Multimodal digital health treatments for Chronic Migraine associated with Medication Overuse Headache: a literature appraisal and results of a single-arm open trial (the BE-HOME program).

BACKGROUND: Mindfulness-based treatments gained popularity for migraine treatment. In this manuscript we report the results of a single-arm open pilot study that evaluated the impact of a multimodal web-based intervention combining home-based medication withdrawal, patients' education, and online mindfulness-based interventions. We aimed to address whether our program had the ability to show a change in the observed parameters and the study should therefore be intended as an early phase trial. METHODS: Consecutive patients with chronic migraine associated with medication overuse headache were enrolled, followed-up for 12 months, in a program that included home-based medication withdrawal, education on the correct use of drugs and lifestyle issues, prescription of tailored pharmacological prophylaxis, and attendance to six online mindfulness-based sessions. We tested the effect of the program on improving headache frequency, medication intake, quality of life (QoL), headache impact, depression, self-efficacy, and pain catastrophizing. RESULTS: A total of 37 patients completed the study (10 dropped out). We observed a large improvement in headache frequency, medication intake, headache impact, and QoL, a moderate improvement in pain catastrophizing and a mild improvement in depression symptoms; 70% to 76% of patients achieved 50% or more reduction in headache frequency from baseline to each follow-up (p < .01). CONCLUSIONS: The results of our multimodal program showed significant improvements in headache frequency, medication intake, and patient-reported outcomes. Future studies are needed to better identify patients who might benefit most from Digital Health Interventions and to demonstrate at least an equivalence in outcome with in-person programs carried out in hospital settings.

Safety and tolerability of atogepant for the preventive treatment of migraine: a post hoc analysis of pooled data from four clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Conventional, non-specific preventive migraine treatments often demonstrate low rates of treatment persistence due to poor efficacy or tolerability. Effective, well-tolerated preventive treatments are needed to reduce migraine symptoms, improve function, and enhance quality of life. Atogepant is a migraine-specific oral calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonist that is indicated for the preventive treatment of migraine in adults. This analysis evaluated the safety and tolerability profile of atogepant for the preventive treatment of migraine, including adverse events (AEs) of interest, such as constipation, nausea, hepatic safety, weight changes, and cardiac disorders. METHODS: This post hoc analysis was performed using data pooled from 2 (12-week) randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials (RCTs) and 2 (40- and 52-week) open-label long-term safety (LTS) trials of oral atogepant for episodic migraine (EM). RESULTS: The safety population included 1550 participants from the pooled RCTs (atogepant, n = 1142; placebo, n = 408) and 1424 participants from the pooled LTS trials (atogepant, n = 1228; standard care [SC], n = 196). In total, 643/1142 (56.3%) atogepant participants and 218/408 (53.4%) placebo participants experienced ≥ 1 treatment-emergent AEs (TEAEs) in the RCTs. In the LTS trials, 792/1228 (64.5%) of atogepant participants and 154/196 (78.6%) of SC participants experienced ≥ 1 TEAEs. The most commonly reported TEAEs (≥ 5%) in participants who received atogepant once daily were upper respiratory tract infection (5.3% in RCTs, 7.7% in LTS trials), constipation (6.1% in RCTs, 5.0% in LTS trials), nausea (6.6% in RCTs, 4.6% in LTS trials), and urinary tract infection (3.4% in RCTs, 5.2% in LTS trials). Additionally, weight loss appeared to be dose- and duration-dependent. Most TEAEs were considered unrelated to study drug and few led to discontinuation. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, atogepant is safe and well tolerated in pooled RCTs and LTS trials for the preventive treatment of EM in adults. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT02848326 (MD-01), NCT03777059 (ADVANCE), NCT03700320 (study 302), NCT03939312 (study 309).

Refractory Headaches.

Medication overuse headache (MOH), new daily persistent headache (NDPH), and persistent refractory headache attributed to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV2) infection represent a significant burden in terms of disability and quality of life, and a challenge in terms of definition, pathophysiology, and treatment. Regarding MOH, prevention without withdrawal is not inferior to prevention with withdrawal. Preventive medications like topiramate, onabotulinumtoxinA, and calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibodies improve chronic migraine with MOH regardless of withdrawal. The differential diagnosis of NDPH is broad and should be carefully examined. There are no guidelines for the treatment of NDPH, but options include a short course of steroids, nerve blocks, topiramate, nortriptyline, gabapentin, CGRP monoclonal antibodies, and onabotulinumtoxinA. The persistence of headache 3 months after SARS-CoV2 infection is a predictor of poor prognosis.

