Treating the Uninsured and Underinsured with Migraine in the USA.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To define, describe, and identify potential solutions for health disparities in the uninsured and underinsured with migraine in the USA. RECENT FINDINGS: Uninsured and underinsured patients with migraine experience health disparities in diagnosis and treatment of migraine. Migraine patients have higher healthcare costs and higher employment disability, which contribute to a higher likelihood of uninsured or underinsured status. Uninsured or underinsured status, combined with factors such as race, socioeconomic status, geographic location, and care location, are correlated with delays in or decreased migraine diagnosis and treatment. Migraine prevalence is increased in the uninsured and underinsured. Potential solutions include advocacy for policy changes that improve access to care, increasing awareness and representation of underrepresented groups, providing resources to patients to reduce costs, and active patient engagement in migraine care. Continued efforts from all stakeholders have the potential to reduce health disparities in uninsured and underinsured patients with migraine, reducing disability and improving quality of life.

Alcohol as a trigger of migraine attacks in people with migraine. Results from a large prospective cohort study in English-speaking countries.

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether alcohol intake is associated with the onset of migraine attacks up to 2 days after consumption in individuals with episodic migraine (EM). BACKGROUND: Although alcohol has long been suspected to be a common migraine trigger, studies have been inconclusive in proving this association. METHODS: This was an observational prospective cohort study among individuals with migraine who registered to use a digital health platform for headache. Eligible individuals were aged ≥18 years with EM who consumed alcohol and had tracked their headache symptoms and alcohol intake for ≥90 days. People who did not drink any alcohol were excluded. The association of alcohol intake ("Yes/No") and of the number of alcoholic beverages in the 2 days preceding a migraine attack was assessed accounting for the presence of migraine on day-2 and its interaction with alcohol intake on day-2, and further adjusted for sex, age, and average weekly alcohol intake. RESULTS: Data on 487 individuals reporting 5913 migraine attacks and a total of 40,165 diary days were included in the analysis. Presence of migraine on day-2 and its interaction with alcohol intake on day-2 were not significant and removed from the model. At the population level, alcohol intake on day-2 was associated with a lower probability of migraine attack (OR [95% CI] = 0.75 [0.68, 0.82]; event rate 1006/4679, 21.5%), while the effect of alcohol intake on day-1 was not significant (OR [95% CI] = 1.01 [0.91, 1.11]; event rate 1163/4679, 24.9%) after adjusting for sex, age, and average weekly alcohol intake. Similar results were obtained with the number of beverages as exposure. CONCLUSIONS: In this English-speaking cohort of individuals with EM who identified themselves as mostly low-dose alcohol consumers, there was no significant effect on the probability of a migraine attack in the 24 h following consumption, and a slightly lower likelihood of a migraine attack from 24 to 48 h following use.

Ahead of the pain: Where we stand after a decade of growth in United Council for Neurologic Subspecialties-certified headache subspecialists.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize the geographic distribution of United States (US) headache subspecialists in 2021 compared to 2012 and analyze trends in distribution of and growth by geography. INTRODUCTION: Headache disorders are the second-highest cause of disease burden worldwide. Historically, headache disorders have been treated by primary care and emergency physicians, often suboptimally. Our 2012 study identified further disparities in geographic distribution of United Council for Neurologic Subspecialties (UCNS)-certified headache subspecialists. METHODS: This correlational population study explores the current geographic distribution of and changes in subspecialists by aggregating data from the UCNS, National Health Interview Survey, US Census, Bureau of Economic Analysis, and American Community Survey. RESULTS: In 2021, there were 692 UCNS-certified headache subspecialists. There continued to be higher subspecialist density in the Northeast (1:34,678) and Midwest (1:55,005), with the highest density in Vermont (1:12,510) and Connecticut (1:20,419). The highest absolute subspecialist increases were in the South (99), California (35), and Texas (25). The highest relative subspecialist increases were in the West (105%), Vermont (500%), and Mississippi (500%). The univariable regressions showed significant associations between number of subspecialists and adult headache population (R2  = 0.797, p < 0.001), between subspecialist density and personal income (R2  = 0.935, p = 0.033), and between growth in subspecialists and poverty rate (R2  = 0.553, p = 0.022). However, the multivariable regressions showed that only the adult population was significantly associated with number of subspecialists (adjusted R2  = 0.806, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Overall, there has been substantial growth in the number of UCNS-certified headache subspecialists in the US, especially relative to growth in adult headache population. Subspecialist density continues to be highest in the Northeast and is associated with higher per capita personal income. However, there has been encouraging growth in geographies that previously had little to no access. These findings represent positive progress, but there is more to be done to both increase access to optimal headache care by subspecialists nationally and decrease geographic disparities in access to care.

