Search

OBJECTIVE To assess the real-world efficacy, tolerability, and safety of ubrogepant in a tertiary headache center. BACKGROUND The efficacy and safety of ubrogepant for the acute treatment of migraine were established in phase 3 randomized controlled trials. However, there is no real-world data of patient experience with ubrogepant in a population in which the majority of patients have chronic migraine, multiple prior unsuccessful treatments, complex medical comorbidities, and concurrent use of other migraine-specific medications. METHOD This was a post-market cohort study conducted at Mayo Clinic Arizona. All patients prescribed ubrogepant were tracked and contacted 1-3 months after the prescription to answer a list of standardized questions. Demographic information and additional headache history were obtained from chart review. RESULTS We obtained eligible questionnaire responses from 106 patients. Chronic migraine accounted for 92/106 (86.8%) of the population. Complete headache freedom (from mild/moderate/severe to no pain) and headache relief (from moderate/severe to mild/no pain or mild to no pain) for ≥75% of all treated attacks at 2 hours after taking ubrogepant were achieved in 20/105 (19.0%) and 50/105 (47.6%) patients, respectively. A total of 33/106 (31.1%) patients reported being "very satisfied" with ubrogepant. Adverse events were reported in 42/106 (39.6%) patients, including fatigue in 29/106 (27.4%), dry mouth in 8/106 (7.5%), nausea/vomiting in 7/106 (6.6%), constipation in 5/106 (4.7%), dizziness in 3/106 (2.8%), and other adverse events in 7/106 (6.6%). Predictive factors for being a "good responder" to ubrogepant, defined as headache relief for ≥75% of all treated attacks at 2 hours after taking ubrogepant, included migraine with aura, episodic migraine

Objective This post hoc study investigated the relationship between patient response in terms of migraine headache day reduction and patient‐reported outcomes of health‐related quality of life (HRQoL) and disability categories. Background Migraine causes considerable disease‐related disability and negatively impacts HRQoL of patients. Calcitonin gene‐related peptide inhibitors improve these outcomes and may eliminate disability due to migraine in some patients. Methods Analyses used data from 3 double‐blind, placebo (PBO)‐controlled, phase 3 studies in adults with episodic migraine (EM) (EVOLVE‐1: N = 858 and EVOLVE‐2: N = 915) or chronic migraine (CM) (REGAIN: N = 1113). Patients were randomized 2:1:1 to subcutaneous injection of PBO, galcanezumab (GMB) 120 mg, or GMB 240 mg once monthly for 6 months in EVOLVE‐1 and ‐2 and for 3 months in REGAIN. Primary endpoint was overall mean change from baseline in monthly migraine headache days. Patients were divided into 4 response‐level groups based on percent change from baseline (

Background Concussion affects almost 4 million individuals annually. There are many sideline screening tools available to assist in the detection of sports-related concussion. The King-Devick (K-D) test in association with Mayo Clinic utilizes rapid number naming to test saccadic eye movements in order to screen for concussion. An ideal screening tool for concussion would correctly identify all athletes with active concussion. The accuracy of K-D testing compared with other sideline screening tools is undetermined. Objective To critically assess current evidence regarding the utility of K-D testing as a sideline screening tool for acute concussion and compare K-D testing to other sideline concussion assessments. Methods The objective was addressed through the development of a critically appraised topic that included a clinical scenario, structured question, literature search strategy, critical appraisal, assessment of results, evidence summary, commentary, and bottom-line conclusions. Participants included consultant and resident neurologists, a medical librarian, clinical epidemiologists, and content experts in the field of concussion neurology and neuro-ophthalmology. Results A recent meta-analysis was selected for critical appraisal. Cohorts analyzing athletes with sports-related concussion were selected, and utilized K-D testing as the main baseline and sideline assessment of concussion. K-D testing was found to have a high sensitivity and specificity for detecting concussion when there was worsening from baseline. Conclusion K-D testing has high sensitivity and specificity for detecting sideline concussion. Compared with other sideline screening tools that do not include vision testing, it has greater accuracy. Screening for concussion is optimized when multiple testing modalities are used in conjunction.

Background The King-Devick test is a timed rapid number naming task that involves complex cerebral functions. The objective of this pilot exploratory study is to determine whether there is a difference in the King-Devick test during a migraine attack compared to the interictal phase. Methods We evaluated 29 adult subjects with migraine with aura or migraine without aura. For each participant, we performed King-Devick tests during migraine attacks and interictal phases. Subjects served as their own controls. Results The King-Devick test was slower during the migraine attack compared to the interictal baseline (median 4.6 sec slower, p Conclusions This exploratory, observational study shows changes in the King-Devick test during migraine compared to the interictal phase. Future studies are required to determine if the King-Devick test may be used as a rapid and simple tool to objectively characterize migraine-associated disability.

In addition to the increased risk for cardiovascular (CV) disease and CV events associated with migraine, patients with migraine can also present with a number of CV risk factors (CVRFs). Existing treatment options can be limited due to contraindications, increased burden associated with monitoring, or patient avoidance of side effects. Safe and effective migraine treatment options are needed for patients with migraine and a history of CV or cerebrovascular disease or with increased risk for CV events. This analysis was designed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of oral lasmiditan, a selective serotonin 5-hydroxytryptamine 1F receptor agonist, in acute treatment of migraine attacks in patients with CVRFs. SAMURAI and SPARTAN were similarly designed, Phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials in adults treating a single migraine attack with lasmiditan 50, 100, or 200 mg. Both studies included patients with CVRFs, and SPARTAN allowed patients with coronary artery disease, clinically significant arrhythmia, or uncontrolled hypertension. Efficacy and safety of lasmiditan in subgroups of patients with differing levels of CVRFs are reported. For efficacy analyses, logistic regression was used to assess treatment-by-subgroup interactions. For safety analyses, Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test of general association evaluated treatment comparisons; Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio assessed significant treatment effects. In this pooled analysis, a total of 4439 patients received ≥1 dose of study drug. A total of 3500 patients (78.8%) had ≥1 CVRF, and 1833 patients (41.3%) had ≥2 CVRFs at baseline. Both trials met the primary endpoints of headache pain freedom and most bothersome symptom freedom at 2 h. The presence of CVRFs did not affect efficacy results. There was a low frequency of likely CV treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) overall (lasmiditan, 30 [0.9%]; placebo, 5 [0.4%]). There was no statistical difference in the frequency of likely CV TEAEs in either the absence or presence of any CVRFs. The only likely CV TEAE seen across patients with ≥1, ≥ 2, ≥ 3, or ≥ 4 CVRFs was palpitations. When analyzed by the presence of CVRFs, there was no statistical difference in lasmiditan efficacy or the frequency of likely CV TEAEs. Despite the analysis being limited by a single-migraine-attack design, the lack of differences in efficacy and safety with increasing numbers of CVRFs indicates that lasmiditan might be considered in the treatment algorithm for patients with CVRFs. Future studies are needed to assess long-term efficacy and safety. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02439320 (SAMURAI), registered 18 March 2015 and ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02605174 (SPARTAN), registered 11 November 2015.

