Acute treatment of migraine: quantifying the unmet need through real-world data in Italy.

OBJECTIVE: This study is describing subjects with migraine interrupting or not receiving triptans for acute treatment and providing a national-level estimate of people who might benefit from different therapeutic approaches. METHODS: This is a retrospective analysis using IQVIA Longitudinal Patient Database. Starting from 18 + years old individuals with migraine, we selected two cohorts: subjects with triptans prescriptions before and no triptans prescriptions after Index Date (triptan withdraw) and subjects without triptans prescriptions both before and after Index Date (no triptan prescriptions). Index Date was the first record of a health encounter for migraine in 2019. Individuals with cardiovascular disease (CVD) within no triptan prescriptions group were also quantified. RESULTS: Triptan withdraw and no triptan prescriptions cohorts numbered 605 and 3270, respectively, 5% and 29% of subjects with migraine. Mean age was 47 and 51 years respectively; women were more represented (~ 80%). Hypertension and thyroid disease were most frequent comorbidities; non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs were among most frequently recorded treatments. Subjects with CVD within no triptan prescriptions cohort were 621 and with triptan withdraw cohort subjects represented the basis to estimate those who might benefit from alternative options for the acute treatment of migraine, who were around 60,000 and accounted for 11% of subjects seeking primary care due to migraine. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis provides a real-word estimate of Italian people that might benefit from different therapeutic approaches as an alternative to triptans, which sometimes might be not effective and/or poorly tolerated. Such estimate should be intended as the lower limit of a wider range due to strict criteria adopted.

The World Health Organization Intersectoral Global Action Plan on Epilepsy and Other Neurological Disorders and the headache revolution: from headache burden to a global action plan for headache disorders.

The World Health Organization (WHO) Intersectoral Global Action Plan on Epilepsy and Other Neurological Disorders was developed by WHO to address the worldwide challenges and gaps in provision of care and services for people with epilepsy and other neurological disorders and to ensure a comprehensive, coordinated response across sectors to the burden of neurologic diseases and to promote brain health across life-course. Headache disorders constitute the second most burdensome of all neurological diseases after stroke, but the first if young and midlife adults are taken into account. Despite the availability of a range of treatments, disability associated with headache disorders, and with migraine, remains very high. In addition, there are inequalities between high-income and low and middle income countries in access to medical care. In line with several brain health initiatives following the WHOiGAP resolution, herein we tailor the main pillars of the action plan to headache disorders: (1) raising policy prioritization and strengthen governance; (2) providing effective, timely and responsive diagnosis, treatment and care; (3) implementing strategies for promotion and prevention; (4) fostering research and innovation and strengthen information systems. Specific targets for future policy actions are proposed. The Global Action Plan triggered a revolution in neurology, not only by increasing public awareness of brain disorders and brain health but also by boosting the number of neurologists in training, raising research funding and making neurology a public health priority for policy makers. Reducing the burden of headache disorders will not only improve the quality of life and wellbeing of people with headache but also reduce the burden of neurological disorders increasing global brain health and, thus, global population health.

European Headache Federation (EHF) critical re-appraisal and meta-analysis of oral drugs in migraine prevention-part 1: amitriptyline.

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.

European Headache Federation (EHF) critical reappraisal and meta-analysis of oral drugs in migraine prevention - part 3: topiramate.