Headache Education Adaptation During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Impact on Undergraduate and Graduate Medical Education.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Our goal was to describe the changes to headache and neurological education that occurred as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, and the impact this had on medical learners. We also discuss subsequent implications for the future of education in the field of headache medicine. RECENT FINDINGS: Both educators and learners faced many challenges during the pandemic. These include the following: cancellation of in-person educational meetings, limited in-person networking and wellness events, disengagement from virtual didactic curricula, limitations in procedure-based learning, redeployment to inpatient settings with a decrease in outpatient exposures, and blurred boundaries between home and work life due to more virtual collaboration and home computer use. The development of telehealth programs and trainee wellness initiatives, improved collaboration opportunities among geographically distant institutions, and greater access to conferences for learners are among the many improvements forged by these challenging times in medical education. Given the high prevalence of headache disorders and the paucity of headache specialists, training new clinicians with competency in headache medicine is essential. There were many educational challenges and opportunities identified in the literature that resulted from the pressures of the pandemic. Educators need to develop assessments that capture any gaps in learning that may have occurred during this tumultuous time and be vigilant of remediation needs in our learners over the coming years. It is imperative to intentionally design curricula for the future by harnessing new pedagogical tools, innovations, and perspectives gleaned from our experience with the COVID-19 pandemic.

Cogniphobia and neuropsychological functioning in migraine.

OBJECTIVE: Cogniphobia refers to the fear and avoidance of cognitive exertion, believed to cause or exacerbate headache. The objective of the present study was to demonstrate associations between cogniphobia and key fear-avoidance constructs. METHOD: In this cross-sectional study, 72 adults with migraine were recruited from a tertiary headache center. Patients completed the Cogniphobia Scale for Headache Disorders (CS-HD) and a series of self-reported surveys and neuropsychological measures that assessed patient demographics, migraine diagnosis and headache characteristics, current pain severity, emotional state (i.e., anxiety, pain-related fear, and depression), cognitive exertion, and functioning (self-reported disability, self-reported cognitive symptoms, and neuropsychological measures). RESULTS: The CS-HD was associated with greater anxiety (Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System; PROMIS Anxiety; r = 0.39, p = .001), pain-related fear (PASS-20; ρ = 0.37, p = .002), self-reported cognitive symptoms (ABS; ρ = 0.38, p = .001), self-reported headache disability (HDI; r = 0.28, p = .022), and depression (PROMIS Depression; r = 0.25, p = .039). The CS-HD was also associated with lower scores on neuropsychological measures of semantic fluency (Animal Naming; r = -0.29, p = .015), visual immediate recall memory (RCFT Immediate Recall; r = -0.27, p = .027), visual delayed recall memory (RCFT Delayed Recall; r = -0.36, p = .002), and visual recognition memory (RCFT Recognition; r = -0.42, p < .001), with comparable findings when adjusting for depression and anxiety. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated associations between cogniphobia and key fear-avoidance constructs. Fear-avoidance constructs, such as cogniphobia, are important constructs to consider when evaluating migraine and neuropsychological functioning. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Survey of Pain Medicine Specialists' Familiarity with Migraine Management.

