Search

Clinic-based headache registries collect data for a wide variety of purposes including delineating disease characteristics, longitudinal natural disease courses, headache management approaches, quality of care, treatment safety and effectiveness, factors that predict treatment response, health care resource utilization, clinician adherence to guidelines, and cost-effectiveness. Registry data are valuable for numerous stakeholders, including individuals with headache disorders and their caregivers, healthcare providers, scientists, healthcare systems, regulatory authorities, pharmaceutical companies, employers, and policymakers. This International Headache Society document may serve as guidance for developing clinic-based headache registries. Use of registry data requires a formal research protocol that includes: 1) research aims; 2) methods for data collection, harmonization, analysis, privacy, and protection; 3) methods for human subject protection; and 4) publication and dissemination plans. Depending upon their objectives, headache registries should include validated headache-specific questionnaires, patient reported outcome measures, data elements that are used consistently across studies (i.e., “common data elements”), and medical record data. Amongst other data types, registries may be linked to healthcare and pharmacy claims data, biospecimens, and neuroimaging data. Headache diagnoses should be made according to the International Classification of Headache Disorders diagnostic criteria. The data from well-designed headache registries can provide wide-ranging and novel insights into the characteristics, burden, and treatment of headache disorders and ultimately lead to improvements in the management of patients with headache.

Cluster headache and migraine are regarded as distinct primary headaches. While cluster headache and migraine differ in multiple aspects such as gender-related and headache specific features (e.g., attack duration and frequency), both show clinical similarities in trigger factors (e.g., alcohol) and treatment response (e.g., triptans). Here, we review the similarities and differences in anatomy and pathophysiology that underlie cluster headache and migraine, discuss whether cluster headache and migraine should indeed be considered as two distinct primary headaches, and propose recommendations for future studies. Graphical Abstract: Video recording of the debate held at the 1st International Conference on Advances in Migraine Sciences (ICAMS 2022, Copenhagen, Denmark) is available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUimmnDVTTE.[Figure not available: see fulltext.]

OBJECTIVE: The objective is to summarize the knowledge on the epidemiology, pathophysiology and management of secondary headache attributed to SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination; as well as to delineate their impact on primary headache disorders. METHODS: This is a narrative review of the literature regarding primary and secondary headache disorders in the setting of COVID-19 pandemic. We conducted a literature search in 2022 on PubMed, with the keywords "COVID 19" or "vaccine" and "headache" to assess the appropriateness of all published articles for their inclusion in the review. RESULTS: Headache is a common and sometimes difficult-to-treat symptom of both the acute and post-acute phase of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Different pathophysiological mechanisms may be involved, with the trigeminovascular system as a plausible target. Specific evidence-based effective therapeutic options are lacking at present. Headache attributed to SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations is also common, its pathophysiology being unclear. People with primary headache disorders experience headache in the acute phase of COVID-19 and after vaccination more commonly than the general population. Pandemic measures, forcing lifestyle changes, seemed to have had a positive impact on migraine, and changes in headache care (telemedicine) have been effectively introduced. CONCLUSIONS: The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic is a global challenge, having an impact on the development of secondary headaches, both in people with or without primary headaches. This has created opportunities to better understand and treat headache and to potentiate strategies to manage patients and ensure care.

Background: It is well recognized that underrepresented and minoritized groups do not have the same career opportunities. However, there are limited data on the range and specifics of potential barriers that withhold people in headache medicine and science from reaching their full potential. Moreover, people from different geographical regions often perceive different challenges. We aimed to identify world-wide perceived career barriers and possibilities for promoting equality amongst professionals in the headache fields. Methods: A cross-sectional online survey was conducted among professionals in the field of headache globally. The questions of the survey were aimed at assessing perceived career barriers in four domains: professional recognition, opportunities in scientific societies, clinical practice, and salary and compensation. Perceived mentorship was also assessed. Results: In total 580 responders completed the survey (55.3% women). Gender was the most important perceived barrier in almost all domains. Additionally, country of birth emerged as an important barrier to participation in international scientific societies. Career barriers varied across world regions. Conclusion: It is essential that longstanding and ongoing disparities by gender and country of origin for professionals in the headache field are globally acknowledged and addressed in areas of recruitment, retention, opportunities, mentor- and sponsorships, and advancement.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) (receptor) antibodies are approved as preventive treatment for migraine. Recent concerns have been raised after a retrospective analysis of postmarketing case reports of elevated blood pressure (BP) associated with erenumab. In this prospective follow-up study, we aimed to assess the safety regarding BP in a real-world setting. METHODS: All people with migraine who were treated with erenumab and fremanezumab at the Leiden Headache Center between January 2019 and January 2021 were included. BP measurements were collected from baseline (T0) until 12 months of follow-up, with a 3-month interval (T1-T4). Mixed linear models were fitted with time as a fixed effect and the patient as a random effect. RESULTS: Both systolic and diastolic BP were increased at all time points T1-T4 compared with T0 (p < 0.001). The maximum estimated increase in the mean systolic BP was 5.2 mm Hg (95% CI 3.1-7.5). The maximum estimated increase in the mean diastolic BP was 3.5 mm Hg (95% CI 2.0-4.9). In the erenumab group (n = 109), both systolic and diastolic BP were increased at all time points compared with T0 (all p < 0.001). For fremanezumab (n = 87), systolic but not diastolic BP was increased compared with T0 at T1 (p = 0.006) and T2 (p = 0.004). Four patients (3.7%) with normal BP at T0 required antihypertensive treatment after erenumab was started. DISCUSSION: The mean systolic and diastolic BP increased after anti-CGRP (receptor) antibodies were started. The majority of patients remained within the normal BP limits, but some patients required antihypertensive treatment. Physicians should be aware that people with migraine may be at risk of developing hypertension when treated with anti-CGRP (receptor) antibodies, and this should be added to (inter)national treatment guidelines. CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE: This study provides Class III evidence that anti-CGRP (receptor) antibodies increase BP when used to