Concussion is a public health crisis affecting vulnerable populations including youth athletes. As awareness increases, more patients with acute concussion are seeking medical evaluations. Internists are frontline medical providers and thus should be able to identify, diagnose, manage, and know when to refer patients with concussion. Management of concussion includes rapid removal from play, symptomatic treatment, and return to learn/play recommendations. Inappropriate management may lead to recurrent concussions, prolonged recovery, and potential long-term consequences. Understanding the key features of diagnosis, postinjury assessment tools, symptomatic treatment, and management of concussion, including return to learn/play recommendations, is essential for primary care providers.

Objective: To evaluate the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of eptinezumab 100 and 300 mg compared with placebo in patients with the dual diagnosis of chronic migraine (CM) and medication-overuse headache (MOH). Background: Eptinezumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody targeting calcitonin gene-related peptide, may be effective for treating patients with a dual diagnosis of CM and MOH. Methods: PROMISE-2 (NCT02974153) was a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study that comprised a screening visit, a 28-day pretreatment period, and a 32-week study duration. Patients in this exploratory analysis of a prespecified subgroup had confirmed diagnoses of both CM and MOH at screening. Patients were randomly assigned to receive intravenous eptinezumab 100, 300 mg, or placebo every 12 weeks. Efficacy outcomes included mean changes from baseline in monthly migraine days (MMDs) during weeks 1–12, migraine responder rates at week 12, and percentages of patients below International Classification of Headache Disorders thresholds for CM and MOH over weeks 1–24. Results: There were 431 patients who were diagnosed with CM and MOH as specified in the protocol and received eptinezumab 100 mg (n = 139), 300 mg (n = 147), or placebo (n = 145). During the baseline period, these patients experienced an average of 16.7 migraine days across treatment arms. Over weeks 1–12, eptinezumab-treated patients experienced greater reductions from baseline in MMDs than placebo patients (100 mg, change from baseline = −8.4, difference from placebo [95% confidence interval (CI)] = −3.0 [−4.56, −1.52], p

Objective This post hoc analysis in patients medically diagnosed with chronic migraine (CM) and medication-overuse headache (MOH) evaluated reductions in the use of acute headache medication (AHM) and sustained changes in the diagnostic status of CM and MOH following eptinezumab treatment in the PROMISE-2 study. Background Eptinezumab, a monoclonal antibody that inhibits calcitonin gene-related peptide, is approved in the United States for the preventive treatment of migraine. A previous analysis showed that eptinezumab reduced monthly migraine days and was well tolerated in the subgroup of PROMISE-2 patients diagnosed with both CM and MOH. Methods The phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled PROMISE-2 study (NCT02974153) randomized adults with CM to eptinezumab 100 mg, 300 mg, or placebo (administered intravenously every 12 weeks for up to two doses). MOH was prospectively diagnosed at screening by trained physicians based on 3 months of medication history and International Classification of Headache Disorders-3β criteria. This post hoc analysis evaluated changes in total and class-specific days of AHM usage, the percentage of patients using AHM at or above MOH diagnostic thresholds, and the percentage of patients experiencing monthly headache and migraine day frequency below diagnostic thresholds for MOH and/or CM. Results In PROMISE-2, 431/1072 (40.2%) patients with CM were diagnosed with MOH (eptinezumab 100 mg, n = 139; 300 mg, n = 147; placebo, n = 145) and were included in this analysis. Total monthly AHM use decreased from 20.6 days/month at baseline to 10.6 days/month over 24 weeks of treatment (49% decrease) with eptinezumab 100 mg, from 20.7 to 10.5 days/month (49% decrease) with eptinezumab 300 mg, and from 19.8 to 14.0 days/month (29% decrease) with placebo. Numerically greater decreases from baseline with eptinezumab were also observed for individual drug classes. In each study month, the percentages of patients who were below MOH thresholds were numerically higher for both eptinezumab doses compared with placebo, as were the percentages of patients experiencing headache and migraine frequency below CM thresholds. Of patients with available data across the entire treatment period, 29.0% (58/200) of patients treated with eptinezumab stopped meeting and remained below diagnostic thresholds for both CM and MOH during Weeks 1-24, as well as 6.3% (6/96) of patients who received placebo. Conclusions Across 24 weeks of treatment, eptinezumab reduced AHM use in patients diagnosed with CM and MOH. More than one-fourth (29%) of patients treated with eptinezumab did not meet the diagnostic thresholds for either CM or MOH for the entire treatment period.

The discovery of calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) and its role in migraine has promoted a new era in migraine treatment: CGRP antagonism. Two classes of medications are currently available: small molecules targeting the CGRP receptor and monoclonal antibodies targeting the CGRP receptor or CGRP ligand. The revolution of these medications is represented by blurring the borders between acute and preventive treatments, episodic and chronic migraine, naive and refractory patients and even between migraine and other headache disorders.