OBJECTIVE: Pain specialists treat patients with headache and interface with those who use opioids more so than neurologists and headache specialists. We assessed the headache medicine knowledge and needs of pain specialists. DESIGN/SETTING: Cross-sectional online survey. SUBJECTS: Members of the American Academy of Pain Medicine. METHODS: Survey was based on a prior survey of primary care providers' knowledge and needs and was iteratively updated by four headache specialists, two with pain medicine affiliations. RESULTS: Of the 105 respondents, 71.4% were physicians, 34.3% were women, and they averaged 20.0 ± 13.6 years in practice. The most common specialty was anesthesia (36.1%, n = 35/97) followed by neurology (14.4%, n = 14/97). About half of providers (55.7%, n = 34/61 and 53.3%, n = 32/60) were familiar with the American Academy of Neurology Guidelines for pharmacological migraine prevention and the Choosing Wisely Campaign recommendations for limiting neuroimaging and opioids. Less than half of all providers (39.7%, n = 23/58) were familiar with the American Headache Society guidelines for emergency management of migraine. Providers were aware of Level A evidence-based nonpharmacological therapies, with over three-fourths recognizing cognitive behavioral therapy (80.7%, n = 50/62) and biofeedback (75.8%, n = 47/62) as evidence-based interventions. About 80% of providers (n = 50/64) estimate making migraine diagnoses in ≤50% of their patients with headache. Providers consider starting preventive headache therapy at 7.1 ± 3.9 days/month and report referring 34.3%±34.2% of patients to behavioral interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Dissemination and implementation of headache guidelines is needed for pain medicine specialists. Providers may need help diagnosing migraine based on currently accepted guidelines and referring for evidence-based behavioral therapies.

Factors Associated With, and Mitigation Strategies for, Health Care Disparities Faced by Patients With Headache Disorders.

OBJECTIVE: To review contemporary issues of health care disparities in headache medicine with regard to race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status (SES), and geography and propose solutions for addressing these disparities. METHODS: An Internet and PubMed search was performed and literature was reviewed for key concepts underpinning disparities in headache medicine. Content was refined to areas most salient to our goal of informing the provision of equitable care in headache treatment through discussions with a group of 16 experts from a range of headache subspecialties. RESULTS: Taken together, a multitude of factors, including racism, SES, insurance status, and geographical disparities, contribute to the inequities that exist within the health care system when treating headache disorders. Interventions such as improving public education, advocacy, optimizing telemedicine, engaging in community outreach to educate primary care providers, training providers in cultural sensitivity and competence and implicit bias, addressing health literacy, and developing recruitment strategies to increase representation of underserved groups within headache research are proposed as solutions to ameliorate disparities. CONCLUSION: Neurologists have a responsibility to provide and deliver equitable care to all. It is important that disparities in the management of headache disorders are identified and addressed.

