registration: Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT03235479. Plain Language Summary: Researchers wanted to know if rimegepant 75 mg is effective and safe for the acute treatment of migraine. They gave half the participants rimegepant and half placebo and waited 2 hours. Then, they measured the percentages of participants whose headache and most bothersome migraine symptom besides pain (nausea, sensitivity to light or sound) were gone. They also measured side effects to make sure rimegepant is safe. The study included 1084 adults with migraine, 927 (86%) of whom were women. Two hours after taking the medicine: pain freedom was 19% with rimegepant and 14% with placebo. Freedom from the most bothersome symptom was 37% with rimegepant and 28% with placebo. Pain relief rates, defined as the transition from moderate or severe pain to pain that was mild or absent, occurred in 56% with rimegepant and 46% with placebo. The most common side effects were nausea and dizziness, which affected fewer than 1% of rimegepant patients. Rimegepant 75 mg was more effective than placebo for migraine, with similar tolerability and safety. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Motoric Cognitive Risk (MCR) syndrome, a predementia syndrome characterized by cognitive complaints and slow gait, may have an underlying vascular etiology. Elevated blood levels of homocysteine, a known vascular risk factor, have been linked to physical and cognitive decline in older adults, though the relationship with MCR is unknown. We aimed to identify the association between homocysteine and MCR risk. Methods We examined the association between baseline homocysteine levels and incident MCR using Cox proportional hazard models in 1826 community-dwelling older adults (55% women) from 2 cohorts (Einstein Aging Study [EAS] and Quebec Longitudinal Study on Nutrition and Successful Aging [NuAge]). We calculated hazard ratios (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI), for each cohort as well as stratified by sex and vascular disease/risk factors. Results Median follow-up time was 2.2 years in EAS and 3.0 years in NuAge. Individuals with elevated baseline homocysteine levels (>14 µmol/L) had a significantly higher risk of incident MCR compared to those with normal levels in NuAge (HR 1.41, 95% CI: 1.01–1.97, p  = .04), after adjusting for covariates. Our exploratory stratified analyses found that these associations were significant only in men with vascular disease/risk factors. Conclusions Higher blood homocysteine levels are associated with an increased risk of developing MCR in older adults, particularly in men with vascular disease or vascular risk factors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To assess the prevalence and impact of neck pain during headache among respondents with migraine in the multicountry Chronic Migraine Epidemiology and Outcomes – International (CaMEO‐I) Study. Background: Neck pain among individuals with migraine is highly prevalent and contributes to disability. Methods: The CaMEO‐I was a prospective, cross‐sectional, web‐based study conducted in Canada, France, Germany, Japan, United Kingdom, and the United States. A demographically representative sample of participants from each country completed a screening survey to evaluate headache characteristics. Respondents with headache were identified as having migraine or non‐migraine headache based on modified International Classification of Headache Disorders, third edition, criteria; those with migraine completed a detailed survey with migraine‐specific assessments. Results were stratified by the presence or absence of neck pain with headache (NPWH). For these analyses, data were pooled across the six countries. Results: Of 51,969 respondents who reported headache within the past 12 months, 14,492 (27.9%) were classified as having migraine; the remaining 37,477 (72.1%) had non‐migraine headache. Overall, 9896/14,492 (68.3%) of respondents with migraine headache reported NPWH, which was significantly higher (p < 0.001) than the proportion of respondents with non‐migraine headache who reported NPWH (13,536/37,477 [36.1%]). Among respondents with migraine, moderate‐to‐severe disability was significantly more prevalent for those with NPWH versus without (47.7% [4718/9896] vs. 28.9%, p < 0.001). Respondents with NPWH versus without also had significantly greater work productivity losses, at a median (interquartile range [IQR]) of 50.0 (20.0, 71.3) vs. 30.0 (0.0, 60.0) (p < 0.001), lower quality of life (Migraine‐Specific Quality of Life questionnaire version 2.1, median [IQR] Role Function–Restrictive domain score 60.0 [42.9, 74.3] vs. 68.6 [54.3, 