The past two decades has seen an influx of noninvasive neuromodulation devices aimed at treatment of various primary headache disorders, including cluster headache and migraine. This narrative review is to summarize the current options in noninvasive neuromodulation in migraine. A variety of noninvasive neuromodulation devices have been FDA cleared and marketed for use in migraine, including single-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation (sTMS), noninvasive vagal nerve stimulators (nVNS), and external trigeminal nerve stimulators (eTNS). Newer devices include peripheral electrical stimulation devices (PES), caloric stimulation, and others. Each has varying levels of evidence supporting its use in migraine, tolerability profiles, and access issues. Noninvasive neuromodulation devices can be beneficial when used in patients with migraine, with minimal side effects. As more devices are developed, approved, and marketed in the future, rigorous research on efficacy and safety remain a top priority.

We describe the pervasiveness of headache diseases across the globe and the need for healthcare advocacy, define healthcare advocacy, and identify how providers can incorporate healthcare advocacy into clinical practice and beyond. Nearly 3 billion people across the globe experience migraine or tension-type headache, yet headache diseases receive a fraction of the funding that is allocated to other diseases. Despite its prevalence, those with headache diseases, especially migraine, experience external and internal stigma. As physicians, our job extends past the direct needs of the patient and must also focus on the systemic problems affecting our patients such as accessibility to healthcare providers and treatment options, as well as addressing stigma. We can empower our patients with education, community, and supportive, non-stigmatizing language used to describe headache diseases. Headache diseases are prevalent throughout the world and contribute to a substantial amount of disability. Disability is further compounded by stigma. Advocacy starts with empowering patients and peers with knowledge. It extends into the workplace to create accommodations and in the community to raise awareness and lobby for access to specialists, treatment options, and research funding.

Background Noninvasive neuromodulation devices have been used for a variety of headache disorders, including cluster and migraine, since recently being cleared by the Federal Drug Administration. Although these devices have been touted as low-risk options for improved headache control, the data behind actual efficacy endpoints remain unclear. Objective To critically assess current evidence regarding the efficacy of the noninvasive vagus nerve stimulator (nVNS) device for acute migraine management. Methods The objective was addressed through the development of a structured critically appraised topic. This included a clinical scenario with a clinical question, literature search strategy, critical appraisal, results, evidence summary, commentary, and bottom line conclusions.Participants included consultant and resident neurologists, a medical librarian, clinical epidemiologists, and a content expert in the field of headache. Results A randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled clinical trial was selected for critical appraisal. In this trial, the primary endpoint (pain freedom at 120 min after use of nVNS for first acute migraine attack) was not met when compared with sham device (30.4% for nVNS vs. 19.7% for sham; P=0.067). However, there were statistically significant differences found for various secondary endpoints favoring nVNS, such as pain freedom rates at 30 and 60 minutes, pain relief at 120 minutes, and mean percentage pain score reduction rates at 60 and 120 minutes. Conclusions When comparing nVNS with sham, no statistically significant differences were found with regards to the primary endpoint of pain freedom at 120 minutes, although differences were found with various secondary endpoints and post hoc analysis. nVNS is likely a safe alternative to medications.

OBJECTIVE: To summarize the current literature on non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug and corticosteroid use during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, recognizing that these are commonly used treatments in the field of headache medicine. BACKGROUND: The use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and corticosteroids in patients during the COVID-19 pandemic has been a controversial topic within the medical community and international and national health organizations. Lay press and social media outlets have circulated opinions on this topic despite the fact that the evidence for or against the use of these medications is sparse. In the field of headache medicine, these medications are used commonly and both patients and clinicians may have questions or hesitations pertaining to their use during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: A detailed search of the scientific and popular literature was performed. RESULTS: There is limited literature pertaining to the safety of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and corticosteroids during the COVID-19 pandemic. To date, there are no clear scientific data that preclude the use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in the general population who may acquire COVID-19 or in those acutely infected with the virus. Several health organizations have concluded that treatment with corticosteroids during active infection should be avoided due to concerns of prolonged viral shedding in the respiratory tract and the lack of survival benefit based on the data from past coronaviruses and influenza virus; specific exceptions exist including treatment for underlying asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, septic shock, and acute respiratory distress syndrome. CONCLUSION: Scientific information regarding the COVID-19 pandemic is constantly evolving, and limited or contradictory information can lead to confusion for both patients and clinicians. It is recommended that prior to prescribing non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and steroids for the treatment of headache, clinicians have open discussions with their patients about the potential risks and benefits of using these medications during the COVID-19 pandemic. This manuscript summarizes the currently available evidence and understanding about these risks and benefits to help clinicians navigate such discussions.

The coronavirus responsible for the COVID-19 pandemic, SARS-2-CoV, most commonly involves the respiratory tract; however, more severe cases have been found to have multi-organ involvement, including the central nervous system. Headache has been documented as a presenting symptom of COVID-19, which may prompt neurology consultation. To date, few cases of COVID-19 meningitis have been confirmed, but it must remain in the differential diagnosis for patients with headache and fever. A 58-year-old female with multiple sclerosis on fingolimod, chronic migraine well-controlled on fremanezumab, and cerebrovascular disease presented with fevers and respiratory symptoms, as well as acute treatment-refractory headache with associated neck stiffness and transient behavioral abnormalities. Although not confirmed with cerebrospinal fluid testing, we suspect this patient had COVID-19 meningoencephalitis, highlighting the need to consider secondary headaches in patients with coronavirus infection, even in the setting of chronic migraine. We offer anecdotal treatment recommendations for acutely refractory secondary headache and guidance for the consulting neurologist during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Spontaneous intracranial hypotension (SIH) caused by a spontaneous cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leak, results in CSF hypovolaemia. Owing to the variety of clinical presentations and numerous possible diagnostic investigations, diagnosis and appropriate treatment remains challenging in many patients. Although the typical presentation of SIH is an orthostatic headache, the clinical spectrum includes a variety of headache types, focal neurological symptoms, and even spinal manifestations. The underlying pathophysiology of SIH varies depending on the clinical scenario. However, a deeper understanding of the pathophysiology has led to the recognition of risk factors and an explanation for clinical symptoms and abnormalities on diagnostic investigations. Multiple diagnostic investigations can be used to determine if a CSF leak is present or not. Magnetic resonance imaging of the head with and without contrast is sensitive and non-invasive. However, computed tomography myelography remains the study of choice to locate the site of the leak. The rate of flow of the CSF leak can pose a challenge to standard diagnostic investigations. To date, a large-volume blind epidural blood patch is the mainstay of treatment, although more targeted approaches are used for more refractory cases.