Management of chronic migraine with medication overuse by web-based behavioral program during the COVID-19 emergency: results at 12 months.

BACKGROUND: The study had been initiated because of restrictions put in place to control the spread of coronavirus in Milan in March 2020 that impacted clinical activities at our tertiary headache center in Milan (Foundation IRCSS Carlo Besta Neurological Institute). Treatment efforts were modified to make use of telephonic and internet communication to maintain care of our patients. METHODS: Nineteen patients had undergone our withdrawal protocol for medication overuse headache and were scheduled for follow-up that included pharmacological prophylaxis combined with behavioral therapy and mindfulness, generally performed in small group face-to-face sessions. A behavioral program was organized for them by technology modality (smartphone) due to the pandemic restrictions. RESULTS: The results concern 12-month follow-up. The clinical indexes showed migraine days per month 20.6 (± 6) pre vs 11.2 (± 3.1 at 12 months); medications intake per month 19.4 (± 5.8) pre vs 9.0 (± 4.6) at 12 months; MIDAS 67.7 (± 52.6) pre vs 71.1 (± 60) at 12 months; HIT-6 66.2 (± 5.3) pre vs 62.2 (± 5.9). CONCLUSION: The present study confirmed literature data, supporting the behavioral approach combined to traditional therapies as a novel method to follow patients and guarantee their benefit, also when applied using technology by telemedicine or smartphone.

Feasibility and effect of mindfulness approach by web for chronic migraine and high-frequency episodic migraine without aura at in adolescents during and after COVID emergency: preliminary findings.

BACKGROUND: Migraine disorders are common among adolescents: however, the efficacy of medical prophylaxis is limited in this population. This study reports preliminary findings on the feasibility and effect of a mindfulness-based intervention delivered via web for adolescents with chronic migraine (CM) and high-frequency episodic migraine (HFEM) without aura. METHODS: Patients with CM or HFEM received six session of a mindfulness-based treatment and were followed-up for 6 months as part of a larger study. Repeated measure analyses were carried out to test the effect of this behavioral intervention. RESULTS: A total of 12 patients were included in this analysis. A significant improvement was observed up to 6 months for headache frequency, symptoms of depression, and catastrophizing, and up to 3 months for patients' disability. No change was detected for patients' anxiety level. CONCLUSIONS: The results of our study provides initial support to the hypothesis that patients' education and mindfulness-based programs can be very useful in populations of adolescents with CM or HFEM.

Determinants of pain interference and headache impact in patients who have chronic migraine with medication overuse: Results from the MOTS trial.

OBJECTIVE: "Pain interference" and "headache impact" refer to negative consequences that pain and headache have on one's life. This study investigated determinants of these negative impacts in a large patient cohort who have chronic migraine with medication overuse. METHODS: Six hundred and eleven adults were enrolled from 34 headache, neurology, and primary care clinics. Negative consequences of chronic migraine with medication overuse were determined using the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Pain Interference 6b questionnaire and the Headache Impact Test 6. Relationships between PROMIS-6b and Headache Impact Test 6 scores with demographics, headache characteristics, medication use, anxiety symptoms, and depression symptoms were assessed with linear regression. Elastic Net regression was used to develop a multiple regression model. RESULTS: PROMIS-6b T-Scores averaged 65.2 (SD 5.4) and Headache Impact Test 6 scores averaged 65.0 (SD 5.3), indicating severe negative consequences of chronic migraine with medication overuse. Chronic migraine with medication overuse interfered with enjoyment of life, concentration, daily activities, doing tasks away from home, and socializing. Depression symptom severity had the strongest relationship with pain interference and headache impact. Moderate-to-severe headache frequency, headache intensity, and anxiety symptoms were also associated with pain interference and headache impact. CONCLUSIONS: Chronic migraine with medication overuse is associated with substantial negative consequences, the extent of which is most strongly related to depression symptoms.

