Search

IntroductionWe estimated the prevalence and correlates of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) among middle-aged and older diverse Hispanics/Latinos.MethodsMiddle-aged and older diverse Hispanics/Latinos enrolled (n = 6377; 50-86 years) in this multisite prospective cohort study were evaluated for MCI using the National Institute on Aging-Alzheimer's Association diagnostic criteria.ResultsThe overall MCI prevalence was 9.8%, which varied between Hispanic/Latino groups. Older age, high cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk, and elevated depressive symptoms were significant correlates of MCI prevalence. Apolipoprotein E4 (APOE) and APOE2 were not significantly associated with MCI.DiscussionMCI prevalence varied among Hispanic/Latino backgrounds, but not as widely as reported in the previous studies. CVD risk and depressive symptoms were associated with increased MCI, whereas APOE4 was not, suggesting alternative etiologies for MCI among diverse Hispanics/Latinos. Our findings suggest that mitigating CVD risk factors may offer important pathways to understanding and reducing MCI and possibly dementia among diverse Hispanics/Latinos.

ObjectiveTo examine trajectories of declines in learning and retention during the predementia phase of Alzheimer's disease (AD) using the picture version of the Free and Cued Selective Reminding Test with Immediate Recall (pFCSRT+IR).MethodLearning was defined by the sum of free recall over three test trials. Retention was defined in two ways: by delayed free recall (DFR) and by savings; DFR adjusted for learning. The performances of 217 incident AD cases from the Baltimore Longitudinal Study of Aging (BLSA) were aligned based on the time that AD was first diagnosed. The predementia phase of learning and retention decline was assessed using change point models in which cognitive trajectories are described by a series of linear components with knots delineating times of accelerating decline.ResultsTrajectories for both learning and DFR had two change points: the first at 6.58 (95% confidence intervals (CI): 6.56, 6.60) to 7.29 (95% CI: 6.13, 8.46) years before diagnosis followed by gradual decline over the next 4 years, and a second acceleration of decline 1.89 (0.56, 3.24) to 2.93 (95% CI: 1.56, 4.30) years before diagnosis. The change points for DFR were not significantly earlier in the predementia phase than the change points for learning. Savings had one change point, 5.3 (95% CI: 3.56, 7.04) years before diagnosis.ConclusionBoth learning and DFR showed similar profiles of decline in the years prior to the clinical diagnosis of AD. When delayed recall was adjusted for initial learning, the measure was less sensitive to early disease. (JINS, 2019, 25, 699-705).

BackgroundWith no effective treatments for cognitive decline or dementia, improving the evidence base for modifiable risk factors is a research priority. This study investigated associations between risk factors and late-life cognitive decline on a global scale, including comparisons between ethno-regional groups.Methods and findingsWe harmonized longitudinal data from 20 population-based cohorts from 15 countries over 5 continents, including 48,522 individuals (58.4% women) aged 54-105 (mean = 72.7) years and without dementia at baseline. Studies had 2-15 years of follow-up. The risk factors investigated were age, sex, education, alcohol consumption, anxiety, apolipoprotein E ε4 allele (APOE*4) status, atrial fibrillation, blood pressure and pulse pressure, body mass index, cardiovascular disease, depression, diabetes, self-rated health, high cholesterol, hypertension, peripheral vascular disease, physical activity, smoking, and history of stroke. Associations with risk factors were determined for a global cognitive composite outcome (memory, language, processing speed, and executive functioning tests) and Mini-Mental State Examination score. Individual participant data meta-analyses of multivariable linear mixed model results pooled across cohorts revealed that for at least 1 cognitive outcome, age (B = -0.1, SE = 0.01), APOE*4 carriage (B = -0.31, SE = 0.11), depression (B = -0.11, SE = 0.06), diabetes (B = -0.23, SE = 0.10), current smoking (B = -0.20, SE = 0.08), and history of stroke (B = -0.22, SE = 0.09) were independently associated with poorer cognitive performance (p < 0.05 for all), and higher levels of education (B = 0.12, SE = 0.02) and vigorous physical activity (B = 0.17, SE = 0.06) were associated with better performance (p < 0.01 for both). Age (B = -0.07, SE = 0.01), APOE*4 carriage (B = -0.41, SE = 0.18), and diabetes (B = -0.18, SE = 0.10) were independently associated with faster cognitive decline (p < 0.05 for all). Different effects between Asian people and white people included stronger associations for Asian people between ever smoking and poorer cognition (group by risk factor interaction: B = -0.24, SE = 0.12), and between diabetes and cognitive decline (B = -0.66, SE = 0.27; p < 0.05 for both). Limitations of our study include a loss or distortion of risk factor data with harmonization, and not investigating factors at midlife.ConclusionsThese results suggest that education, smoking, physical activity, diabetes, and stroke are all modifiable factors associated with cognitive decline. If these factors are determined to be causal, controlling them could minimize worldwide levels of cognitive decline. However, any global prevention strategy may need to consider ethno-regional differences.