82.9], p < 0.001), higher prevalence of depression and anxiety symptoms (depression, 40.2% [3982/9896] vs. 28.2% [1296/4596], p < 0.001); anxiety, 41.2% [4082/9896] vs. 29.2% [1343/4596], p < 0.001), higher prevalence of cutaneous allodynia during headache (54.0% [5345/9896] vs. 36.6% [1681/4596], p < 0.001), and higher prevalence of poor acute treatment optimization (61.1% [5582/9129] vs. 53.3% [2197/4122], p < 0.001). Conclusions: Nearly 70% of respondents with migraine reported NPWH. Individuals with migraine with neck pain during their headaches had greater disability, depression, anxiety, and cutaneous allodynia (during headache) than those without neck pain during their headaches. They also had diminished quality of life and work productivity, and poorer response to acute treatment compared with those without neck pain. Plain Language Summary: We looked at data from a web‐based study of over 51,000 people across Canada, France, Germany, Japan, United Kingdom, and the United States to understand how neck pain affects people with migraine. We found that neck pain is common in people with migraine, and that those who have neck pain during their headaches have more disability, worse symptoms, more anxiety and depression, and poorer quality of life than those without neck pain. Our results show that neck pain is a serious problem for people with migraine, and it can worsen the negative impacts of migraine. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To characterize the long‐term (56‐week) benefits of continuous onabotulinumtoxinA treatment response in individuals with chronic migraine (CM) who achieved reduction to <15 headache days/month with treatment. Background: There are limited data exploring reductions in monthly headache days to levels consistent with episodic migraine among those experiencing CM. Understanding the impact of sustained preventive treatment response in CM can provide important information about the impact of successful therapy. Methods: The two Phase 3 REsearch Evaluating Migraine Prophylaxis Therapy trials of onabotulinumtoxinA in adults included a 24‐week, randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled phase and a 32‐week open‐label phase. Data were pooled to determine proportions of individuals with <15 headache days/month while on treatment during several time periods in the double‐blind phase (Weeks 21–24; any 12 consecutive weeks; Weeks 13–24) and the entire study (Weeks 53–56; any 12 consecutive weeks; any 4‐week period). We assessed the long‐term impact on mean monthly headache days and changes from baseline on the six‐item Headache Impact Test (HIT‐6) and Migraine‐Specific Quality of Life questionnaire version 2.1 (MSQv2.1). Results: We analyzed 1384 participants with chronic migraine (double‐blind: onabotulinumtoxinA, n = 688; placebo, n = 696; open‐label: n = 688 [onabotulinumtoxinA]). The discontinuation rates prior to the completion of the full 56‐week treatment period for onabotulinumtoxinA and placebo were 25.4% (n = 175) and 29.3% (n = 204), respectively. During Weeks 13–24 of the double‐blind phase, significantly more onabotulinumtoxinA‐treated (386/688 [56.1%]) than placebo‐treated (342/696 [49.1%]) individuals had <15 headache days/month (p = 0.010), with fewer monthly headache days for onabotulinumtoxinA versus placebo responders. The proportions of participants achieving <15 monthly headache days with onabotulinumtoxinA were 60.9% (419/688) at Weeks 25–56, 81.1% (558/688) at Weeks 53–56, and 79.4% (546/688) during any consecutive 12‐week period. Mean changes from baseline on the HIT‐6 and MSQv2.1 questionnaire surpassed within‐group minimal important difference thresholds in all periods. At Week 24, onabotulinumtoxinA‐treated participants who achieved <15 monthly headache days during Weeks 21–24 had a greater mean HIT‐6 score reduction (−6.5 vs. −1.4) and greater mean MSQv2.1 Role‐Function Restrictive score improvements (21.3 vs. 6.4) than those who did not achieve <15 monthly headache days during the same period. Conclusions: Participants who achieved <15 monthly headache days with onabotulinumtoxinA treatment achieved meaningful benefits in headache‐related disability and migraine‐specific quality of life compared with those who remained at or above the 15–monthly headache days threshold. Sustained benefits observed over 56 weeks support long‐term onabotulinumtoxinA use for the prevention of CM. Plain Language Summary: It is not always clear how we should define if a preventive treatment for chronic migraine (CM) is successful. People with CM have ≥15 headache days/month, so we looked at data from two groups of patients who received long‐term treatment with onabotulinumtoxinA: the first group decreased to <15 headache days/month, and the second group continued to have ≥15 headache days/month. We found that the patients whose headaches decreased to <15 headache days/month, which we called the response threshold, said that their headaches impacted their lives much less and that they had better quality of life compared to the group who still met CM diagnostic criteria at the end of treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