Migraine is a common chronic neurological disease that disproportionately affects women. Migraine has significant negative effects on physical, emotional, and social aspects of health, and can be costly for patients, employers, and society as a whole. Growing evidence supports the roles of sex and gender in migraine risk, pathophysiology, presentation, diagnosis, treatment, and management. However, sex and gender differences in migraine have received limited attention, which can impede advancements in migraine detection, treatment, care, and education. The Society for Women's Health Research convened an interdisciplinary expert panel of researchers, clinicians, and advocates for a roundtable meeting to review the current research on sex and gender differences in migraine. This review summarizes discussions from the roundtable and prioritizes areas of need that warrant further attention in migraine research, care, and education. Examining sex and gender differences in migraine and addressing knowledge gaps will decrease the health and economic burden of migraine for both women and men.

The purpose of this narrative review is to provide an overview of the currently available noninvasive neuromodulation devices for the treatment of migraine and cluster headache.Over the last decade, several noninvasive devices have undergone development and clinical trials to evaluate efficacy and safety. Based on this body of work, single-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation, transcutaneous supraorbital neurostimulation, and noninvasive vagal nerve stimulation devices have been cleared by the United States Food and Drug Administration and are available for clinical use for the treatment of primary headache disorders.Overall, these novel noninvasive devices appear to be safe, well tolerated, and have demonstrated promising results in clinical trials in both migraine and cluster headache. This narrative review will provide a summary and update of the proposed mechanisms of action, evidence, safety, and future directions of various currently available modalities of noninvasive neuromodulation for the treatment of migraine and cluster headache.

Objective To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of single pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation (sTMS) for the preventive treatment of migraine. Background sTMS was originally developed for the acute treatment of migraine with aura. Open label experience has suggested a preventive benefit. The objective of this trial was to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of sTMS for migraine prevention. Methods The eNeura SpringTMS Post-Market Observational U.S. Study of Migraine (ESPOUSE) Study was a multicenter, prospective, open label, observational study. From December 2014 to March 2016, patients with migraine (n = 263) were consented to complete a 1-month baseline headache diary followed by 3 months of treatment. The treatment protocol consisted of preventive (four pulses twice daily) and acute (three pulses repeated up to three times for each attack) treatment. Patients reported daily headache status, medication use, and device use with a monthly headache diary. The primary endpoint, mean reduction of headache days compared to baseline, was measured over the 28-day period during weeks 9 to 12. The primary endpoint was compared to a statistically-derived placebo estimate (performance goal). Secondary endpoints included: 50% responder rate, acute headache medication consumption, HIT-6, and mean reduction in total headache days from baseline of any intensity. Results Of a total of 263 consented subjects, 229 completed a baseline diary, and 220 were found to be eligible based on the number of headache days. The device was assigned to 217 subjects (Safety Data Set) and 132 were included in the intention to treat Full Analysis Set. For the primary endpoint, there was a −2.75 ± 0.40 mean reduction of headache days from baseline (9.06 days) compared to the performance goal (−0.63 days) ( p Conclusions This open label study suggests that sTMS may be an effective, well-tolerated treatment option for migraine prevention. Trial registration number NCT02357381

Greater occipital nerve (GON) blocks are frequently used to treat migraine headaches, although a paucity of supporting clinical evidence exists. The objective of this study was to assess the efficacy of GON block in acute treatment of migraine headache, with a focus on pain relief.This retrospective cohort study was undertaken between January 2009 and August 2014 and included patients who underwent at least 1 GON block and attended at least 1 follow-up appointment. Change in the 11-point numeric pain rating scale (NPRS) was used to assess the response to GON block. Response was defined as "minimal" (30% NPRS point reduction), "moderate" (31-50% NPRS point reduction), or "significant" (50% NPRS point reduction).A total of 562 patients met inclusion criteria; 423 were women (75%). Mean age was 58.6 ± 16.7 years. Of these 562, 459 patients (82%) rated their response to GON block as moderate or significant. No statistically significant relationship existed between previous treatment regimens and response to GON block. GON block was equally effective across the different age and sex groups.Greater occipital block seems to be an effective option for acute management of migraine headache, with promising reductions in pain scores.

Chronic migraine is a debilitating neurobiological disorder that affects approximately 1.4–2.2% of the population worldwide. Patients with chronic migraine have 15 or more headache days per month, with at least 8 days per month that meet the criteria for migraine. Injection of onabotulinumtoxinA, using a standardized injection protocol, was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2010 for the treatment of chronic migraine. The approval was made based on results from two large, randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled trials: the Phase III Research Evaluating Migraine Prophylaxis Therapy (PREEMPT) trials. Since then, numerous studies have been performed investigating the short-term and long-term benefits, risks and complications of the use of onabotulinumtoxinA injections for the treatment of chronic migraine. The purpose of this narrative review is to describe the currently available clinical evidence for the use of onabotulinumtoxinA injections for treating patients with chronic migraine.

