Long-Term Safety and Tolerability of OnabotulinumtoxinA Treatment in Patients with Chronic Migraine: Results of the COMPEL Study.

INTRODUCTION: OnabotulinumtoxinA is approved in the USA for the prevention of headache in adults with chronic migraine, a debilitating neurologic disease characterized by headaches occurring on ≥ 15 days per month for > 3 months and including migraine features on ≥ 8 days per month. OBJECTIVE: The COMPEL Study (NCT01516892), a 108-week, multi-center, open-label study, evaluated the long-term efficacy and safety of onabotulinumtoxinA in adults with chronic migraine. The objective of this subanalysis was to examine the safety and tolerability of onabotulinumtoxinA after each of nine treatment cycles. METHODS: OnabotulinumtoxinA 155 U was administered every 12 weeks. Safety and tolerability, overall and by treatment cycle, were assessed. Treatment-emergent adverse events reported between successive treatments were attributed to the preceding treatment. The safety population received one or more doses of onabotulinumtoxinA. The primary efficacy outcome was the reduction in headache days at week 108 compared with baseline. RESULTS: Of 716 patients enrolled, 373 patients (52.1%) completed the study and 343 (47.9%) withdrew; 481 patients (67.2%) received 60 weeks of treatment and 402 (56.1%) received 108 weeks of treatment. In total, 436 (60.9%) patients reported treatment-emergent adverse events; most were mild/moderate in severity. Thirty-two patients (4.5%) discontinued the study after experiencing treatment-emergent adverse events. The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events typically decreased with repeated onabotulinumtoxinA treatment: first cycle, 24.2%; fourth cycle, 18.4%; ninth cycle, 12.2%. Neck pain (2.7%), eyelid ptosis (1.8%), musculoskeletal stiffness (1.4%), injection-site pain (1.3%), and headache (1.3%) were the most common treatment-emergent adverse events after the first cycle. Seventy-five patients (10.5%) reported serious treatment-emergent adverse events, 13 (1.8%) withdrew. Treatment-related adverse events were reported by 131 patients (18.3%), one was considered serious. OnabotulinumtoxinA significantly reduced headache day frequency by 10.7 (6.4) days per 28-day period (p < 0.0001) at week 108. CONCLUSIONS: OnabotulinumtoxinA treatment was well tolerated over 108 weeks; no new safety signals were identified. The overall incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events and the most common individual events decreased with repeated onabotulinumtoxinA administration. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov; NCT01516892.

An otolaryngology, neurology, allergy, and primary care consensus on diagnosis and treatment of sinus headache.

While "sinus" headache is a widely accepted clinical diagnosis, many medical specialists consider it to be an uncommon cause of recurrent headaches. Unnecessary diagnostic studies, surgical interventions, and medical treatments are often the result of the inappropriate diagnosis of sinus headache. Both the International Headache Society and the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery have attempted to characterize conditions leading to headaches of rhinogenic origin. However, they have done so from different perspectives and in isolation from the other specialty groups. An interdisciplinary ad hoc committee recently convened to discuss the role of sinus disease and the nose in the etiology of headache and to review recent epidemiologic studies suggesting that sinus headache (headache of rhinogenic origin) and migraine are frequently confused with one another. Clinical trial data are presented which clearly indicate that the majority of sinus headaches can actually be classified as migraines. This committee reviewed scientific evidence available from multiple disciplines and concludes that considerable research and clinical study are needed to further understand and explain the role of nasal pathology and autonomic activation in migraine and headaches of rhinogenic origin. However, there was a consensus from this group that greater diagnostic and therapeutic attention needs to be given to patients complaining of sinus headache that may indeed be due to the nose.

Sinus headache: a neurology, otolaryngology, allergy, and primary care consensus on diagnosis and treatment.

Sinus headache is a widely accepted clinical diagnosis, although many medical specialists consider it an uncommon cause of recurrent headaches. The inappropriate diagnosis of sinus headache can lead to unnecessary diagnostic studies, surgical interventions, and medical treatments. Both the International Headache Society and the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery have attempted to define conditions that lead to headaches of rhinogenic origin but have done so from different perspectives and in isolation of each other. An interdisciplinary ad hoc committee convened to discuss the role of sinus disease as a cause of headache and to review recent epidemiological studies that suggest sinus headache (headache of rhinogenic origin) and migraine are frequently confused with one another. This committee reviewed available scientific evidence from multiple disciplines and concluded that considerable research and clinical study are required to further understand and delineate the role of nasal pathology and autonomic activation in migraine and headaches of rhinogenic origin. However, this group agreed that greater diagnostic and therapeutic attention needs to be given to patients with sinus headaches.