OBJECTIVE Hispanic/Latino individuals in the U.S. have the highest prevalence of undiagnosed and untreated diabetes and are at increased risk for cognitive impairment. In this study, we examine glycemic control in relation to cognitive aging and impairment in a large prospective cohort of middle-aged and older Hispanic/Latino individuals of diverse heritages. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS Study of Latinos-Investigation of Neurocognitive Aging (SOL-INCA) is a Hispanic Community Health Study/Study of Latinos (HCHS/SOL) ancillary study. HCHS/SOL is a multisite (Bronx, NY; Chicago, IL; Miami, FL; and San Diego, CA), probability sampled prospective cohort study. SOL-INCA enrolled 6,377 diverse Hispanic/Latino individuals aged 50 years and older (2016-2018). The primary outcomes were cognitive function, 7-year cognitive decline, and mild cognitive impairment (MCI). The primary glycemia exposure variables were measured from fasting blood samples collected at HCHS/SOL visit 1 (2008-2011). RESULTS Visit 1 mean age was 56.5 years ± 8.2 SD, and the average glycosylated hemoglobin A1C (HbA1c) was 6.12% (43.5 ± 14.6 mmol/mol). After covariate adjustment, higher HbA1c was associated with accelerated 7-year global (b = -0.045; 95% CI -0.070; -0.021; in z score units) and executive cognitive decline and a higher prevalence of MCI (odds ratio 1.20; 95% CI 1.11; 1.29). CONCLUSIONS Elevated HbA1c levels were associated with 7-year executive cognitive decline and increased MCI risk among diverse middle-aged and older Hispanic/Latino individuals. Our findings indicate that poor glycemic control in midlife may pose significant risks for cognitive decline and MCI later in life among Hispanic/Latino individuals of diverse heritages. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

INTRODUCTION: The LIfestyle for BRAin Health (LIBRA) index yields a dementia risk score based on modifiable lifestyle factors and is validated in Western samples. We investigated whether the association between LIBRA scores and incident dementia is moderated by geographical location or sociodemographic characteristics. METHODS: We combined data from 21 prospective cohorts across six continents (N = 31,680) and conducted cohort‐specific Cox proportional hazard regression analyses in a two‐step individual participant data meta‐analysis. RESULTS: A one‐standard‐deviation increase in LIBRA score was associated with a 21% higher risk for dementia. The association was stronger for Asian cohorts compared to European cohorts, and for individuals aged ≤75 years (vs older), though only within the first 5 years of follow‐up. No interactions with sex, education, or socioeconomic position were observed. DISCUSSION: Modifiable risk and protective factors appear relevant for dementia risk reduction across diverse geographical and sociodemographic groups. Highlights: A two‐step individual participant data meta‐analysis was conducted.This was done at a global scale using data from 21 ethno‐regionally diverse cohorts.The association between a modifiable dementia risk score and dementia was examined.The association was modified by geographical region and age at baseline.Yet, modifiable dementia risk and protective factors appear relevant in all investigated groups and regions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factors are highly prevalent among Hispanic/Latino adults, while the prevalence of MRI infarcts is not well-documented. We, therefore, sought to examine the relationships between CVD risk factors and infarcts with brain structure among Hispanic/Latino individuals. Methods: Participants included 1,886 Hispanic/Latino adults (50-85 years) who underwent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as part of the Study of Latinos--Investigation of Neurocognitive Aging-MRI (SOL-INCA-MRI) study. CVD risk was measured approximately 10.5 years before MRI using the Framingham cardiovascular risk score, a measure of 10-year CVD risk (low (<10%), medium (10 - < 20%), and high (≥20%)). MR infarcts were determined as present or absent. Outcomes included total brain, cerebral and lobar cortical gray matter, hippocampal, lateral ventricle, and total white matter