BACKGROUND Erenumab, a calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor monoclonal antibody, has been well tolerated with good efficacy for the preventive treatment of episodic and chronic migraine in phase 2 and phase 3 clinical trials. Limited post-market observations are available to validate these findings in a real-world tertiary headache clinic population with complex comorbidities and refractory migraine. OBJECTIVE The goal of this study is to demonstrate the real-world performance of erenumab among patients in a tertiary care headache clinic by describing patient selection, experience, and clinical characteristics after 6 months of erenumab therapy. METHODS A retrospective, exploratory, observational study was conducted on patients receiving at least 1 erenumab injection (70 or 140 mg). Baseline data obtained by chart review and telephone calls were compared to 6-month follow-up telephone calls. The primary outcome was the reduction in self-reported headache days per month at baseline compared to 6 months for those with complete 6-month data. The significance level was set at P

Primary care physicians can help their patients with migraine modify their triggers, and thereby mitigate the severity and frequency of their symptoms, by offering lifestyle modification counseling based on the mnemonic SEEDS (sleep, exercise, eat, diary, and stress). The authors review evidence associated with each of these factors and provide best-practice recommendations.

Introduction Access to headache consultations by a headache specialist is limited. E-consultations are an efficient approach shown to reduce costs and improve continuity of care with the primary care provider. Indications, suitability, and uptake in the headache population are not well studied. Methods This quality improvement pilot aims to explore the appropriateness of e-consultations for patients referred to a headache specialist. E-consultation feasibility was explored through (1) retrospective review of completed face-to-face consultations; (2) prospective survey of providers to identify face-to-face consultations appropriate for e-consultation; (3) cross-sectional review of the current waiting list to assess theoretical triaging to face-to-face vs e-consultation; and (4) prospective review of all e-consultations requested from an academic headache clinic to improve the understanding of e-consultation feasibility and referral triage. Results The retrospective review included 75 face-to-face consultations with a mean (SD) wait time of 33 (39.4) days for consultations, of which 28/75 (37.3%) were deemed to be feasible e-consultations. The prospective survey of providers identified 10 face-to-face consultations that were felt to be theoretically appropriate for e-consultation. The cross-sectional review identified 20 patients on the clinic waiting list, of whom 5/20 (25%) were theoretically triaged to e-consultation. Finally, the prospective review found 12 requested e-consultations, of which 6/12 (50%) were for migraine prophylaxis recommendations. Chart data often lacked details for complete assessments, with 5/12 (41.7%) converted to face-to-face consultations and only 4/12 (33.3%) deemed appropriate for e-consultation. Conclusion E-consultation in headache medicine could be considered if appropriately triaged. Pathways are needed to reach patients earlier in their disease course to ensure headache care meets guideline recommendations, and e-consultation is 1 option. However, better communication with primary care is required for system optimization.

Objective We surveyed the American Headache Society (AHS) New Investigators and Trainees Section (NITS), and International Headache Academy (IHA) attendees to better understand what they perceive as the most pressing issues for themselves as new investigators and trainees in the field of headache medicine. Background The NITS and IHA are intended as platforms for mentorship, leadership training, and professional development in the field of headache medicine. Identifying and addressing pressing issues among new investigators and trainees based on their perceived needs is critical to encouraging their development and success as headache medicine clinicians and researchers. Methods Paper surveys were administered at the NITS meeting at the November 2018 Scottsdale Headache Symposium and the January 2019 IHA. Additionally an online version was sent to the NIT listserv in November of 2018. The survey queried demographic information (gender, race, age, profession, training status, and years in practice) and asked participants to identify their top 3 most pressing issues/questions among a list of options. Results Fifty-three responses were submitted (53/255; total response rate 20.7%). Among the surveys, 18 in-person responses were from the NITS meeting (18/20; response rate 90.0%), 23 in-person responses were from the IHA (23/45; response rate 51.1%), and 12 responses were from the online survey (12/190; response rate 6.3%). No duplicate responses were submitted based on comparison of demographics. One respondent identified as a researcher exclusively and was excluded from further analyses; the rest identified as clinicians at various levels of medical training. Fifteen respondents were not members of the NITS (28.8%); the most common reason for nonmembership was lack of awareness of the section (92.8%). Overall the most pressing issues/questions included (% of respondents who ranked issue/question among top 3): Career planning (51.9%), Logistics of running a headache clinic (40.4%), and Opportunities for involvement (38.5%). Most pressing issues/questions differed depending on level of training. Working with industry was the most pressing issue/question identified by early career physicians (55.0%). Career planning was the most pressing issue/question among fellows (72.2%) and residents (64.3%). Conclusion Many of the most pressing issues identified by respondents are topics that are not formally addressed in medical and research training.

Efficient eye movements provide a physical foundation for proficient reading skills. We investigated the effect of in-school saccadic training on reading performance. In this cross-over design, study participants (n = 327, 165 males; mean age [SD]: 7 y 6 mo [1y 1 mo]) were randomized into treatment and control groups, who then underwent eighteen 20-minute training sessions over 5 weeks using King-Devick Reading Acceleration Program Software. Pre- and posttreatment reading assessments included fluency, comprehension, and rapid number naming performance. The treatment group had significantly greater improvement than the control group in fluency (6.2% vs 3.6%, P = .0277) and comprehension (7.5% vs 1.5%, P = .0002). The high-needs student group significantly improved in fluency ( P < .001) and comprehension ( P < .001). We hypothesize these improvements to be attributed to the repetitive practice of reading-related eye movements, shifting visuospatial attention, and visual processing. Consideration should be given to teaching the physical act of reading within the early education curriculum.

Migraine preventive medications are used to reduce the frequency, severity, and disability of migraine attacks. Once migraine preventive therapy is initiated, the question of how long to maintain this therapy arises. This article will explore the literature pertaining to the long-term use of migraine preventive medications, including length of treatment and safety with long-term exposure.