OBJECTIVE: Topiramate is a repurposed first-line treatment for migraine prophylaxis. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to critically re-appraise the existing evidence supporting the efficacy and tolerability of topiramate. METHODS: A systematic search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, and ClinicalTrials.gov was performed for trials of pharmacological treatment in migraine prophylaxis as of August 13, 2022, following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews (PRISMA). Randomized controlled trials in adult patients that used topiramate for the prophylactic treatment of migraine, with placebo as active comparator, were included. Two reviewers independently screened the retrieved studies and extracted all data. Outcomes of interest were the 50% responder rates, the reduction in monthly migraine days, and adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation. Results were pooled and meta-analyzed, with sensitivity analysis based on the risk of bias of the studies, the monthly migraine days at baseline, and the previous use of other prophylactic treatments. Certainty evidence was judged according to the GRADE framework. RESULTS: Eight out of 10,826 studies fulfilled the inclusion/exclusion criteria, accounting for 2,610 randomized patients. Six studies included patients with episodic migraine and two with chronic migraine. Topiramate dose ranged from 50 to 200 mg/day, and all studies included a placebo arm. There was a high certainty that topiramate: 1) increased the proportion of patients who achieved a 50% responder rate in monthly migraine days, compared to placebo [relative risk: 1.61 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.29-2.01); absolute risk difference: 168 more per 1,000 (95% CI: 80 to 278 more)]; 2) was associated with 0.99 (95% CI: 1.41-0.58) fewer migraine days than placebo; 3) and had a higher proportion of patients with adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation [absolute risk difference 80 patients more per 1,000 (95% CI: 20 to 140 more patients)]. CONCLUSIONS: There is high-quality evidence of the efficacy of topiramate in the prophylaxis of migraine, albeit its use poses a risk of adverse events that may lead to treatment discontinuation, with a negative effect on patient satisfaction and adherence to care.

Rethinking headache as a global public health case model for reaching the SDG 3 HEALTH by 2030.

The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development sets out, through 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), a path for the prosperity of people and the planet. SDG 3 in particular aims to ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages and includes several targets to enhance health. This review presents a "headache-tailored" perspective on how to achieve SDG 3 by focusing on six specific actions: targeting chronic headaches; reducing the overuse of acute pain-relieving medications; promoting the education of healthcare professionals; granting access to medication in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC); implementing training and educational opportunities for healthcare professionals in low and middle income countries; building a global alliance against headache disorders. Addressing the burden of headache disorders directly impacts on populations' health, as well as on the possibility to improve the productivity of people aged below 50, women in particular. Our analysis pointed out several elements, and included: moving forward from frequency-based parameters to define headache severity; recognizing and managing comorbid diseases and risk factors; implementing a disease management multi-modal management model that incorporates pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments; early recognizing and managing the overuse of acute pain-relieving medications; promoting undergraduate, postgraduate, and continuing medical education of healthcare professionals with specific training on headache; and promoting a culture that favors the recognition of headaches as diseases with a neurobiological basis, where this is not yet recognized. Making headache care more sustainable is an achievable objective, which will require multi-stakeholder collaborations across all sectors of society, both health-related and not health-related. Robust investments will be needed; however, considering the high prevalence of headache disorders and the associated disability, these investments will surely improve multiple health outcomes and lift development and well-being globally.

European Headache Federation guideline on the use of monoclonal antibodies targeting the calcitonin gene related peptide pathway for migraine prevention - 2022 update.

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.

Comparing the relative and absolute effect of erenumab: is a 50% response enough? Results from the ESTEEMen study.

BACKGROUND: Monoclonal antibodies acting on the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) or its receptor have changed migraine preventive treatment. Those treatments have led to reconsidering the outcomes of migraine prevention. Available data mostly considered benefits in terms of relative efficacy (percent or absolute decrease in monthly migraine days [MMDs] or headache days compared with baseline). However, not enough attention has been paid to residual MMDs and/or migraine-related disability in treated patients. In the present study, we aimed at comparing the relative and absolute efficacy of erenumab. METHODS: ESTEEMen was a collaborative project among 16 European headache centers which already performed real-life data collections on patients treated with erenumab for at least 12 weeks. For the present study, we performed a subgroup analysis on patients with complete data on MMDs at baseline and at weeks 9-12 of treatment. Starting from efficacy thresholds proposed by previous literature, we classified patients into 0-29%, 30-49%, 50-74%, and ≥75% responders according to MMD decrease from baseline to weeks 9-12 of treatment. For each response category, we reported the median MMDs and Headache Impact test-6 (HIT-6) scores at baseline and at weeks 9-12. We categorized the number of residual MMDs at weeks 9-12 as follows: 0-3, 4-7, 8-14, ≥15. We classified HIT-6 score into four categories: ≤49, 50-55, 56-59, and ≥60. To keep in line with the original scope of the ESTEEMen study, calculations were performed in men and women. RESULTS: Out of 1215 patients, at weeks 9-12, 381 (31.4%) had a 0-29% response, 186 (15.3%) a 30-49% response, 396 (32.6%) a 50-74% response, and 252 (20.7%) a ≥75% response; 246 patients (20.2%) had 0-3 residual MMDs, 443 (36.5%) had 4-7 MMDs, 299 (24.6%) had 8-14 MMDs, and 227 (18.7%) had ≥15 MMDs. Among patients with 50-74% response, 246 (62.1%) had 4-7 and 94 (23.7%) 8-14 residual MMDs, while among patients with ≥75% response 187 (74.2%) had 0-3 and 65 (25.8%) had 4-7 residual MMDs. CONCLUSIONS: The present study shows that even patients with good relative response to erenumab may have a clinically non-negligible residual migraine burden. Relative measures of efficacy cannot be enough to thoroughly consider the efficacy of migraine prevention.