The prevalence and impact of migraine and severe headache in the United States: Updated age, sex, and socioeconomic-specific estimates from government health surveys.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Accurate, up-to-date estimates of the burden of migraine and severe headache are important for evidence-based decision-making about workforce needs and the distribution of health resources. We used data from US government health surveys to report the prevalence, trends, and impact of this condition by age, sex, and poverty status. METHODS: We identified the most recent, publicly available summary statistics from the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey, the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey, and the National Health Interview Survey. We extracted and compiled relevant information from each study, with an emphasis on sex, age, and economic-related statistics. RESULTS: The age-adjusted prevalence of migraine and severe headache in the United States has remained stable over many years. In 2018, the age-adjusted prevalence was 15.9% across all adults. The sex ratio also remains stable, with 21% of women and 10.7% of men affected. Migraine continues to be an important public health problem, accounting for roughly 4 million emergency department (ED) visits in 2016, when headache was the fifth most common reason for an ED visit overall and the third most common reason for ED visits in females 15-64. Migraine also accounted for over 4.3 million office visits. Many adults with migraine or severe headaches are disadvantaged. In 2018, for example, roughly 40% of US adults with migraine were unemployed, and a similar proportion were classified as poor or "near poor." Roughly one in five had no health insurance and about a third had a high school education or less. CONCLUSIONS: Migraine and severe headaches are a serious public health issue in the United States, with the highest impact in women of childbearing age and those of lower socioeconomic status. Socioeconomic disadvantages also are highly prevalent among those with headaches. The economic consequences of the current coronavirus pandemic are likely to exacerbate all of these inequities. Increased attention to this high impact chronic pain condition, and improved funding for treatment provision and research, are warranted to reduce the future burden of disease.

Acceptance and commitment therapy for high frequency episodic migraine without aura: Findings from a randomized pilot investigation.

OBJECTIVE: We compared the incremental effects of adding acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) to pharmacological treatment as usual (TAU) in a sample of patients with high frequency episodic migraine without aura (HFEM), assessing impact on a spectrum of measures across multiple domains. BACKGROUND: Patients with HFEM are at risk of developing chronic migraine and medication overuse headache. ACT has been shown to be effective for the treatment of various chronic pain conditions, but little attention has been given to its therapeutic value in the management of recurring headaches. METHODS: In this single-blind (masking for outcome assessor), open-label, randomized clinical trial, 35 patients with HFEM, with a monthly headache frequency ranging from 9 to 14 days, were recruited at the headache center of C. Besta Neurological Institute and randomized to either TAU (patient education and pharmacological prophylaxis; n = 17) or TAU + ACT (n = 18). Patients assigned to the combined treatment arm additionally received six 90-min weekly group sessions of ACT therapy and two supplementary "booster" sessions. All patients were on a stable course of prophylactic medication in the 3 months prior to initiating either treatment. Monthly headache frequency served as the primary outcome measure, with all other data collected being considered as secondary measures (medication intake, disability, headache impact, anxiety and depression, catastrophizing, allodynia, cognitive inflexibility, pain acceptance, mindful attention and awareness). RESULTS: A total of 35 patients were enrolled: 17 randomized to TAU, of whom three dropped out, and 18 to TAU + ACT (no dropouts in this group). Headache frequency and medication intake decreased in both groups over 12 months, with patients in the TAU + ACT group showing statistically significant reduction earlier, that is, by month 3. Headache frequency was reduced by 3.3 days (95% CI: 1.4 to 5.2) among those randomized to ACT + TAU, whereas it increased by 0.7 days (95% CI: -2.7 to 1.3) among those randomized to TAU only (p = 0.007, partial η2  = 0.21), the difference being 4 days (95% CI: 1.2 to 6.8). Medication intake was reduced by 4.1 intakes (95% CI: 2.0 to 6.3) among those randomized to ACT + TAU and by 0.4 intakes (95% CI: -1.8 to 2.5) among those randomized to TAU only (p = 0.016; partial η2  = 0.17), the difference being 3.8 intakes (95% CI: 0.7 to 6.8). At 6 and 12 months, the variations were not different between the two groups for headache frequency and medication intake. The opposite was found for measures of headache impact and pain acceptance, where the differences over time favored patients allocated to TAU. Both groups improved with regard to measures of disability, anxiety and depression, catastrophizing, and cognitive inflexibility, whereas measures of allodynia and pain acceptance were stable over time. CONCLUSIONS: Our preliminary findings indicate that supplementing TAU with ACT can enhance the main clinical outcomes, namely headache frequency and medication intake of patients with HFEM.

Telehealth as a new care delivery model: The headache provider experience.