Background Cluster headache (CH), the most common trigeminal autonomic cephalalgia, is an extremely debilitating primary headache disorder that is often not optimally treated. New evidence-based treatment guidelines for CH will assist clinicians with identifying and choosing among current treatment options. Objectives In this systematic review we appraise the available evidence for the acute and prophylactic treatment of CH, and provide an update of the 2010 American Academy of Neurology (AAN) endorsed systematic review. Methods Medline, PubMed, and EMBASE databases were searched for double-blind, randomized controlled trials that investigated treatments of CH in adults. Exclusion and inclusion criteria were identical to those utilized in the 2010 AAN systematic review. Results and Recommendations For acute treatment, sumatriptan subcutaneous, zolmitriptan nasal spray, and high flow oxygen remain the treatments with a Level A recommendation. Since the 2010 review, a study of sphenopalatine ganglion stimulation was added to the current guideline and has been administered a Level B recommendation for acute treatment. For prophylactic therapy, previously there were no treatments that were administered a Level A recommendation. For the current guidelines, suboccipital steroid injections have emerged as the only treatment to receive a Level A recommendation with the addition of a second Class I study. Other newly evaluated treatments since the 2010 guidelines have been given a Level B recommendation (negative study: deep brain stimulation), a Level C recommendation (positive study: warfarin; negative studies: cimetidine/chlorpheniramine, candesartan), or a Level U recommendation (frovatriptan). Conclusions This AHS guideline can be utilized for understanding which therapies have superiority to placebo or sham treatment in the management of CH. In clinical practice, these recommendations should be considered in concert with other variables including safety, side effects, patient preferences, clinician experience, cost, and the invasiveness of the intervention. Given the lack of Class I evidence and Level A recommendations, particularly for a number of commonly used preventive therapies, further studies are warranted to demonstrate safety and efficacy for established and emerging therapies.

Background:Sports concussion has an annual incidence of approximately 3.8 million. Over half go unreported and a substantial number may be asymptomatic. A rapid, cost-effective, and reliable tool that facilitates diagnosis of concussion is needed. The King-Devick (K-D) test is a vision-based tool of rapid number naming for assessment of concussion. In this study, we evaluated the utility of the K-D test in real time for identification of symptomatic concussion in youth athletes and to determine if similar impairment (subclinical concussion) exists in youth athletes without an obvious head injury or symptoms.Methods:Youth hockey players underwent K-D testing preseason, postseason, and immediately after suspected concussion. Additional testing was performed in a subgroup of nonconcussed athletes immediately before and after a game to determine effects of fatigue on K-D scores.Results:Among 141 players tested, 20 had clinically diagnosed concussion. All 20 had immediate postconcussion K-D times >5 seconds from baseline (average 7.3 seconds) and all but 2 had worse postseason scores (46.4 seconds vs 52.4 seconds, p < 0.05, Wilcoxon signed rank test). Nonconcussed athletes saw minimal improvement postseason (43.9 seconds vs 42.1 seconds, p < 0.05) and 51 nonconcussed players assessed before and after a game revealed no significant time change as a result of fatigue.Conclusions:Rapid number naming using the K-D test accurately identifies real-time, symptomatic concussion in youth athletes. Scores in concussed players may remain abnormal over time. Athletes should undergo preseason and postseason K-D testing, with additional evaluation real time to inform the assessment of suspected concussion.Classification of Evidence:This study provides Class III evidence that the K-D test accurately identifies real-time concussions in youth athletes.

Objective To determine the potential impact of erenumab, a human anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor monoclonal antibody, on total exercise time (TET), time to exercise-induced angina, and ST depression in a double-blind, placebo-controlled study in patients with stable angina due to documented coronary artery disease. Background The relative importance of the CGRP receptor pathway during myocardial ischemia has not been established. Methods An exercise treadmill test was conducted following a single IV infusion of erenumab 140 mg or placebo. The primary endpoint was the change from baseline in exercise duration as measured by TET with a noninferiority margin of -90 seconds. Safety follow-up visits occurred through week 12. Eighty-eight participants were included in the analysis. Results LS mean (SE) change in TET was -2.9 [14.8] seconds in the erenumab group and 8.1 [14.4] seconds in placebo; adjusted mean (90% CI) treatment difference was -11.0 (-44.9, 22.9) seconds. The CI lower bound (-44.9 sec) did not reach pre-defined non-inferiority margin of -90 seconds, demonstrating that TET change from baseline in the erenumab group was non-inferior to placebo. There was no difference in time to exercise-induced angina in erenumab and placebo groups (median [90% CI] time of 500 [420, 540] vs 508 [405, 572] seconds; hazard ratio [90% CI]: 1.11 [0.73, 1.69], P = .69) or time to onset of ≥1 mm ST-segment depression (median [90% CI] time of 407 [380, 443] vs 420 [409,480] seconds; hazard ratio [95% CI]: 1.14 [0.76, 1.69], P = .59). Adverse events were reported by 27% and 32% of patients in erenumab and placebo groups. Conclusions Erenumab did not adversely affect exercise time in a high cardiovascular risk population of patients, supporting that inhibition of the canonical CGRP receptor does not worsen myocardial ischemia.

Background Migraine, particularly chronic migraine (CM), is underdiagnosed and undertreated worldwide. Our objective was to develop and validate a self-administered tool (ID-CM) to identify migraine and CM. Methods ID-CM was developed in four stages. (1) Expert clinicians suggested candidate items from existing instruments and experience (Delphi Panel method). (2) Candidate items were reviewed by people with CM during cognitive debriefing interviews. (3) Items were administered to a Web panel of people with severe headache to assess psychometric properties and refine ID-CM. (4) Classification accuracy was assessed using an ICHD-3β gold-standard clinician diagnosis. Results Stages 1 and 2 identified 20 items selected for psychometric validation in stage 3 ( n = 1562). The 12 psychometrically robust items from stage 3 underwent validity testing in stage 4. A scoring algorithm applied to four symptom items (moderate/severe pain intensity, photophobia, phonophobia, nausea) accurately classified most migraine cases among 111 people (sensitivity = 83.5%, specificity = 88.5%). Augmenting this algorithm with eight items assessing headache frequency, disability, medication use, and planning disruption correctly classified most CM cases (sensitivity = 80.6%, specificity = 88.6%). Discussion ID-CM is a simple yet accurate tool that correctly classifies most individuals with migraine and CM. Further testing in other settings will also be valuable.

