Search

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

Migraine is one of the most widespread and burdensome diseases, affecting one in every seven individuals in the world, for an estimated global prevalence of 14%. Until recently, therapeutic choices for older migraineurs have been limited by safety concerns and such patients have typically been excluded from clinical trials. However, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of new migraine drugs have begun to include participants aged over 65 years, offering clinicians relevant safety and efficacy data to be able to treat older patients with the newest drug classes, including monoclonal antibodies for CGRP (r), CGRP antagonists, and drugs targeting the serotonin 5-HT1F receptor. RCT inclusion criteria nonetheless select the most appropriate older patients, usually excluding polymorbid participants. In a real-life setting, older patients may have several comorbidities, and this reduces the clinical applicability of the new drugs to these patients. Two main points should be addressed to solve this barrier: the inclusion of a sufficient number of migraineurs aged over 65 years in RCTs and the publication of appropriate guidelines for a tailored treatment that considers the existence of multimorbid pathologies in this population of individuals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: A previous European Headache Federation (EHF) guideline addressed the use of monoclonal antibodies targeting the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) pathway to prevent migraine. Since then, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and real-world evidence have expanded the evidence and knowledge for those treatments. Therefore, the EHF panel decided to provide an updated guideline on the use of those treatments. Methods: The guideline was developed following the Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. The working group identified relevant questions, performed a systematic review and an analysis of the literature, assessed the quality of the available evidence, and wrote recommendations. Where the GRADE approach was not applicable, expert opinion was provided. Results: We found moderate to high quality of evidence to recommend eptinezumab, erenumab, fremanezumab, and galcanezumab in individuals with episodic and chronic migraine. For several important clinical questions, we found not enough evidence to provide evidence-based recommendations and guidance relied on experts' opinion. Nevertheless, we provided updated suggestions regarding the long-term management of those treatments and their place with respect to the other migraine preventatives. Conclusion: Monoclonal antibodies targeting the CGRP pathway are recommended for migraine prevention as they are effective and safe also in the long-term. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A correction to the article "Efficacy and safety of fremanezumab in clinical trial participants aged ≥60 years with episodic or chronic migraine: Pooled results from 3 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 studies" that was published in a 2021 issue is presented.

Background: Although migraine is less common in older people, preventive treatment of migraine in these individuals may be more challenging due to the presence of multiple comorbidities and polypharmacy. Additionally, evidence for migraine treatment efficacy, safety, and tolerability is limited in this population. We evaluated efficacy, safety, and tolerability of fremanezumab, a fully humanized monoclonal antibody (IgG2Δa) that selectively targets calcitonin gene–related peptide (CGRP), in clinical trial participants aged ≥60 years with episodic migraine (EM) or chronic migraine (CM). Methods: This analysis included data from 3 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 studies: the HALO EM study, HALO CM study, and FOCUS study in participants with EM or CM and prior inadequate response to 2–4 migraine preventive medication classes. Participants in all studies were randomized 1:1:1 to receive 12 weeks of subcutaneous treatment with quarterly fremanezumab (Months 1/2/3: EM/CM, 675 mg/placebo/placebo), monthly fremanezumab (Months 1/2/3: EM, 225 mg/225 mg/225 mg; CM, 675 mg/225 mg/225 mg), or matched monthly placebo. Results: These pooled analyses included 246 participants aged ≥60 years. Reductions in monthly migraine days from baseline over 12 weeks were significantly greater with fremanezumab (least-squares mean change from baseline [standard error]: quarterly fremanezumab, − 4.3 [0.59]; monthly fremanezumab, − 4.6 [0.54]) versus placebo (placebo, − 2.3 [0.57]; both P < 0.01 vs placebo). As early as Week 1, significant reductions from baseline in weekly migraine days were observed with fremanezumab versus placebo (both P < 0.01). With fremanezumab treatment versus placebo, a significantly higher proportion of participants achieved ≥50% reduction in monthly migraine days, and significant improvements in disability and quality-of-life outcomes were observed (P < 0.05). Proportions of participants experiencing serious adverse events and adverse events leading to discontinuation were low and similar in the fremanezumab and placebo groups. Efficacy and safety results were comparable to the overall pooled population (N = 2843). Conclusions: This pooled subgroup analysis demonstrates that fremanezumab treatment is efficacious and well-tolerated over 12 weeks in participants aged ≥60 years with EM or CM. These data may help healthcare providers with clinical decision making and preventive treatment selection for older patients with migraine. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: HALO CM: NCT02621931; HALO EM: NCT02629861; FOCUS: NCT03308968. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Despite advances in the management of headache disorders, some patients with migraine do not experience adequate pain relief with acute and preventive treatments. It is the aim of the present document to provide a definition of those migraines which are difficult-to-treat, to create awareness of existence of this group of patients, to help Healthcare Authorities in understanding the implications, and to create a basis to develop a better pathophysiological understanding and to support further therapeutic advances. Main body: Definitions were established with a consensus process using the Delphi method. Patients with migraine with or without aura or with chronic migraine can be defined as having resistant migraine and refractory migraine according to previous preventative failures. Resistant migraine is defined by having failed at least 3 classes of migraine preventatives and suffer from at least 8 debilitating headache days per month for at least 3 consecutive months without improvement; definition can be based on review of medical charts. Refractory migraine is defined by having failed all of the available preventatives and suffer from at least 8 debilitating headache days per month for at least 6 consecutive months. Drug failure may include lack of efficacy or lack of tolerability. Debilitating headache is defined as headache causing serious impairment to conduct activities of daily living despite the use of pain-relief drugs with established efficacy at the recommended dose and taken early during the attack; failure of at least two different triptans is required. Conclusions: We hope, that the updated EHF definition will be able to solve the conflicts that have limited the use of definitions which have been put forward in the past. Only with a widely accepted definition, progresses in difficult-to-treat migraine can be achieved. This new definition has also the aim to increase the understanding of the impact of the migraine as a disease with all of its social, legal and healthcare implications. It is the hope of the EHF Expert Consensus Group that the proposed criteria will stimulate further clinical, scientific and social attention to patients who suffer from migraine which is difficult-to-treat. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