OBJECTIVE: To assess telehealth practice for headache visits in the United States. BACKGROUND: The rapid roll out of telehealth during the COVID-19 pandemic impacted headache specialists. METHODS: American Headache Society (AHS) members were emailed an anonymous survey (9/9/20-10/12/20) to complete if they had logged ≥2 months or 50+ headache visits via telehealth. RESULTS: Out of 1348 members, 225 (16.7%) responded. Most were female (59.8%; 113/189). Median age was 47 (interquartile range [IQR] 37-57) (N = 154). The majority were MD/DOs (83.7%; 159/190) or NP/PAs (14.7%; 28/190), and most (65.1%; 123/189) were in academia. Years in practice were 0-3: 28; 4-10: 58; 11-20: 42; 20+: 61. Median number of telehealth visits was 120 (IQR 77.5-250) in the prior 3 months. Respondents were "comfortable/very comfortable" treating via telehealth (a) new patient with a chief complaint of headache (median, IQR 4 [3-5]); (b) follow-up for migraine (median, IQR 5 [5-5]); (c) follow-up for secondary headache (median, IQR 4 [3-4]). About half (51.1%; 97/190) offer urgent telehealth. Beyond being unable to perform procedures, top barriers were conducting parts of the neurologic exam (157/189), absence of vital signs (117/189), and socioeconomic/technologic barriers (91/189). Top positive attributes were patient convenience (185/190), reducing patient travel stress (172/190), patient cost reduction (151/190), flexibility with personal matters (128/190), patient comfort at home (114/190), and patient medications nearby (103/190). Only 21.3% (33/155) of providers said telehealth visit length differed from in-person visits, and 55.3% (105/190) believe that the no-show rate improved. On a 1-5 Likert scale, providers were "interested"/"very interested" in digitally prescribing headache apps (median 4, IQR 3-5) and "interested"/"very interested" in remotely monitoring patient symptoms (median 4, IQR 3-5). CONCLUSIONS: Respondents were comfortable treating patients with migraine via telehealth. They note positive attributes for patients and how access may be improved. Technology innovations (remote vital signs, digitally prescribing headache apps) and remote symptom monitoring are areas of interest and warrant future research.

Modifications to the PREEMPT Protocol for OnabotulinumtoxinA Injections for Chronic Migraine in Clinical Practice.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the PREEMPT protocol modifications that have developed in clinical practice over time. BACKGROUND: The United States Food and Drug Administration approved the 155-unit fixed-dose, fixed-site PREEMPT protocol of onabotulinumtoxinA (BoNT-A) injections for migraine prevention 9 years ago. METHODS: This is an anonymous survey with free text response options of Headache Medicine clinicians. RESULTS: Out of the 878 contacted Headache Medicine clinicians, 182 (20.7%) completed the survey. Of the 182 respondents, 141 (77.5%) reported that they did not always follow the PREEMPT protocol. Of the 182 respondents, 128 (70%) changed the number of injections, 115 (63%) changed the total units of BoNT-A injected, 105 (57.7%) altered the location of injection sites (58%); 101 (55.5%) do not aspirate to ensure the absence of blood return; 22 (12.1%) changed the dilution; and 4 (2.2%) added lidocaine. The main reported reasons for changes in number, dose, and location of injections included adapting to the patients' pain, anatomy, and preferences. CONCLUSIONS: The wide inter- and intra-personal variations in BoNT-A injections for chronic migraine prevention seen in this survey raise concerns about the standardization of the procedure and suggest that an advisory protocol containing more evidence and discussion of the reasoning behind the recommendations might be more helpful than the current prescriptive protocol.

Effectiveness of mindfulness by smartphone, for patients with chronic migraine and medication overuse during the Covid-19 emergency.

.

Safety findings from Phase 3 lasmiditan studies for acute treatment of migraine: Results from SAMURAI and SPARTAN.

BACKGROUND: We assessed the safety profile of lasmiditan, a selective 5-HT1F receptor agonist without vasoconstrictive activity being developed as an acute therapy for migraine. METHODS: SAMURAI and SPARTAN were Phase 3 double-blind studies of patients with migraine, randomized to oral lasmiditan 50 mg (SPARTAN only), 100 mg, 200 mg, or placebo to be taken within 4 hours of onset of migraine pain. Safety data from the studies were integrated. Treatment-emergent adverse events (occurring within 48 hours of first dose) were considered in the analyses. RESULTS: The safety population comprised 1262 patients assigned placebo, and 654, 1265, and 1258 assigned lasmiditan 50 mg, 100 mg, and 200 mg, respectively. There were no deaths; serious adverse events were reported for seven patients (placebo, n = 2 [0.2%]; lasmiditan 50 mg, n = 1 [0.2%]; lasmiditan 100 mg, n = 1 [0.2%]; lasmiditan 200 mg, n = 3 [0.2%]). Patients reporting ≥ 1 treatment-emergent adverse events were: Placebo, n = 174 (13.5%); lasmiditan 50 mg, n = 166 (25.4%); lasmiditan 100 mg, n = 458 (36.2%); and lasmiditan 200 mg, n = 510 (40.6%). Treatment-emergent adverse events were generally mild or moderate in severity. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events with lasmiditan were dizziness, paresthesia, somnolence, fatigue, nausea, muscular weakness and hypoesthesia. There were no ischemic events. CONCLUSIONS: As a centrally-penetrant drug, lasmiditan use was associated with neurologic treatment-emergent adverse events; most were mild or moderate in severity and self-limiting. TRIAL REGISTRATION AT CLINICALTRIALS.GOV: SAMURAI (NCT02439320) and SPARTAN (NCT02605174).