The current state of headache medicine education in the United States and Canada: An observational, survey-based study of neurology clerkship directors and curriculum deans.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the current headache medicine education paradigm in allopathic and osteopathic medical schools in the United States and Canada. BACKGROUND: There is a disparity in the number of clinicians specially trained to treat patients with headache disorders and the number of people who have them. Early education and exposure to headache medicine is crucial to address this disparity. However, the current state of headache education within medical schools across the United States and Canada is unknown. METHODS: The authors created a medical student headache education survey, which is a 20-question REDCap survey that was distributed via email to the neurology clerkship director, curriculum dean, or similar role at each US and Canadian MD or DO conferring medical school. The email listserv was created using the American Academy of Neurology Clerkship Directory, the Association of American Medical Colleges Organization Directory, the American Association of College of Osteopathic Medicine Organization Directory, manual searches of the institutions' websites, and phone calls and emails to administrators as needed. RESULTS: Of the 249 individuals contacted, 78 completed the survey, yielding a response rate of 31.3%. Of those responses, 84.6% of respondents (66/78) reported that their institution has at least one mandatory session on headache disorders. Many of these sessions (72.7% (48/78)) occurred during preclinical training, and 74.2% (49/78) occurred as part of the clinical curricula. Of respondents, 44.9% (39/78) reported that their institutions coordinate headache education across training levels (i.e., from preclinical to clinical), and only 17.9% (14/78) coordinate across clinical rotations. The most common topics covered were headache red flags, migraine, pharmacologic management, and differentiating primary versus secondary headache. 65.4% of respondents (51/78) felt that the preclinical headache curriculum prepares their students for the clinical experience, and 55.1% (43/78) felt that medical students were learning enough about headache medicine at their institution. Barriers to educating medical students about headache included insufficient time during courses, lack of administrative support in curricula development, lack of available resources, and lack of student interest. Case-based learning modules and online lectures were the most desired educational materials to improve medical student headache education at their institution. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of medical schools report incorporating headache medicine education into preclinical or clinical curricula and cover a range of topics in headache medicine. Yet there remains a lack of consistency, with some reporting limited headache education, citing barriers such as lack of administrative support and available educational resources. There is also variation in what is being taught at the medical student level. Future projects should aim to address said barriers, with the goal of providing a standardized headache medicine curriculum for use across medical schools.

Grand rounds education in neurology, with a focus on headache medicine.

OBJECTIVE: To quantify the proportion of headache-related grand rounds in academic neurology programs and to compare this with adult neurology residency director views on the need for an increase in headache-related grand rounds. BACKGROUND: Although headache are among the most prevalent and most burdensome neurologic conditions, headache medicine is often considered underrepresented in neurology departments. Additionally, prior studies have shown that many neurology residency directors feel that training programs do not include an adequate amount of exposure to headache clinics or headache-related didactics. One important aspect of didactic education in neurology departments is adult neurology grand rounds. Previous publications have evaluated neither the proportion of headache-related grand rounds in academic neurology departments nor the residency program directors' views on appropriate amount of headache-related grand rounds. Our study has attempted to quantify this information to elucidate opportunities to improve practice educational gaps. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, we surveyed adult neurology residency directors (from the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education [ACGME] listing of academic adult neurology residency programs) between October 2018 and September 2019. In addition, we used two methods to obtain the proportion of headache-related grand rounds in neurology: (1) emailing residency directors a questionnaire asking for a list of prior grand rounds topics and (2) an online search for each academic neurology program. RESULTS: First, for our grand rounds analysis, headache medicine consisted of 3.7% of the lectures in 2017-2018 and 6.3% of the lectures in 2018-2019 (average of each institution; 17 institutions and 411 total lectures in 2017-2018, 21 institutions and 463 total lectures in 2018-2019). The most common number of lectures on headache medicine for each grand rounds series was zero (for 7 of 17 grand rounds series in 2017-2018 and 7 of 21 in 2018-2019), followed closely by one lecture (for 6 of 17 grand rounds series in 2017-2018 and 6 of 21 in 2018-2019). Second, for our survey, the response rate was 19.3% (29/150). No residency director thought their institution had too many grand rounds dedicated to headache medicine, and 62.1% (18/29) thought they had an adequate amount of headache grand rounds. Within the survey responders, 75.9% (22/29) of adult neurology residency programs have a board-certified headache specialist at their institution. CONCLUSIONS: Although most adult neurology residency directors believe that headache is adequately represented in adult neurology grand rounds, headache medicine makes up 4%-6% of all neurology grand rounds. Compared with other neurology subspecialties and the other core ACGME milestones, headache makes up the fewest grand rounds lectures that were assessed in this study.

Introducing the National Headache Fellowship Opportunities Website.