BackgroundThe commercial formulation of sumatriptan nasal spray is an effective option for migraine patients requiring or preferring a non-oral route of drug administration, but its utility is limited by poor absorption and tolerability issues. DFN-02, a new formulation of sumatriptan 10 mg nasal spray, is co-formulated with a permeation enhancer that gives it pharmacokinetics comparable to subcutaneous sumatriptan. As reported previously, DFN-02 was significantly better than placebo on multiple efficacy endpoints at 2 h postdose, including pain freedom, absence of the most bothersome symptom, and pain relief, and its safety and tolerability profiles were excellent.ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to assess the efficacy of acute treatment of migraine with DFN-02, including its effect on migraine-related functional disability and patient satisfaction with treatment.MethodsThis was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled efficacy and safety study of DFN-02 in adults with episodic migraine. Functional disability and subject satisfaction with treatment were prespecified endpoints, assessed in real-time by subjects, using an electronic diary.ResultsIn total, 107 subjects were randomized. DFN-02 was significantly superior to placebo for the reduction in functional disability score from predose level at 2 h after treatment (- 1.2 vs. - 0.6, p

BackgroundPredicting clinical course of cognitive decline can boost clinical trials' power and improve our clinical decision-making. Machine learning (ML) algorithms are specifically designed for the purpose of prediction; however. identifying optimal features or algorithms is still a challenge.ObjectiveTo investigate the accuracy of different ML methods and different features to classify cognitively normal (CN) individuals from Alzheimer's disease (AD) and to predict longitudinal outcome in participants with mild cognitive impairment (MCI).MethodsA total of 1,329 participants from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) were included: 424 CN, 656 MCI, and 249 AD individuals. Four feature-sets at baseline (hippocampal volume and volume of 47 cortical and subcortical regions with and without demographics and APOE4) and six machine learning methods (decision trees, support vector machines, K-nearest neighbor, ensemble linear discriminant, boosted trees, and random forests) were used to classify participants with normal cognition from participants with AD. Subsequently the model with best classification performance was used for predicting clinical outcome of MCI participants.ResultsEnsemble linear discriminant models using demographics and all volumetric magnetic resonance imaging measures as feature-set showed the best performance in classification of CN versus AD participants (accuracy = 92.8%, sensitivity = 95.8%, and specificity = 88.3%). Prediction accuracy of future conversion from MCI to AD for this ensemble linear discriminant at 6, 12, 24, 36, and 48 months was 63.8% (sensitivity = 74.4, specificity = 63.1), 68.9% (sensitivity = 75.9, specificity = 67.8), 74.9% (sensitivity = 71.5, specificity = 76.3), 75.3%, (sensitivity = 65.2, specificity = 79.7), and 77.0% (sensitivity = 59.6, specificity = 86.1), respectively.ConclusionsMachine learning models trained for classification of CN versus AD can improve our prediction ability of MCI conversion to AD.

Sixty percent of Hispanics/Latinos are bilingual which research suggests may confer certain cognitive advantages. Female sex confers cognitive advantages in verbal learning and memory compared to male sex, regardless of race or ethnicity. Understanding the independent and interactive associations of bilingualism and sex with cognition may aid in predicting cognitive aging in Hispanics/Latinos. We examined baseline (2008-2011) data from the Hispanic Community Health Study/Study of Latinos, a multicenter, prospective community-based study. Our analyses included 6,110 males and females ≥45 years old who self-reported birth and parents' origin outside of the continental US, Spanish as their first language, and were evaluated in Spanish. Bilingualism was assessed along a Likert scale (1 = only Spanish to 4 = English>Spanish) for language proficiency (reading/spoken) and patterns of use (thinking/socializing). Cognitive testing included verbal learning, memory, fluency, and Digit Symbol Substitution (DSS). Linear regression models adjusted for relevant confounders, the complex survey design, and sampling weights. Participants' self-reported language proficiency was Spanish better than English, while patterns of use suggested more Spanish than English. Higher language proficiency was associated with higher performance on all cognitive indices while higher patterns of use associated with higher fluency and DSS scores (p-values