Headache and migraine are common medical complaints among patients visiting primary care physicians (PCPs). A number of these patients may have chronic migraine, which is more difficult to diagnose and manage than many other headache disorders. Identification of those at risk, correct diagnosis, and establishment of a comprehensive management plan for patients with chronic migraine will require a joint effort between the PCP and the headache specialist. Together, the PCP and headache specialist will need to assess the patient for modifiable exacerbating factors and comorbidities while managing prophylactic and as-needed therapies. Herein, we provide a review of chronic migraine for the PCP and describe tools for improving patient care.

Headache is a common, disabling neurologic problem in all age groups, including older adults. In older adults, headache is most likely a primary disorder, such as tension-type headache or migraine; however, there is a higher risk of secondary causes, such as giant cell arteritis or intracranial lesions, than in younger adults. Thus, based on the headache history, clinical examination, and presence of headache red flags, a focused diagnostic evaluation is recommended, ranging from blood tests to neuroimaging, depending on the headache characteristics. Regardless of the primary or secondary headache disorder diagnosis, treatment options may be limited in older patients and may need to be tailored to the presence of comorbid medical conditions. The purpose of this review is to provide an update on the management of headache in older adults, from diagnosis to treatment.

Concussion pathophysiology is complicated and involves numerous mechanisms, including excessive neurotransmitter release, metabolic derangements, neuroinflammation, cerebral blood flow changes, and axonal disruption. The initial biomechanical impact in a concussion results in abnormal function at the cellular level, which initiates a cascade of events that leads to microstructural changes and, in the minority of cases, more persistent, permanent damage.

ObjectiveThe goal of the present research was to provide updated normative TTG data for younger athletes and increase understanding of the reliability of the TTG.BackgroundImbalance is a hallmark sign of concussion. The Sport Concussion Assessment Tool (SCAT-3) suggests using the Modified Balance Error Scoring System (mBESS) or Timed Tandem Gait (TTG) to evaluate balance function. TTG instructions indicate that times >14 seconds are abnormal as established in individuals between 16-37 years of age (Schneiders et al., 2010). Currently, there is a lack of normative data for the pediatric population.Design/MethodsPre-season TTG data were collected from 363 male and 20 female athletes with no active concussion complaints. The best TTG time out of 4 trials without errors was recorded. In addition, post-season data were collected for 107 male athletes.ResultsResults demonstrated a significant decrease in TTG time with age. Given this improvement, separate expected values were constructed: 7–8 years (21.4 +/− 7 s), 9–10 years (18.56 +/− 6 s), 11–12 years (18 +/− 5 s), 13–14 years (15.8 +/− 4 s), and 15–16 years (14.0 +/− 3 s). Analysis showed a significant improvement in TTG time over the season. Preliminary analysis shows no difference between baseline and post-concussion scores.ConclusionsThese results suggest that TTG time should be established annually. Future research will need to explore the expected amount of change in individuals with post-concussion imbalance.

Objective1) To investigate the efficiency of the King-Devick Test (KDT) as a screening tool for concussion in a pediatric collision-sport population prone to concussion 2) to examine the accuracy of the KDT when administered by trained laypersons.BackgroundThe KDT is an efficient sideline assessment tool for sport-related concussion (Howitt et al., 2016). KDT has been shown to be sensitive to the effects of concussion, reliable, and easy to use and interpret (Echemendia et al. 2017). There are rarely medical professionals on the sideline of youth events and the KDT has effectively been administered by laypersons in a cohort of amateur boxers (Leong, et al., 2013).Design/Methods32 sideline KDT evaluations (21 possible concussions; 11 controls; 3 excluded due to inability to confirm concussion diagnosis) of 28 collision sport athletes (1 female) aged 7 to 15 were conducted. Sideline KDT time was compared to baseline KDT time to determine pass or fail (>1 second longer = fail). Sensitivity and specificity for KDT were calculated to determine KDT ability to identify concussion. Medical professional identification of concussion = concussion diagnosis. 10 concussions were identified. Further analysis evaluated sensitivity and specificity of KDT based on who conducted sideline evaluation (layperson n = 10).ResultsThe overall sensitivity was 80% and specificity was 89.5%. When administered by a layperson, sensitivity was 100% and specificity was 80.0%.ConclusionsIn this small study, KDT was helpful for detecting the presence of concussion and correctly identifying individuals without concussion. KDT should be added to sideline concussion screening in a pediatric population prone to concussion. Ideally, medical professionals should be present; however, when administered by laypersons, the KDT yielded excellent sensitivity and adequately identified those without concussion supporting its effective administration by trained laypersons as a practical screening tool.

BackgroundAutonomic nervous system dysfunction has been identified in patients following traumatic brain injury (TBI), including concussion. Abnormal postural heart rate and blood pressure instability have been identified in post-concussive patients. Recently, we have identified abnormal respiratory patterns during autonomic testing for post-concussive symptoms. Tachypnea is a clinical feature of autonomic instability in paroxysmal sympathetic hyperactivity following severe TBI and the purpose of this study is to identify abnormal respiratory patterns in patients with autonomic nervous system impairment following mild TBI.MethodsA retrospective review of patients in the Mayo Clinic Arizona Concussion Program from October 2017 to March of 2018 was performed. Clinical features and autonomic testing were reviewed. Autonomic testing included blood pressure and heart rate responses to Valsalva, heart rate variability during deep breathing, blood pressure and heart rate responses to head-up tilt, sudomotor testing, and respiratory responses using respiratory inductive plethysmography. Patients with co-morbidities or medications with potential to influence autonomic testing were excluded.ResultsFifteen patients with a history of concussion were studied. Nine of 15 patients had abnormal cardiovascular responses on autonomic testing, typically excessive postural tachycardia with head-up tilt. Abnormal respiratory patterns were identified in 8 of 9 patients with abnormal autonomic testing and in 3 of 6 patients without other abnormalities on autonomic testing. A number of different respiratory patterns were identified including tachypnea, prolonged apneic episodes, Cheyne-Stokes, and other unusual respiratory patterns.ConclusionWe have identified abnormal respiratory patterns in a series of concussion patients with or without other signs of dysautonomia. Tachypnea has been previously reported as a clinical feature of paroxysmal sympathetic hyperactivity following severe TBI and was present in some patients in this series. The clinical significance and mechanisms involved in the generation of respiratory dysrhythmia require further study, but may be another manifestation of post-concussive dysautonomia.