OBJECTIVE: To build a national Headache Medicine fellowship opportunities website that promotes a unified application timeline and a more transparent application process. BACKGROUND: In July 2019, the Consortium of Academic Headache Program Directors unanimously accepted the recommendations of the American Academy of Neurology Fellowship Application Timing Position Statement. To implement the unified application timeline, the American Headache Society agreed to host a fellowship opportunities website with information on the application process and resources for each fellowship program. METHODS: We designed a main landing page that features the unified timeline for applications and offers. The page also features icons for all participating US fellowship programs (identified using the United Council for Neurologic Subspecialties certification database). The icons serve as links to each fellowship program's individual webpage. We sent an electronic form to each fellowship program director, asking them to submit program information to be included on each fellowship program's individual webpage. Key contents on each program webpage include an image of the program, brief program description, names of applicants who have filled positions, and open positions. Each institution webpage also includes an electronic form that allows applicants to directly send their name, contact, and a brief message to the program director. RESULTS: We launched the website on May 15, 2020. As of June 19, 2020, the website featured 24 participating headache fellowship programs, including 5 pediatric programs and 19 adult training programs, from all regions of the US. CONCLUSION: The website serves as a central resource for Headache Medicine fellowship applicants and promotes a unified application timeline and a more transparent application process.

Incorporating Remote Electrical Neuromodulation (REN) Into Usual Care Reduces Acute Migraine Medication Use: An Open-Label Extension Study.

Background: A recent randomized controlled study showed that 66.7% (66/99) and 37.4% (37/99) of people undergoing remote electrical neuromodulation (REN), a novel non-pharmacological migraine treatment, achieve pain relief and pain freedom, respectively, at 2 h post-treatment. The participants who completed the 6-weeks double-blind phase of this study were offered to participate in an open-label extension (OLE) with an active REN device. Objective: This study investigated the clinical use of REN, focusing on its potential in reducing the use of acute migraine medications. Methods: The parent study for this open-label extension (OLE) was a randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled study of acute treatment conducted on 296 participants enrolled at 12 sites in the USA and Israel. This study included a run-in phase, in which migraine attacks were treated with usual care, and an 8-weeks double-blind treatment phase. One hundred sixty participants continued in an 8-weeks OLE phase in which they could incorporate a REN device into their usual care. Medication use rate (percentage of participants who treated their attacks only with REN and avoided medications in all their attacks) and pain outcomes at 2 h post-treatment were compared between the OLE and the run-in phase in a within-subject design. Results: The analyses were performed on 117 participants with episodic migraine. During the OLE, 89.7% of the participants treated their attacks only with REN and avoided medications in all their attacks compared with 15.4% in the run-in phase (p < 0.0001). The rates of pain relief and pain-free in at least 50% of the treatments at 2 h post-treatment were comparable (pain relief: 58.1% in the run-in phase and 57.3% in the OLE, p = 0.999; pain-free: 23.1% in the run-in vs. 30.8% in the OLE, p = 0.175). Conclusions: REN may reduce the use of acute migraine medications. Thus, incorporating REN into usual care may reduce the risk for medication overuse headache (MOH). Future studies should evaluate whether REN reduces the use of acute migraine medications in a population at risk for MOH.

Evaluation of Cardiovascular Outcomes in Adult Patients With Episodic or Chronic Migraine Treated With Galcanezumab: Data From Three Phase 3, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled EVOLVE-1, EVOLVE-2, and REGAIN Studies.