"When giants learn to dance": international clinical collaboration in headache medicine.

Collaboration is more than evolutionary advantage, it is good business and good for learning. It is through collaboration that we open new doors, create new options, and develop unforeseen opportunities. More than simple information exchange, collaboration allows the joint creation of new value and creates multiple layers of interpersonal connection and interaction leading to enhanced learning. This newly created value has been termed the "collaborative advantage." The headache group at the C. Besta Institute in Milan, Italy, and the John Graham Headache Center in Boston, MA, have begun a collaboration in clinical Headache Medicine. The history and nature of the process and early results are discussed. Programs like this could help advance the field of headache medicine.

Pharmacologic Prevention of Migraine: A Narrative Review of the State of the Art in 2018.

This paper describes current non-antibody pharmacologic approaches to the prevention of migraine in adults. Preventive therapy should be considered for patients with migraine who routinely have more than 6 headache days per month or in other special circumstances. Choices for preventive therapy are based on patient preferences about side effects and evidence of efficacy. The evidence level and commonly used doses for selected categories of migraine preventive medication are reviewed, including antiepileptic drugs, antihypertensive drugs, and antidepressants. Propranolol, timolol, topiramate, and divalproex sodium are approved for migraine prevention by the US FDA. OnabotulinumtoxinA is approved for prevention of chronic migraine. Several off-label drugs, especially lisinopril, candesartan, and amitriptyline also have good evidence of benefit. The spectrum of response to preventive therapy varies; in general, complete cessation of headaches is uncommon, although there are "super-responders" to every therapy, as illustrated by patient reports of dramatic responses to treatment. Preventive treatment should be started at a low dose and doses increased slowly until therapeutic benefit is achieved or side effects preclude continued use.

The Prevalence and Impact of Migraine and Severe Headache in the United States: Figures and Trends From Government Health Studies.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: In this targeted systematic review, we aimed to identify up-to-date prevalence estimates of migraine and severe headache in adults from population-based US government surveys. Our goal was to assess the stability of prevalence estimates over time, and to identify additional information pertinent to the burden and treatment of migraine and other severe headache conditions. METHODS: We searched for the most current publicly available summary statistics from the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS), the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NHAMCS), and the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS). We extracted and summarized data from each study over time and as a function of demographic variables. RESULTS: The prevalence and burden of self-reported migraine and severe headache in the US adult population is high, affecting roughly 1 out of every 6 American and 1 in 5 women over a 3-month period (15.3% overall [95% CI 14.75-15.85], 9.7% of males [95% CI 9.05-10.35] and 20.7% of females [95% CI 19.84-21.56]). The prevalence has been remarkably stable over a period of 19 years. The prevalence of migraine or severe headache in 2015 was highest in American Indian or Alaska Natives (18.4%) compared with whites, blacks, or Hispanics, with the lowest prevalence in Asians (11.3%). There is a higher burden of migraine in those aged 18-44 (17.9%), people who are unemployed (21.4%), those with family income less than $35,000 per year (19.9%), and the elderly and disabled (16.4%). Headache is consistently the fourth or fifth most common reason for visits to the emergency department, accounting for roughly 3% of all emergency department visits annually. In reproductive aged women, headache is the third leading cause of emergency department visits. CONCLUSIONS: Severe headache and migraine remain important public health problems that are more common and burdensome for women, particularly women of childbearing age, and other historically disadvantaged segments of the population. These inequities could be exacerbated if new high-cost treatments are inaccessible to those who need them most.

A Qualitative Study On Patients With Chronic Migraine With Medication Overuse Headache: Comparing Frequent And Non-Frequent Relapsers.