hyperintensity (WMH) volumes. Linear regression models tested associations between CVD risk and infarct with MRI outcomes and for modifications by age and sex. Results: Sixty percent of participants were at medium or high CVD risk. Medium and high CVD risk were associated with lower total brain and frontal gray matter and higher WMH volumes compared to those with low CVD risk. High CVD risk was additionally associated with lower total cortical gray matter and parietal volumes and larger lateral ventricle volumes. Men tended to have greater CVDRF-related differences in total brain volumes than women. The association of CVD risk factors on total brain volumes increased with age, equal to an approximate 7-year increase in total brain aging among the high-CVD-risk group compared to the low-risk group. The presence of infarct(s) was associated with lower total brain volumes, which was equal to an approximate 5-year increase in brain aging compared to individuals without infarcts. Infarcts were also associated with smaller total cortical gray matter, frontal and parietal volumes, and larger lateral ventricle and WMH volumes. Conclusion: The high prevalence of CVD risk among Hispanic/Latino adults may be associated with accelerated brain aging. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To analyze data from the Chronic Migraine Epidemiology and Outcomes‐International (CaMEO‐I) Study in order to characterize preventive medication use and identify preventive usage gaps among people with migraine across multiple countries. Background: Guidelines for the preventive treatment of migraine are available from scientific organizations in various countries. Although these guidelines differ among countries, eligibility for preventive treatment is generally based on monthly headache day (MHD) frequency and associated disability. The overwhelming majority of people with migraine who are eligible for preventive treatment do not receive it. Methods: The CaMEO‐I Study was a cross‐sectional, observational, web‐based panel survey study performed in six countries: Canada, France, Germany, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States. People were invited to complete an online survey in their national language(s) to identify those with migraine according to modified International Classification of Headache Disorders, 3rd edition, criteria. People classified with migraine answered questions about current and ever use of both acute and preventive treatments for migraine. Available preventive medications for migraine differed by country. MHD frequency and associated disability data were collected. The American Headache Society (AHS) 2021 Consensus Statement algorithm was used to determine candidacy for preventive treatment (i.e., ≥3 monthly MHDs with severe disability, ≥4 MHDs with some disability, or ≥6 MHDs regardless of level of disability). Results: Among 90,613 valid completers of the screening survey, 14,492 met criteria for migraine and completed the full survey, with approximately 2400 respondents from each country. Based on the AHS consensus statement preventive treatment candidacy algorithm, averaging across countries, 36.2% (5246/14,492) of respondents with migraine qualified for preventive treatment. Most respondents (84.5% [4431/5246]) who met criteria for preventive treatment according to the AHS consensus statement were not using a preventive medication at the time of the survey. Moreover, 19.3% (2799/14,492) of respondents had ever used preventive medication (ever users); 58.1% (1625/2799) of respondents who reported ever using a preventive medication for migraine were still taking it. Of the respondents who were currently using a preventive medication, 50.2% (815/1625) still met the criteria for needing preventive treatment based on the AHS consensus statement. Conclusions: Most people with migraine who qualify for preventive treatment are not currently taking it. Additionally, many people currently taking preventive pharmacologic treatment still meet the algorithm criteria for needing preventive treatment, suggesting inadequate benefit from their current regimen. Plain Language Summary: People with migraine who experience frequent headaches or some level of disability may benefit from using a preventive medication for migraine. We collected data on the use of preventive medication for migraine in Canada, France, Germany, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States. These data demonstrated that many people who qualified for the use of a preventive treatment in the six participating countries were not currently taking a preventive medication for migraine. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]