OBJECTIVE: Blood pressure (BP), pulse, electrocardiogram (ECG), and clinical cardiovascular (CV) outcomes in patients with episodic or chronic migraine treated for up to 6 months with galcanezumab compared to placebo were evaluated. BACKGROUND: Calcitonin gene-related peptide, a potent microvascular vasodilator, has a hypothesized protective role in CV health. Increased CV risks have been reported in patients with migraine. METHODS: In 2 similarly designed episodic migraine 6-month studies and 1 chronic migraine 3-month study, data from patients randomized (1:1:2) to subcutaneous injection of galcanezumab 120 mg/month (following initial 240 mg loading dose) or 240 mg/month or placebo were pooled. Treatment comparisons for cardiovascular treatment-emergent adverse events (CV TEAE) and categorical and mean changes in BP, pulse, and ECG were evaluated using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test. Mean changes from baseline in BP, pulse, and ECG were evaluated using the analysis of covariance model. RESULTS: Overall, among galcanezumab 120 mg (n = 705) and 240 mg (n = 730), and placebo (n = 1451) groups, the percentage of patients reporting ≥1 CV TEAE was low and was similar between the galcanezumab 120 mg (2.6%; odds ratio [OR] = 0.9; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.5,1.5) and galcanezumab 240 mg (3.3%; OR = 1.1; 95% CI: 0.7,1.9), and placebo (2.9%) groups. The frequency of any individual CV TEAE, broad or narrow term, was ≤1.4%. The CV-related serious adverse events that occurred in the galcanezumab 240 mg group (n = 3; acute myocardial infarction, pulmonary embolism, and transient ischemic attack) and placebo group (n = 3; pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis, and myocardial infarction) were not considered treatment related. Four placebo- and 1 galcanezumab-treated patient discontinued due to a CV TEAE. Least squares mean and categorical changes from baseline in BP, pulse, and QT interval corrected using Fridericia's correction were similar across treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: In this 6-month treatment trial, the percentages of galcanezumab- and placebo-treated patients that reported CV TEAEs or serious adverse events were low and similar between groups with few discontinuations. Thus, no clinically meaningful treatment group differences were observed for changes in BP, pulse, or ECG parameters. Additional longer-term studies in a broader and larger cohort are required to better characterize CV safety.

The Influence of Migraine on Driving: Current Understanding, Future Directions, and Potential Implications of Findings.

OBJECTIVE: To review the published findings relevant to migraine and driving performance, with an intent to encourage discussion on research which may broaden understanding in this area and help educate healthcare providers and their patients. BACKGROUND: Motor vehicle crashes result in more than 35,000 deaths and more than 2 million injuries annually in the United States. Migraine is one of the most prevalent diseases in the world, and many symptoms associated with migraine attacks have the potential to negatively influence driving ability. METHODS: We reviewed the published findings related to migraine and driving performance. Study findings relevant to symptoms of migraine and their potential effect on driving were also reviewed. This required a more expansive exploration of the literature beyond migraine, for example, review of the literature relating to the effect of pain, sleepiness, visual disturbances, or vertigo on driving. Finally, the potential effects of treatment for migraine on driving were reviewed. RESULTS: Literature on the effect of migraine on driving performance is sparse and, in general published studies on the topic have a number of limitations. Based on review of the literature pertaining to other disorders, it seems feasible that some symptoms occurring as part of the migraine attack could impact driving performance, although formal study in this area is lacking. Many of the approved treatments for migraine have the potential to impact driving, yet this has not been specifically studied, and the extent to which these risks are communicated to patients is not clear. CONCLUSION: The impact of migraine on driving performance has been largely neglected, with few studies specifically designed to address the topic, and relevant studies were generally small with limited control of confounders. This area requires more focus, given a potential for impact on road safety.

History of NSAID Use in the Treatment of Headaches Pre and Post-industrial Revolution in the United States: the Rise and Fall of Antipyrine, Salicylic Acid, and Acetanilide.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Non-steroid anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) constitute a vital class of medications in today's headache regimen. However, up until the nineteenth century, they were largely unknown to most of the medical community. The purpose of this review is to explore the evolution of NSAIDs in the treatment of headaches spurred on by the Industrial Revolution in the USA. RECENT FINDINGS: The currently available data on the impact of NSAIDs reflects their significant contribution to headache treatment. The emergence of mass production spurred on by the Industrial Revolution, lead to widespread use of antipyrine, salicylic acid, and acetanilide. However, along with it came the growing awareness of consumer safety, leading to their ultimate downfall, and the subsequent birth of the Food and Drug Act.