Duration of migraine is a predictor for response to botulinum toxin type A.

OBJECTIVE: To identify the clinical characteristics and/or injection parameters that predict a favorable response to botulinum toxin type A in patients with episodic and chronic migraine. BACKGROUND: There is emerging scientific and clinical evidence to support the utility of botulinum toxin type A (BoNT-A) in the prophylaxis of episodic and chronic migraine headache. However, the patient characteristics and injection strategies that predict a favorable treatment response are unknown. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, open-label study on 74 patients from our clinic receiving BoNT-A for episodic or chronic migraine. For all patients, migraine-related disability (Migraine Disability Assesment [MIDAS]), headache frequency, and average headache intensity were obtained at baseline and at 3 months post-BoNT-A. Information regarding demographic characteristics and injection parameters was also collected. RESULTS: Sixty-one patients met the study criteria and were available for 3-month follow-up. At the 3-month follow-up visit, the mean MIDAS scores of the 61 qualified study patients had decreased from 102 at baseline to 49 (52% decrease, P<.001). The mean number of headache days was reduced from 60 to 39 (P<.001), and the mean headache intensity decreased from 7.6 at baseline to 5.9 (P<.001). Frequency of migraine attacks, presence of analgesic overuse, total BoNT-A dose, and presence of underlying muscle tenderness were not predictive of treatment response. Age and duration of migraine were the only clinical factors significantly predictive of treatment response. Age likely was a predictor only as a consequence of duration of illness as subjects with migraine duration greater than 30 years were significantly less likely to respond to treatment with BoNT-A. CONCLUSION: BoNT-A may be effective in decreasing headache frequency, headache intensity, and headache-related disability in episodic and chronic migraine patients. Duration of illness emerged as a predictor of treatment response. Randomized controlled studies should evaluate headache-related disability as a primary endpoint in patients with episodic and chronic headache.

Migraine in special populations. Treatment strategies for children and adolescents, pregnant women, and the elderly.

Although migraine is a common occurrence in children and adolescents, its diagnosis and treatment present unique challenges. Migraine management in pregnant women and the elderly can also be difficult and requires selection of appropriate and safe medications for patients in these special circumstances. In this article, Drs Gladstone, Eross, and Dodick provide pearls for both abortive and prophylactic treatments for migraine in these populations.

Clinical, anatomical, and physiologic relationship between sleep and headache.

The intimate relationship between sleep and headache has been recognized for centuries, yet the relationship remains clinically and nosologically complex. Headaches associated with nocturnal sleep have often been perceived as either the cause or result of disrupted sleep. An understanding of the anatomy and physiology of both conditions allows for a clearer understanding of this complex relationship and a more rational clinical and therapeutic approach. Recent biochemical and functional imaging studies in patients with primary headache disorders has lead to the identification of potential central generators which are also important for the regulation of normal sleep architecture. Medical conditions (e.g. obstructive sleep apnea, depression) that may disrupt sleep and lead to nocturnal or morning headache can often be identified on clinical evaluation or by polysomnography. In contrast, primary headache disorders which often occur during nocturnal sleep or upon awakening, such as migraine, cluster headache, chronic paroxysmal hemicrania, and hypnic headache, can readily be diagnosed through clinical evaluation and managed with appropriate medication. These disorders, when not associated with co-morbid mood disorders or medications/analgesics overuse, seldom lead to significant sleep disruption. Identifying and classifying the specific headache disorder in patients with both headache and sleep disturbances can facilitate an appropriate diagnostic evaluation. Patients with poorly defined nocturnal or awakening headaches should undergo polysomnography to exclude a treatable sleep disturbance, especially in the absence of an underlying psychological disorder or analgesic overuse syndrome. In patients with a well defined primary headache disorder, unless there are compelling historical or examination findings suggestive of a primary sleep disturbance, a formal sleep evaluation is seldom necessary.