Real-life data on the efficacy and safety of erenumab in the Abruzzo region, central Italy.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of erenumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody inhibiting the calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor (CGRPr), for the prevention of migraine in a real-life setting. MAIN BODY: We included in our observational study all patients with episodic or chronic migraine treated with erenumab during the year 2019 in the Abruzzo region, central Italy, and with a 6-month follow-up. We included 89 patients; 76 (85.4%) received 6 doses of erenumab, 11 (12.4%) autonomously withdrew the drug due to perceived inefficacy, and 2 (2.2%) due to adverse events. Seventy-eight patients (87.6%) were female, with a mean age of 46.8 ± 11.2 years; 84 (94.4%) had chronic migraine, and 64 (71.9%) medication overuse. All patients had ≥2 prior preventive treatment failures. Fifty-three patients (69.7%) had a 50% decrease in monthly migraine days (MMDs) within the first three doses; 46 (71.9%) of 64 patients withdrew medication overuse. In the 76 patients who completed a 6-dose treatment, erenumab decreased median MMDs from 19 (interquartile range [IQR] 12-27.5) to 4 (IQR 2-9.5; P < 0.001), median monthly days of analgesic use from 10 (IQR 4.5-20) to 2 IQR 0-5; P < 0.001), and median monthly days of triptan use from 5 (IQR 0-15.5) to 1 (IQR 0-4; P < 0.001). We recorded 27 adverse events in 20 (22.5%) patients, the most common being constipation (13.5%). One adverse event, i.e. allergic reaction, led to treatment discontinuation in one patient. CONCLUSIONS: Our real-life data confirm the efficacy and tolerability of erenumab for the prevention of migraine in a difficult-to-treat population of patients with a high prevalence of chronic migraine and medication overuse.

The appropriate dosing of erenumab for migraine prevention after multiple preventive treatment failures: a critical appraisal.

BACKGROUND: Erenumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody directed against the calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor, was approved for the prevention of episodic (EM) or chronic migraine (CM) at the monthly dose of 70 mg or 140 mg. We reviewed the available literature to understand if patients with prior preventive treatment failures benefit more from the 140 mg dose than the 70 mg. MAIN BODY: We searched papers indexed in PubMed and conference abstracts published in the last 2 years which assessed the safety and efficacy of erenumab in patients with prior preventive treatment failures. We reviewed the results of 3 randomized controlled trials and their subgroup analyses and open-label extensions. The 140 mg monthly dose of erenumab had a numerical advantage over the 70 mg monthly dose in patients with prior preventive treatment failures, both in EM and CM (with or without medication overuse) during the double blind phases of the trials and their open-label extensions. The numerical difference between the two doses increased with the increase in the number of prior preventive treatment failures. CONCLUSIONS: The available data suggest that erenumab 140 mg monthly might be preferred over the 70 mg monthly dose in patients with EM or CM and prior preventive treatment failures. Further data are needed to assess the long-term efficacy in clinical practice of the two doses of erenumab, while their safety profile is comparable.

Guideline on the use of onabotulinumtoxinA in chronic migraine: a consensus statement from the European Headache Federation.