ObjectiveHispanics/Latinos have some of the highest prevalence rates for cardiovascular disease risk factors, but stark differences exist by self-reported background. Cardiovascular disease risk factors negatively impact cognition in Hispanics/Latinos; less is known about these relationships by Hispanic/Latino backgrounds. We investigated cognitive associations with cardiovascular disease risk factor burden in a diverse cohort, the Hispanic Community Health Study/Study of Latinos.MethodsBaseline data from this observational study of cardiovascular disease and its antecedents was collected from 2008-2011. We included 7,121 participants 45-74 years old from Central American, Cuban, Dominican, Mexican, Puerto Rican, or South American backgrounds. Dichotomous indicators for hypertension, diabetes, hypercholesterolemia, obesity, and smoking were evaluated and totaled, with participants grouped by lowest (0-2), middle (3) or highest (4-5) burden. Cognitive testing included the Brief Spanish English Verbal Learning Test, letter fluency, and digit symbol substitution.ResultsIn separate fully-adjusted linear regression models, lower fluency and digit symbol substitution performance were restricted to the highest compared to the lowest burden group; whereas the middle burden group displayed impaired memory performance compared to the lowest burden group (p-values≤0.05). Background interacted with burden for learning and memory performance. That is, the association of burden level (i.e., lowest, middle, or highest) with cognitive performance was modified by background (e.g., Mexicans vs Cuban).ConclusionsHispanics/Latinos with higher levels of cardiovascular disease risk factor burden displayed lower levels of cognitive performance, with learning and memory performance modified by background.

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]

Background:Previous findings suggest that apathy symptoms independently of depressive symptoms measured using the Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS) are associated with cardiovascular disease (CVD) in older individuals. Aims:To study whether apathy and depressive symptoms in older people are associated with future CVD, stroke, and mortality using individual patient-data meta-analysis. Methods:Medline, Embase, and PsycInfo databases up to September 3, 2013, were systematically searched without language restrictions. We sought prospective studies with older (mean age ≥65 years) community-dwelling populations in which the GDS was employed and subsequent stroke and/or CVD were recorded to provide individual participant data. Apathy symptoms were defined as the three apathy-related subitems of the GDS, with depressive symptoms the remaining items. We used myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and all-cause mortality as main outcomes. Analyses were adjusted for age, sex, and MI/stroke history. An adaptation of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used to evaluate bias. Hazard ratios were calculated using one-stage random-effect Cox regression models. Results:Of the 52 eligible studies, 21 (40.4%) were included, comprising 47,625 older people (mean age [standard deviation] 74 [7.4] years), over a median follow-up of 8.8 years. Participants with apathy symptoms had a 21% higher risk of MI (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.08-1.36), a 37% higher risk of stroke (95% CI 1.18-1.59), and a 47% higher risk of all-cause mortality (95% CI 1.38-1.56). Participants with depressive symptoms had a comparably higher risk of stroke (HR 1.36, 95% CI 1.18-1.56) and all-cause mortality (HR 1.44, 95% CI 1.35-1.53), but not of MI (HR 1.08, 95% CI 0.91-1.29). Associations for isolated apathy and isolated depressive symptoms were comparable. Sensitivity analyses according to risk of bias yielded similar results. Conclusion:Our findings stress the clinical importance of recognizing apathy independently of depressive symptoms, and could help physicians identify persons at increased risk of vascular disease.

Allostatic load (AL), an index of biological "wear and tear" on the body from cumulative exposure to stress, has been little studied in US Hispanics/Latinos. We investigated AL accumulation patterns by age, sex, and nativity in the Hispanic Community Health Study/Study of Latinos. We studied 15,830 Hispanic/Latinos of Mexican, Cuban, Dominican, Puerto Rican, Central and South American descent aged 18-74 years, 77% of whom were foreign-born. Consistent with the conceptualization of AL, we developed an index based upon 16 physiological markers that spanned the cardiometabolic, parasympathetic, and inflammatory systems. We computed mean adjusted AL scores using log-linear models across age-groups (18-44, 45-54, 55-74 years), by sex and nativity status. Among foreign-born individuals, differences in AL by duration of residence in the US (

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]

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]

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]