Pharmacogenomic study-A pilot study of the effect of pharmacogenomic phenotypes on the adequate dosing of verapamil for migraine prevention.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate factors affecting the efficacy and tolerability of verapamil for migraine prevention using individual pharmacogenomic phenotypes. BACKGROUND: Verapamil has a wide range of dosing in headache disorders without reliable tools to predict the optimal doses for an individual. METHODS: This is a retrospective chart review examining adults with existing pharmacogenomic reports at Mayo Clinic who had used verapamil for migraine. Effects of six cytochrome P450 phenotypes on the doses of verapamil for migraine prevention were assessed. RESULTS: Our final analysis included 33 migraine patients (82% with aura). The mean minimum effective and maximum tolerable doses of verapamil were 178.2(20-320) mg and 227.9(20-480) mg. A variety of CYP2C9, CYP2D6, and CYP3A5 phenotypes were found, without significant association with the verapamil doses after adjusting for age, sex, body mass index, and smoking status. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrated a wide range of effective and tolerable verapamil doses used for migraine in a cohort with various pharmacogenomic phenotypes.

A large language model-based generative natural language processing framework fine-tuned on clinical notes accurately extracts headache frequency from electronic health records.

OBJECTIVE: To develop a natural language processing (NLP) algorithm that can accurately extract headache frequency from free-text clinical notes. BACKGROUND: Headache frequency, defined as the number of days with any headache in a month (or 4 weeks), remains a key parameter in the evaluation of treatment response to migraine preventive medications. However, due to the variations and inconsistencies in documentation by clinicians, significant challenges exist to accurately extract headache frequency from the electronic health record (EHR) by traditional NLP algorithms. METHODS: This was a retrospective cross-sectional study with patients identified from two tertiary headache referral centers, Mayo Clinic Arizona and Mayo Clinic Rochester. All neurology consultation notes written by 15 specialized clinicians (11 headache specialists and 4 nurse practitioners) between 2012 and 2022 were extracted and 1915 notes were used for model fine-tuning (90%) and testing (10%). We employed four different NLP frameworks: (1) ClinicalBERT (Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers) regression model, (2) Generative Pre-Trained Transformer-2 (GPT-2) Question Answering (QA) model zero-shot, (3) GPT-2 QA model few-shot training fine-tuned on clinical notes, and (4) GPT-2 generative model few-shot training fine-tuned on clinical notes to generate the answer by considering the context of included text. RESULTS: The mean (standard deviation) headache frequency of our training and testing datasets were 13.4 (10.9) and 14.4 (11.2), respectively. The GPT-2 generative model was the best-performing model with an accuracy of 0.92 (0.91, 0.93, 95% confidence interval [CI]) and R2 score of 0.89 (0.87, 0.90, 95% CI), and all GPT-2-based models outperformed the ClinicalBERT model in terms of exact matching accuracy. Although the ClinicalBERT regression model had the lowest accuracy of 0.27 (0.26, 0.28), it demonstrated a high R2 score of 0.88 (0.85, 0.89), suggesting the ClinicalBERT model can reasonably predict the headache frequency within a range of ≤ ± 3 days, and the R2 score was higher than the GPT-2 QA zero-shot model or GPT-2 QA model few-shot training fine-tuned model. CONCLUSION: We developed a robust information extraction model based on a state-of-the-art large language model, a GPT-2 generative model that can extract headache frequency from EHR free-text clinical notes with high accuracy and R2 score. It overcame several challenges related to different ways clinicians document headache frequency that were not easily achieved by traditional NLP models. We also showed that GPT-2-based frameworks outperformed ClinicalBERT in terms of accuracy in extracting headache frequency from clinical notes. To facilitate research in the field, we released the GPT-2 generative model and inference code with open-source license of community use in GitHub. Additional fine-tuning of the algorithm might be required when applied to different health-care systems for various clinical use cases.

Advancing toward precision migraine treatment: Predicting responses to preventive medications with machine learning models based on patient and migraine features.