OnabotulinumtoxinA is being increasingly used in the management of chronic migraine (CM). Treatment with onabotulinumtoxinA poses challenges compared with traditional therapy with orally administered preventatives. The European Headache Federation identified an expert group that was asked to develop the present guideline to provide recommendations for the use of onabotulinumtoxinA in CM. The expert group recommend onabotulinumtoxinA as an effective and well-tolerated treatment of CM. Patients should preferably have tried two to three other migraine prophylactics before start of onabotulinumtoxinA. Patients with medication overuse should be withdrawn from the overused medication before initiation of onabotulinumtoxinA if feasible, if not onabotulinumtoxinA can be initiated from the start or before withdrawal. OnabotulinumtoxinA should be administered according to the PREEMPT injection protocol, i.e. injecting 155 U-195 U to 31-39 sites every 12-weeks. We recommend that patients are defined as non-responders, if they have less than 30% reduction in headache days per month during treatment with onabotulinumtoxinA. However other factors such as headache intensity, disability and patient preferences should also be considered when evaluating response. Treatment should be stopped, if the patient does not respond to the first two to three treatment cycles. Response to continued treatment with onabotulinumtoxinA should be evaluated by comparing the 4 weeks before with the 4 weeks after each treatment cycle. It is recommended that treatment is stopped in patients with a reduction to less than 10 headache days per month for 3 months and that patients are re-evaluated 4-5 months after stopping onabotulinumtoxinA to make sure that the patient has not returned to CM. Questions regarding efficacy and tolerability of onabotulinumtoxinA could be answered on the basis of scientific evidence. The other recommendations were mainly based on expert opinion. Future research on the treatment of CM with onabotulinumtoxinA may further improve the management of this highly disabling disorder.

A practical definition of minor stroke.

It is generally assumed that minor stroke (MS) is an ischemic stroke with a short-term, good functional outcome. However, no clear definition of MS exists. Modified Rankin Scale (mRS) and National Institute of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) are still the most accredited standards, but scores and timing of the assessment are not homogeneous. As suggested by a qualified sample of Italian neurologists, the index parameter chosen in our analysis was mRS at the time of hospital discharge. The database of the SIRIO study (a large observational study of 2,573 patients with stroke admitted in Italian hospitals in 2005) was used to identify an mRS threshold to define MS. Reference was made to outcome markers such as rate of discharge to home, 1-year disability and 1-year mortality. The rate of discharge progressively decreased with increase in mRS, while the rates of 1-year mortality and disability progressively increased. Our proposal is one of defining a stroke "minor" when the rate of discharge to home is above the SIRIO database overall value and the 1-year mortality and disability is below the respective overall values. This definition is consistent with a score ≤2 on the mRS.

OnabotulinumtoxinA: Still the Present for Chronic Migraine.

OnabotulinumtoxinA (BT-A) is one of the few drugs approved for the preventive treatment of chronic migraine (CM). Despite this, some aspects of its mechanism of action are still a matter of debate, and the precise magnitude of BT-A effects needs to be completely elucidated. BT-A acts primarily upon trigeminal and cervical nerve endings, by inhibiting the release of inflammatory mediators such as calcitonin gene-related peptide, as well as reducing the insertion of ionotropic and metabotropic receptors into the neuronal membrane. These actions increase the depolarization threshold of trigeminal and cervical nerve fibers, thus reducing their activation. The central actions of BT-A are still a matter of debate: a retrograde axonal transport has been postulated, but not clearly assessed in humans. Clinically, the efficacy of BT-A in CM has been assessed by large, randomized placebo-controlled trials, such as the Phase 3 REsearch Evaluating Migraine Prophylaxis Therapy (PREEMPT) trials. Those results were also confirmed in a wide range of open-label studies, even for long-term periods. Recently, novel findings have led to a better understanding of its pharmacological actions and clinical usefulness in migraine prevention. This narrative review summarizes, updates and critically revises the available data on BT-A and its possible implementation in chronic migraine. Moreover, the current role of BT-A in CM treatment has been discussed.