When Mom Has Migraine: An Observational Study of the Impact of Parental Migraine on Adolescent Children.

OBJECTIVE: The current study aimed to describe the impact of parental migraine on adolescent children (aged 11-17) living at home with a parent with migraine. BACKGROUND: Emerging evidence suggests that migraine impacts the family members of people with migraine. However, there has been little research to evaluate the perspective of the child of a parent with migraine. METHODS: This cross-sectional observational study included parents who met International Classification of Headache Disorders criteria for migraine and their 11-17-year-old children currently living with the parent with migraine recruited from neurologist offices and online. Parents completed measures of demographics, a diagnostic migraine criteria screener, parental illness impact (Parental Illness Impact Survey - Revised; subscales = Burden of Daily Help, Emotional Impact, Social Impact, Communication and Understanding, Impact on Personal Future, Friends Reactions, Parent/Child Relationship, and Global Well-Being), migraine-related disability (MIDAS), headache attack frequency, and headache attack pain intensity. Children completed measures of demographics, parental illness impact, and a migraine diagnostic screener if applicable. RESULTS: Children (n = 40) reported the greatest impact of their parent's migraine on the Global Well-Being (M = 3.3, SD = 0.9) and Parent/Child Relationship (M = 3.5, SD = 0.6) subscales. There were no significant differences between the average child and parent rating of parental migraine impact on children. Correlations between parent and child ratings of parental migraine impact were strongest for the Social Impact subscale (ρ = 0.55, P < .001), and non-significant for the Parent/Child Relationship (ρ = 0.13, P = .416) and Friends Reactions (ρ = 0.18, P = .257) subscales. Higher attack frequency and endorsing severe disability on the MIDAS were associated with higher child-rated impact (eg, lower scores) on Global Well-Being (frequency ρ = -0.35, P = .028; MIDAS t(38) = 2.74, P = .009) and Impact on Personal Future (frequency ρ = -0.41, P = .009; MIDAS t(35.7) = 2.49, P = .017) subscales. Higher attack pain intensity was associated with higher child-rated impact (eg, lower scores) on Burden of Daily Help (r = -0.34, P = .031) and Emotional Impact (r = -0.40, P = .010). Over half of children (23/40, 57.5%) reported some kind of service or intervention to help them manage the impact of their parent's migraine on their lives would be helpful. CONCLUSIONS: Parental migraine impacts children aged 11-17 living in the home, particularly in the domains of global well-being and the parent/child relationship. Parent and child reports are not strongly correlated across all domains of parental impact.