_c_Purpose: To investigate the efficacy of prednisone for treatment of withdrawal headache in patients with medication overuse headache (MOH). Patients and methods: In this prospective double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel designed multicentre trial, 96 consecutive patients with MOH were randomized to withdrawal treatment with either 100 mg prednisone or placebo over 5 days. Patients were enrolled if they met the International Headache Society criteria for MOH and were diagnosed with migraine or episodic tension-type headache as primary headache. Exclusion criteria comprised significant neurological or psychiatric disorders. Withdrawal symptoms, including headache severity and intake of rescue medication, were documented for 14 days after randomization. Results: Patients treated with prednisone did not experience fewer hours of moderate or severe headache than patients receiving placebo. However, patients requested less rescue medication within the first 5 days. Conclusions: During withdrawal in MOH, prednisone reduces rescue medication without decreasing the severity and duration of withdrawal headache. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Migraine is under-diagnosed and under-treated. Many people with migraine do not seek medical care, and those who do may initially receive a different diagnosis and/or be dissatisfied with provided care on their journey before treatment with a CGRP-mAb (calcitonin-gene-related-peptide monoclonal antibody)., Methods: This is a cross-sectional, self-reported, online survey of subjects in Lilly's Emgality ® Patient Support Program in 2022. Questionnaires collected insights into subjects' prior experiences with migraine and interactions with healthcare professionals before receiving CGRP-mAbs., Results: Of the 250 participants with episodic and 250 with chronic migraine, 90% were female and white with a mean age of 26.2 years (± 11.9) at diagnosis and 40.6 (± 12.0) years at survey enrollment. Many participants (71%) suspected they had migraine before diagnosis, with 31% reluctant to seek help. Of these, approximately one-third were unaware of treatment, did not think that a physician could do anything more for migraine, would not take them seriously, or were reluctant due to a previous unhelpful experience. Participants mainly received information from friends/family (47%) or the internet (28%). Participants initially sought treatment due to an increase in migraine frequency (77%), attacks interfering with work or school (75%), or increased pain intensity (74%). Subjects saw a mean of 4.1 (± 4.3) healthcare providers before migraine diagnosis, and 20% of participants previously received a different diagnosis. Participants reported migraine causes included stress/anxiety/depression (42%), hormonal changes (30%), nutrition (20%), and weather (16%). Acute treatment of migraine included prescription (82%) and over-the-counter (50%) medications, changes in nutrition (62%), adjusting fluid intake (56%), and relaxation techniques (55%). Preventive medications included anticonvulsants (61%), antidepressants (44%), blood pressure-lowering medications (43%), and botulinum toxin A injections (17%). Most discontinuations were due to lack of efficacy or side effects., Conclusion: People with migraine describe reluctance in seeking health care, and misunderstandings seem common especially in the beginning of their migraine journey. Graphical abstract available for this article., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Introduction: Migraine, a neurovascular headache disorder, is a leading cause of disability worldwide. Within the multifaceted pathophysiology of migraine, hormonal fluctuations play an evident triggering and exacerbating role, pointing toward the need for identification and proper usage of both existing and new hormonal targets in migraine treatment., Areas Covered: With a threefold higher incidence of migraine in women than in men, the authors delve into sex hormone-related events in migraine patients. A comprehensive overview is given of existing hormonal therapies, including oral contraceptives, intrauterine devices, transdermal and subcutaneous estradiol patches, gnRH-agonists, oral testosterone, and 5α reductase inhibitors. The authors discuss their effectiveness and risks, noting their suitability for different patient profiles. Next, novel evolving hormonal treatments, such as oxytocin and prolactin, are explored. Lastly, the authors cover hormonal conditions associated with migraine, such as polycystic ovary syndrome, endometriosis, and transgender persons receiving gender affirming hormone therapy, aiming to provide more personalized and effective solutions for migraine management., Expert Opinion: Rigorous research into both existing and new hormonal targets, as well as the underlying pathophysiology, is needed to support a tailored approach in migraine treatment, in an ongoing effort to alleviate the impact of migraine on individuals and society.