Cognitive outcomes after focused ultrasound thalamotomy for tremor: Results from the COGNIFUS (COGNitive in Focused UltraSound) study.

INTRODUCTION: Magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound (MRgFUS) thalamotomy is an innovative method for the unilateral treatment of essential tremor (ET) and Parkinson's disease (PD) related tremor. Our aim was to assess cognitive changes following MRgFUS thalamotomy to better investigate its safety profile. METHODS: We prospectively investigated the cognitive and neurobehavioral profile of patients consecutively undergoing MRgFUS within a 2-year period. Patients had a comprehensive clinical and neuropsychological assessment before and six months after MRgFUS thalamotomy. RESULTS: The final sample consisted of 40 patients (males 38; mean age±SD 67.7 ± 10.7; mean disease duration±SD 9.3 ± 5.6; ET 22, PD 18 patients). For the whole sample, improvements were detected in tremor (Fahn-Tolosa-Marin Clinical Rating Scale for tremor 35.79 ± 14.39 vs 23.03 ± 10.95; p < 0.001), anxiety feelings (Hamilton Anxiety rating scale 5.36 ± 3.80 vs 2.54 ± 3.28, p < 0.001), in the overall cognitive status (MMSE 25.93 ± 3.76 vs 27.54 ± 2.46, p 0.003; MOCA 22.80 ± 4.08 vs 24.48 ± 3.13, p < 0.001), and in quality of life (Quality of life in Essential Tremor Questionnaire 36.14 ± 12.91 vs 5.14 ± 6.90, p < 0.001 and PD Questionnaire-8 5.61 ± 4.65 vs 1.39 ± 2.33, p 0.001). No changes were detected in frontal and executive functions, verbal fluency and memory, abstract reasoning and problem-solving abilities. CONCLUSION: Our study moves a step forward in establishing the cognitive sequelae of MRgFUS thalamotomy and in endorsing effectiveness and safety.

IV Thrombolysis Initiated Before Transfer for Endovascular Stroke Thrombectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The role of IV thrombolysis (IVT) in patients with large vessel occlusions (LVOs) administered before transfer from a primary stroke center (PSC) to a comprehensive stroke center (CSC) is questioned. METHODS: We included observational studies of patients with an LVO receiving IVT at a PSC before their endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) transfer compared with those receiving EVT alone. Efficacy outcomes included excellent or good functional outcomes (modified Rankin Scale [mRS] scores of 0-1 or 0-2, respectively) and reduced disability (mRS shift analysis) at 3 months. Safety outcomes included symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH) within 48 hours and 3-month all-cause mortality. Associations are reported with crude odds ratios (ORs) and adjusted ORs (aORs). RESULTS: We identified 6 studies, including 1,723 participants (mean age: 71 years, 51% women; 53% treated with IVT at a PSC). The mean onset-to-groin puncture time did not differ between the 2 groups (mean difference: -20 minutes, 95% CI -115.89 to 76.04). Patients receiving IVT before transfer had higher odds of 3-month reduced disability (common OR = 1.98, 95% CI 1.17-3.35), excellent (OR = 1.70, 95% CI 1.28-2.26), and good (OR = 1.62.95% CI 1.15-2.29) functional outcomes, with no increased sICH (OR = 0.87, 95% CI 0.54-1.39) or mortality (OR = 0.55, 95% CI 0.37-0.83) risks. In the adjusted analyses, patients receiving IVT at a PSC had higher odds of excellent functional outcome (aOR = 1.32, 95% CI 1.00-1.74) and a lower probability for mortality (aOR = 0.50, 95% CI 0.27-0.93). DISCUSSION: Patients with LVO receiving IVT at a PSC before an EVT transfer have a higher likelihood of excellent functional recovery and lower odds of mortality, with no increase in sICH and onset-to-groin puncture times, compared with those transferred for EVT without previously receiving IVT.

Delivery of acute ischaemic stroke treatments in the European region in 2019 and 2020.