100% Response Rate to Galcanezumab in Patients With Episodic Migraine: A Post Hoc Analysis of the Results From Phase 3, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled EVOLVE-1 and EVOLVE-2 Studies.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize adult patients with episodic migraine who achieved 100% response to galcanezumab treatment. BACKGROUND: Galcanezumab is a humanized monoclonal antibody that selectively binds to the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) and has demonstrated efficacy in reducing migraine headache days (MHD) in patients with episodic and chronic migraine. METHODS: A post hoc analysis of the proportion of patients with 100% response (100% reduction from baseline in monthly MHD) was calculated for each month from pooled data of 2 double-blind, 6-month galcanezumab studies in patients with episodic migraine (4 to 14 MHD and ≥2 migraine attacks per month at baseline). The patients were randomized (1:1:2) to monthly subcutaneous galcanezumab, 120 mg (after 240 mg initial loading dose) or 240 mg, or placebo. A generalized linear mixed model with effects for baseline MHD, treatment, month, and treatment-by-month interaction was used to estimate the mean monthly response rate. RESULTS: The analysis included 1739 patients treated with galcanezumab, 120 mg (n = 436) or 240 mg (n = 428), or placebo (n = 875). The mean monthly 100% response rate on an average month in the 6-month double-blind phase was greater for galcanezumab 120 mg (13.5%) and 240 mg (14.3%) groups vs placebo (5.9%) with odds ratios of 2.5 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.9, 3.2) and 2.6 (95% CI 2.0, 3.4), respectively (P < .001). The rate of 100% monthly response increased at each month over the 6-month double-blind phase with higher rates for galcanezumab dose groups (9 to 21%) than placebo (2 to 10%) (P < .02). Evaluation of 100% response by the number of months showed a greater proportion of galcanezumab-treated patients in either dose group, compared to placebo, were able to achieve a 100% response (P < .001 up to 3 months); however, though greater than placebo, few galcanezumab patients had ≥4 months of 100% response (P < .02). The proportions of patients with 100% response were greatest in the last 3 months of the treatment. Considering the average number days between nonconsecutive MHD across the 6-month period (not just during the times of 100% response), the duration of migraine headache-free periods in the galcanezumab groups was 29 days for those with at least 1 month of 100% response and 55 days for those with at least 3 months of 100% response. This gap was approximately 6 to 11 times greater than the mean gap of 5 days observed at baseline. CONCLUSIONS: More than a third of the patients with episodic migraine treated with galcanezumab 120 mg or 240 mg achieved 100% response for at least 1 month. More patients had 100% monthly response in the last 3 months of the 6-month double-blind period. For those with 100% response for at least 1 month, the average time between nonconsecutive MHD for the entire treatment period was nearly 1 month and approached 2 months for patients with 3 or more months of 100% response.

Headache Interest in Academic Neurology Leadership: A Cross-Sectional Study.

BACKGROUND: Headache disorders are exceedingly common, debilitating neurological conditions, and there is a striking paucity of headache specialists nationally. However, headache education is underrepresented in the curriculum of neurology residency programs and few neurology residents elect to pursue headache medicine fellowships. We aimed to explore the possibility that a low degree of headache interest among neurology department chairs and residency program directors (PDs) underlies this mismatch. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional analysis of chairs and PDs associated with ACGME neurology residency programs. Data sources included the ACGME program list, faculty profiles on institutional webpages, Doximity profiles, the American Headache Society (AHS) membership directory, and the roster of United Council for Neurologic Specialties (UCNS) headache diplomates. A headache interest was deemed to be present with the presence of a declared headache or concussion interest, completion of a headache fellowship, active AHS membership, or UCNS certification. RESULTS: Our review included 137 residency programs comprising 127 department chairs, 132 PDs, and 5 faculty who were both chairs and PDs. Of all faculty, 62 (23.5%) were women. Headache expertise was declared by 10 (7.6%) chairs and 13 (9.5%) PDs. Headache fellowship training was pursued by 1 (0.8%) chair and 5 (3.6%) PDs, and among all faculty was the 10th most common subspecialty fellowship pursued. Three (2.3%) chairs and 7 (5.1%) PDs were AHS members. Seven (5.3%) chairs and 10 (7.3%) PDs were UCNS headache certified. An overall headache interest was present in 29 (11.0%) faculty, including 14 (10.6%) chairs and 15 (10.9%) PDs. A graduate degree aside from an MD (eg, PhD, MPH) was more likely to be achieved in faculty without a headache interest (29.4%) than faculty with a headache interest (6.9%, P = .0076). Residency programs where either the chair or PD had a headache interest were just as likely to feature a UCNS headache fellowship program than programs without chair or PD headache interest (25.0 vs 23.0%, P = .83). CONCLUSIONS: Current neurology department chairs and residency PDs have low rates of headache interest, which may influence the emphasis of headache education in neurology training. Headache interest is associated with lower rates of other graduate degrees, and future analysis should examine if academic faculty interested in headache are less likely to be in leadership positions because of a lack of research funding, opportunities, or accomplishments.