BACKGROUND: It is common clinical experience that, after structured withdrawal, some patients with chronic migraine and medication overuse headache (CM with MOH) are more prone than others to relapse and to be in need of further structured treatments. Our aim was to explore similarities and differences between frequent relapsers (FRs) and non-frequent relapsers (NFRs) by considering their point of view, perceptions, and perspective of their subjective experience with relapse into CM with MOH. METHODS: Patients were consecutively recruited on occasion of a structured withdrawal treatment and were interviewed individually about their headache experience and their perspectives on relapse into CM with MOH. We considered FR those patients requiring 2 or more structured withdrawals for MOH within 3 years. A narrative approach with no preconceived coding schemes was employed. To facilitate coding, categorization and organization of data the software QRS NVivo 11.0 was used: themes were defined as common to FR and NFR, or peculiar (by frequency or content) to one of the 2 groups. RESULTS: Sixteen patients (13 women; mean age of 53) were interviewed: 7 were classified as FRs. A total of 22 themes emerged from 552 single quotations (the 10 most relevant covered 82% of the entire body of quotations). Four themes were commonly reported by both FR and NFR patients, and 6 were peculiar to one group only. Common aspects included issues connected to the dilemma between disclosing, concealing and the feelings of isolation around MOH, the idea of being addicted to medication, presence of anxiety, and the attempt to use non-pharmacological therapies as an alternative to medication. Peculiar aspects included causal attribution (FRs attributed headache to uncontrollable factors); future expectations at the time point of withdrawal (FRs were generally resigned); high-performance functioning (FRs believed they are "forced" to reach high levels of performance as a consequence of others' inability); coping strategies (FRs tended to "passively accept" problems and showed avoidance-related behaviors). Moreover, FRs were less frequently aware of their problems and described more frequently depressive symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Our results highlight that some differences between FR and NFR patients with CM and MOH exist. Frequent relapsers among patients with CM and MOH reported some important peculiarities of the lived experience of having chronic migraine; clinicians should recognize these psychosocial aspects such as social relationships, future expectations, the experience of illness, medication management, and how the withdrawal experience is regarded, as they may be associated with frequent relapse into MOH.

What the pharmacological management of migraine can tell us about the future of migraine patient care.

Some of the principles of the pharmacologic management of migraine are echoed in urgent discussions of the future of headache care in the USA and around the world. From adverse events to tolerance, addiction, medication overuse and medication persistence, solutions to the pathophysiologic puzzles, and management difficulties in migraine can be found by paying closer attention to patient reports and by facilitating greater patient involvement in the treatment process. Similarly, listening to the patient as customer in the process of value-based care, so adaptable for the problem of migraine, is the solution to the health care crisis we face in so many countries.

A Short Review of the Non-invasive Transcutaneous Pericranial Electrical Stimulation Techniques and their Application in Headache.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: In this short review, the most common non-invasive neuromodulatory techniques will be described, along with their advantages and disadvantages and their application in headache. Available preventive treatments can be unhelpful or may have unpleasant side effects; moreover, the rate of response to preventive drugs does not exceed 50%, lower in chronic migraine; alternative options would be welcome. Though the concept of neuromodulation was originally developed with invasive methods, newer non-invasive techniques are appearing. RECENT FINDINGS: The novel neuromodulatory techniques have been developed with encouraging results: compared with traditional pharmacotherapy, advantages of non-invasive neuromodulation include reduced incidence of adverse effects, improved adherence, and safety and ease of use. The results are encouraging for acute or preventive treatment of different kinds of headache. A variety of neuromodulatory approaches is expanding fastly and has opened new possibilities for treatment of patients suffering from many forms of headache, especially those who have failed traditional pharmacotherapy. The non-invasive treatments can be seen as supplementing traditional management in refractory patients. Current study results are encouraging but preliminary and larger and more rigorous trials are needed to clarify benefit and mode of action.

Atypical Facial and Head Pain in Childhood and Adolescence.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This review will consider forms of atypical facial and head pain in children and adolescents. A brief and general overview of typical head and facial pains and treatments will be offered. Moreover, atypical head and face pain will be discussed with treatment options. RECENT FINDINGS: The most recent literature including case reports will be evaluated; possible pathophysiological mechanisms, resulting disabilities, and family and social impact will be discussed. General indications for pharmacological treatment will be reviewed, when needed in more disabling cases. Also, non-pharmacological treatments that are especially suitable for this category of patients will be illustrated and discussed.