INTRODUCTION: We assessed best available data on access and delivery of acute stroke unit (SU) care, intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) and endovascular treatment (EVT) in the European region in 2019 and 2020. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We compared national data per number of inhabitants and per 100 annual incident first-ever ischaemic strokes (AIIS) in 46 countries. Population estimates and ischaemic stroke incidence were based on United Nations data and the Global Burden of Disease Report 2019, respectively. RESULTS: The estimated mean number of acute SUs in 2019 was 3.68 (95% CI: 2.90-4.45) per one million inhabitants (MIH) with 7/44 countries having less than one SU per one MIH. The estimated mean annual number of IVTs was 21.03 (95% CI: 15.63-26.43) per 100,000 and 17.14% (95% CI: 12.98-21.30) of the AIIS in 2019, with highest country rates at 79.19 and 52.66%, respectively, and 15 countries delivering less than 10 IVT per 100,000. The estimated mean annual number of EVTs in 2019 was 7.87 (95% CI: 5.96-9.77) per 100,000 and 6.91% (95% CI: 5.15-8.67) of AIIS, with 11 countries delivering less than 1.5 EVT per 100,000. Rates of SUs, IVT and EVT were stable in 2020. There was an increase in mean rates of SUs, IVT and EVT compared to similar data from 2016. CONCLUSION: Although there was an increase in reperfusion treatment rates in many countries between 2016 and 2019, this was halted in 2020. There are persistent major inequalities in acute stroke treatment in the European region. Tailored strategies directed to the most vulnerable regions should be prioritised.

Specialist Perspectives on the Imaging Selection of Large Vessel Occlusion in the Late Window.

BACKGROUND: The proper imaging modality for use in the selection of patients for endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) presenting in the late window remains controversial, despite current guidelines advocating the use of advanced imaging in this population. We sought to understand if clinicians with different specialty training differ in their approach to patient selection for EVT in the late time window. METHODS: We conducted an international survey of stroke and neurointerventional clinicians between January and May 2022 with questions focusing on imaging and treatment decisions of large vessel occlusion (LVO) patients presenting in the late window. Interventional neurologists, interventional neuroradiologists, and endovascular neurosurgeons were defined as interventionists whereas all other specialties were defined as non-interventionists. The non-interventionist group was defined by all other specialties of the respondents: stroke neurologist, neuroradiologist, emergency medicine physician, trainee (fellows and residents) and others. RESULTS: Of 3000 invited to participate, 1506 (1027 non-interventionists, 478 interventionists, 1 declined to specify) physicians completed the study. Interventionist respondents were more likely to proceed directly to EVT (39.5% vs. 19.5%; p < 0.0001) compared to non-interventionist respondents in patients with favorable ASPECTS (Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score). Despite no difference in access to advanced imaging, interventionists were more likely to prefer CT/CTA alone (34.8% vs. 21.0%) and less likely to prefer CT/CTA/CTP (39.1% vs. 52.4%) for patient selection (p < 0.0001). When faced with uncertainty, non-interventionists were more likely to follow clinical guidelines (45.1% vs. 30.2%) while interventionists were more likely to follow their assessment of evidence (38.7% vs. 27.0%) (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Interventionists were less likely to use advanced imaging techniques in selecting LVO patients presenting in the late window and more likely to base their decisions on their assessment of evidence rather than published guidelines. These results reflect gaps between interventionists and non-interventionists reliance on clinical guidelines, the limits of available evidence, and clinician belief in the utility of advanced imaging.

Comparison of Mobile Stroke Unit With Usual Care for Acute Ischemic Stroke Management: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