BackgroundLight sensitivity can be a disabling symptom in posttraumatic headache (PTH). The objective of this pilot study was to characterize photophobia symptoms and visual pain thresholds in PTH compared to healthy controls (HC).MethodsIndividuals with PTH attributed to mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) (N = 18) and HC (N = 20), aged 18–65, were prospectively assessed using the Photosensitivity Assessment Questionnaire (PAQ), State Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI), and Beck Depression Inventory (BDI). A progressive light stimulation device was used to quantify visual pain thresholds. Visual pain thresholds were determined by the intensity of light at which subjects first noted pain. The mean of 3 trials was considered the visual pain threshold. Two sample t-test, Wilcoxon rank sum test, χ2 test and Fisher exact test was used to compare the 2 groups for their demographics, clinical characteristics, and outcomes measures.ResultsThere were no differences in demographics including age, gender, or race. The average time since onset of PTH was 50.7 (73.6) months. Those with PTH had 15.8 (9.2) headache days per month. BDI and STAI scores were significantly higher in PTH compared to HC. Photophobia was higher in PTH compared to HC, 0.64 (0.25) vs 0.24 (0.24), p < 0.0001. Visual pain thresholds were lower in PTH (median 50.1 lux; quartiles 15.3 to 300.0) compared to HC (median 863.5 lux; quartiles 519.9 to 4,906.5; p = 0.0002).ConclusionPhotophobia symptoms are higher and visual pain thresholds are lower in PTH compared to HC. Light sensitivity is a well-known disabling symptom in PTH and this pilot study provides objective data through a validated photophobia scale and visual pain thresholds to characterize light sensitivity. Additional studies are needed to confirm this data, to compare acute to persistent PTH, to compare PTH to other headache disorders, and to determine if photophobia and visual pain thresholds will improve with intervention.

Objective: To investigate the sensitivity of MRI of the spine compared with CT myelography (CTM) in detecting CSF leaks. Methods: Between July 1998 and October 2010, 12 patients with orthostatic headache and a CTM-confirmed spinal CSF leak underwent an MRI of the spine with and without contrast. Using CTM as the gold standard, we retrospectively investigated the sensitivity of spinal MRI in detecting a CSF leak. Results: Eleven of 12 patients with a CSF leak documented by CTM also had extradural fluid collections on spinal MRI (sensitivity 91.7%). Six patients with extradural fluid collections on spinal MRI also had spinal dural enhancement. Conclusion: When compared with the gold standard of CTM, MRI of the spine appears to be a sensitive and less invasive imaging modality for detecting a spinal CSF leak, suggesting that MRI of the spine should be the imaging modality of first choice for the detection of spinal CSF leaks.

Objective:To assess the feasibility and accuracy of telemedical concussion evaluations (teleconcussion) for real-time athletic sideline assessment of concussion, as such assessment may address the gap in access some populations of athletes have to providers with expertise in concussion evaluation.Methods:A cohort of 11 consecutive male collegiate football players with suspected concussion was assessed using Standardized Assessment of Concussion (SAC), King-Devick test (K-D), and modified Balance Error Scoring System (mBESS). A remote neurologist assessed each athlete using a telemedicine robot with real-time, 2-way audiovisual capabilities, while a sideline provider performed a simultaneous face-to-face assessment. After the assessment, a remove-from-play (RFP) determination was made. The remote and the face-to-face providers were blinded to each other’s examination findings and RFP decision until the end of the assessment.Results:The teleconcussion and face-to-face SAC were in agreement 100% of the time (6/6; 95% confidence interval [CI] 54%–100%). The mean (SD) difference between remote and sideline K-D times was 0.7 (1.4) seconds. Remote and sideline K-D times were within a 3-second difference 100% of the time (11/11; 95% CI 72%–100%). Remote and sideline mBESS scores were within 3 points 100% of the time (6/6; 95% CI 54%–100%). RFP decisions were in agreement 100% of the time (11/11; 95% CI 72%–100%).Conclusions:The aim of this study was to investigate the feasibility of teleconcussion for sideline concussion assessments. These data suggest a high level of agreement between remote and face-to-face providers with regard to examination findings and RFP determinations.

Angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) are antihypertensive agents that can be considered for migraine preventative therapy. Although the exact mechanisms by which ACE inhibitors and ARBs may work for migraine prophylaxis are unknown, there are several plausible hypotheses as to why modulating the activity of the renin angiotensin system could result in migraine prevention. Clinical trials of ACE inhibitors and ARBs provide evidence that they are effective and generally well tolerated when used for migraine prophylaxis. Based upon biologic plausibility, the quality of evidence for efficacy from clinical trials, and recommendations in published guidelines, we consider ACE inhibitors and ARBs as second- or third-line options for migraine prophylaxis.

Aim: To investigate preseason modified Balance Error Scoring System (mBESS) performance in a collegiate football cohort; to compare scores to an objective mobile balance measurement tool. Materials & methods: Eighty-two athletes completed simultaneous balance testing using mBESS and the King–Devick Balance Test, an objective balance measurement tool. Errors on mBESS and objective measurements in the double-leg, single-leg (SS) and tandem stances were compared. Results: Mean mBESS error score was 7.23 ± 4.65. The SS accounted for 74% of errors and 21% of athletes demonstrated the maximum error score. There was no significant correlation between mBESS score and objective balance score. Conclusion: The high variability and large number of errors in the SS raises concerns over the utility of the SS in identifying suspected concussion.