Objective: Novel disease-specific and mechanism-based treatments sharing good evidence of efficacy for migraine have been recently marketed. However, reimbursement by insurers depends on treatment failure with classic anti-migraine drugs. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we aimed to identify and rate the evidence for efficacy of flunarizine, a repurposed, first- or second-line treatment for migraine prophylaxis., Methods: A systematic search in MEDLINE, Cochrane CENTRAL, and ClinicalTrials.gov was performed for trials of pharmacological treatment in migraine prophylaxis, following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews (PRISMA). Eligible trials for meta-analysis were randomized, placebo-controlled studies comparing flunarizine with placebo. Outcomes of interest according to the Outcome Set for preventive intervention trials in chronic and episodic migraine (COSMIG) were the proportion of patients reaching a 50% or more reduction in monthly migraine days, the change in monthly migraine days (MMDs), and Adverse Events (AEs) leading to discontinuation., Results: Five trials were eligible for narrative description and three for data synthesis and analysis. No studies reported the predefined outcomes, but one study assessed the 50% reduction in monthly migraine attacks with flunarizine as compared to placebo showing a benefit from flunarizine with a low or probably low risk of bias. We found that flunarizine may increase the proportion of patients who discontinue due to adverse events compared to placebo (risk difference: 0.02; 95% CI -0.03 to 0.06)., Conclusions: Published flunarizine trials predate the recommended endpoints for evaluating migraine prophylaxis drugs, hence the lack of an adequate assessment for these endpoints. Further, modern-day, large-scale studies would be valuable in re-evaluating the efficacy of flunarizine for the treatment of migraines, offering additional insights into its potential benefits., (© 2023. Springer-Verlag Italia S.r.l., part of Springer Nature.)

Objective: While there are several trials that support the efficacy of various drugs for migraine prophylaxis against placebo, there is limited evidence addressing the comparative safety and efficacy of these drugs. We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis to facilitate comparison between drugs for migraine prophylaxis., Methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and clinicaltrials.gov from inception to August 13, 2022, for randomized trials of pharmacological treatments for migraine prophylaxis in adults. Reviewers worked independently and in duplicate to screen references, extract data, and assess risk of bias. We performed a frequentist random-effects network meta-analysis and rated the certainty (quality) of evidence as either high, moderate, low, or very low using the GRADE approach., Results: We identified 74 eligible trials, reporting on 32,990 patients. We found high certainty evidence that monoclonal antibodies acting on the calcitonin gene related peptide or its receptor (CGRP(r)mAbs), gepants, and topiramate increase the proportion of patients who experience a 50% or more reduction in monthly migraine days, compared to placebo. We found moderate certainty evidence that beta-blockers, valproate, and amitriptyline increase the proportion of patients who experience a 50% or more reduction in monthly migraine days, and low certainty evidence that gabapentin may not be different from placebo. We found high certainty evidence that, compared to placebo, valproate and amitriptyline lead to substantial adverse events leading to discontinuation, moderate certainty evidence that topiramate, beta-blockers, and gabapentin increase adverse events leading to discontinuation, and moderate to high certainty evidence that (CGRP(r)mAbs) and gepants do not increase adverse events., Conclusions: (CGRP(r)mAbs) have the best safety and efficacy profile of all drugs for migraine prophylaxis, followed closely by gepants., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Objective: The aim of this paper is to critically re-appraise the published trials assessing amitriptyline for migraine prophylaxis., Methods: We report our methods and results following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews (PRISMA), by searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, and ClinicalTrials.gov for randomized trials of pharmacologic treatments for migraine prophylaxis. We included randomized trials that compared amitriptyline with placebo for migraine prophylaxis in adults. Our outcomes of interest were informed by the Outcome Set for preventive intervention trials in chronic and episodic migraine (COSMIG) and include the proportion of patients who experience a 50% or more reduction in migraine days per month, migraine days per month, and adverse events leading to discontinuation. We assessed risk of bias by using a modified Cochrane RoB 2.0 tool and the certainty of evidence by using the GRADE approach., Results: Our search yielded 10.826 unique records, of which three trials (n = 622) were eligible for data synthesis and analysis. We found moderate certainty evidence that amitriptyline increases the proportion of patients who experience a 50% or more reduction in monthly migraine days, compared to placebo (relative risk: 1.60 (95% CI 1.17 to 2.19); absolute risk difference: 165 more per 1,000 (95% CI 47 more to 327 more). We found moderate certainty evidence that amitriptyline increases the proportion of patients who discontinue due to adverse events compared to placebo (risk difference: 0.05 (95% CI 0.01 to 0.10); absolute risk difference: 50 more per 1,000 (95% CI 10 more to 100 more)., Conclusions: Our meta-analysis showed that amitriptyline may have a prophylactic role in migraine patients, however these results are far from robust. This warrants further large-scale research to evaluate the role of amitriptyline in migraine prevention., (© 2023. The Author(s).)