IMPORTANCE: So far, uncertainty remains as to whether there is sufficient cumulative evidence that mobile stroke unit (MSU; specialized ambulance equipped with computed tomography scanner, point-of-care laboratory, and neurological expertise) use leads to better functional outcomes compared with usual care. OBJECTIVE: To determine with a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature whether MSU use is associated with better functional outcomes in patients with acute ischemic stroke (AIS). DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and Embase from 1960 to 2021. STUDY SELECTION: Studies comparing MSU deployment and usual care for patients with suspected stroke were eligible for analysis, excluding case series and case-control studies. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Independent data extraction by 2 observers, following the PRISMA and MOOSE reporting guidelines. The risk of bias in each study was determined using the ROBINS-I and RoB2 tools. In the case of articles with partially overlapping study populations, unpublished disentangled results were obtained. Data were pooled in random-effects meta-analyses. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was excellent outcome as measured with the modified Rankin Scale (mRS; score of 0 to 1 at 90 days). RESULTS: Compared with usual care, MSU use was associated with excellent outcome (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 1.64; 95% CI, 1.27-2.13; P < .001; 5 studies; n = 3228), reduced disability over the full range of the mRS (adjusted common OR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.14-1.70; P = .001; 3 studies; n = 1563), good outcome (mRS score of 0 to 2: crude OR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.09-1.44; P = .001; 6 studies; n = 3266), shorter onset-to-intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) times (median reduction, 31 minutes [95% CI, 23-39]; P < .001; 13 studies; n = 3322), delivery of IVT (crude OR, 1.83; 95% CI, 1.58-2.12; P < .001; 7 studies; n = 4790), and IVT within 60 minutes of symptom onset (crude OR, 7.71; 95% CI, 4.17-14.25; P < .001; 8 studies; n = 3351). MSU use was not associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality at 7 days or at 90 days or with higher proportions of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage after IVT. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Compared with usual care, MSU use was associated with an approximately 65% increase in the odds of excellent outcome and a 30-minute reduction in onset-to-IVT times, without safety concerns. These results should help guideline writing committees and policy makers.

Endovascular thrombectomy and intravenous alteplase in patients with acute ischemic stroke due to large vessel occlusion: A clinical practice guideline.

AIM: Whether or not use of intravenous alteplase in combination with endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) improves outcomes versus EVT alone, for acute stroke patients with large vessel occlusion presenting directly to a comprehensive stroke center, is uncertain. METHODS: Six randomized trials exploring this issue were published, and we synthesized this evidence to inform a rapid guideline based on the Guidelines International Network principles and guided by the GRADE approach. RESULTS: We enlisted an international panel that included 4 patient partners and 1 caregiver, individuals from 6 countries. The panel considered low certainty evidence that EVT alone, relative to EVT with intravenous alteplase, possibly results in a small decrease in the proportion of patients that achieve functional independence and possibly a small increase in mortality. Both effect estimates were downgraded twice due to very serious imprecision. The panel also considered moderate certainty evidence that EVT alone probably decreases symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage, versus EVT with alteplase, and combination therapy was more costly than EVT alone. As a result of the low certainty for improved recovery without impairment and mortality for combination therapy versus EVT alone, and moderate certainty for increased harm with combination therapy, the panel made a weak recommendation in favor of EVT alone for stroke patients eligible for both treatments, and initially presenting directly to a comprehensive stroke center that provides both treatments. CONCLUSIONS: Consistent with this weak recommendation, optimal patient management will likely often include co-treatment with intravenous alteplase, depending on local circumstances and patient presentation.

Excellent Response to OnabotulinumtoxinA: Different Definitions, Different Predictors.

The identification of patients who can benefit the most from the available preventive treatments is important in chronic migraine. We explored the rate of excellent responders to onabotulinumtoxinA in a multicenter European study and explored the predictors of such response, according to different definitions. A pooled analysis on chronic migraineurs treated with onabotulinumtoxinA and followed-up for, at least, 9 months was performed. Excellent responders were defined either as patients with a ≥75% decrease in monthly headache days (percent-based excellent responders) or as patients with <4 monthly headache days (frequency-based excellent responders). The characteristics of excellent responders at the baseline were compared with the ones of patients with a <30% decrease in monthly headache days. Percent-based excellent responders represented about 10% of the sample, whilst frequency-based excellent responders were about 5% of the sample. Compared with non-responders, percent-based excellent responders had a higher prevalence of medication overuse and a higher excellent response rate even after the 1st and the 2nd injection. Females were less like to be frequency-based excellent responders. Chronic migraine sufferers without medication overuse and of female sex may find fewer benefits with onabotulinumtoxinA. Additionally, the excellent response status is identifiable after the first cycle.