OBJECTIVE: To develop machine learning models using patient and migraine features that can predict treatment responses to commonly used migraine preventive medications. BACKGROUND: Currently, there is no accurate way to predict response to migraine preventive medications, and the standard trial-and-error approach is inefficient. METHODS: In this cohort study, we analyzed data from the Mayo Clinic Headache database prospectively collected from 2001 to December 2023. Adult patients with migraine completed questionnaires during their initial headache consultation to record detailed clinical features and then at each follow-up to track preventive medication changes and monthly headache days. We included patients treated with at least one of the following migraine preventive medications: topiramate, beta-blockers (propranolol, metoprolol, atenolol, nadolol, timolol), tricyclic antidepressants (amitriptyline, nortriptyline), verapamil, gabapentin, onabotulinumtoxinA, and calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) (erenumab, fremanezumab, galcanezumab, eptinezumab). We pre-trained a deep neural network, "TabNet," using 145 variables, then employed TabNet-embedded data to construct prediction models for each medication to predict binary outcomes (responder vs. non-responder). A treatment responder was defined as having at least a 30% reduction in monthly headache days from baseline. All model performances were evaluated, and metrics were reported in the held-out test set (train 85%, test 15%). SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) were conducted to determine variable importance. RESULTS: Our final analysis included 4260 patients. The responder rate for each medication ranged from 28.7% to 34.9%, and the mean time to treatment outcome for each medication ranged from 151.3 to 209.5 days. The CGRP mAb prediction model achieved a high area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC) of 0.825 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.726, 0.920) and an accuracy of 0.80 (95% CI 0.70, 0.88). The AUCs of prediction models for beta-blockers, tricyclic antidepressants, topiramate, verapamil, gabapentin, and onabotulinumtoxinA were: 0.664 (95% CI 0.579, 0.745), 0.611 (95% CI 0.562, 0.682), 0.605 (95% CI 0.520, 0.688), 0.673 (95% CI 0.569, 0.724), 0.628 (0.533, 0.661), and 0.581 (95% CI 0.550, 0.632), respectively. Baseline monthly headache days, age, body mass index (BMI), duration of migraine attacks, responses to previous medication trials, cranial autonomic symptoms, family history of headache, and migraine attack triggers were among the most important variables across all models. A variable could have different contributions; for example, lower BMI predicts responsiveness to CGRP mAbs and beta-blockers, while higher BMI predicts responsiveness to onabotulinumtoxinA, topiramate, and gabapentin. CONCLUSION: We developed an accurate prediction model for CGRP mAbs treatment response, leveraging detailed migraine features gathered from a headache questionnaire before starting treatment. Employing the same methods, the model performances for other medications were less impressive, though similar to the machine learning models reported in the literature for other diseases. This may be due to CGRP mAbs being migraine-specific. Incorporating medical comorbidities, genomic, and imaging factors might enhance the model performance. We demonstrated that migraine characteristics are important in predicting treatment responses and identified the most crucial predictors for each of the seven types of preventive medications. Our results suggest that precision migraine treatment is feasible.

Pulsatile Tinnitus: Differential Diagnosis and Approach to Management.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The purpose of this review is to provide an updated approach to the evaluation and management of pulsatile tinnitus (PT), an uncommon but often treatable subtype of tinnitus. RECENT FINDINGS: Secondary PT can be due to either vascular or non-vascular etiologies, including, but not limited to: neoplasm, arteriovenous malformation or fistula, idiopathic intracranial hypertension, dural venous sinus stenosis, otoacoustic etiologies (e.g., otosclerosis, patulous eustachian tube) and bony defects (e.g., superior semicircular canal dehiscence). Computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) imaging have comparable diagnostic yield, though each may be more sensitive to specific etiologies. If initial vascular imaging is negative and a vascular etiology is strongly suspected, digital subtraction angiography (DSA) may further aid in the diagnosis. Many vascular etiologies of PT can be managed endovascularly, often leading to PT improvement or resolution. Notably, venous sinus stenting is an emerging therapy for PT secondary to idiopathic intracranial hypertension with venous sinus stenosis. Careful history and physical exam can help establish the differential diagnosis for PT and guide subsequent evaluation and management. Additional studies on the efficacy and long-term outcome of venous sinus stenting for venous stenosis are warranted.

Lacrimal Neuralgia: A Case Report and Comprehensive Review of the Literature.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Lacrimal neuralgia is a rare periorbital neuralgia. To date, only nine cases have been reported in the literature. Herein, we report a case and a comprehensive overview of the entity with a focus on the differential diagnosis of lacrimal neuralgia. Additionally, we propose putative diagnostic criteria for this rare neuralgia based on cases that have been reported. RECENT FINDINGS: Among the ten cases of lacrimal neuralgia reported (including the one in this review), seven out of ten were idiopathic, and the other three were considered secondary. Most patients reported stabbing and shooting pain that was either paroxysmal or continuous. The most effective therapy was nerve block for seven patients and pregabalin for three patients. The most important clues to differentiate lacrimal neuralgia from other causes of periorbital pain include pain topography and pain with features suggestive of neuralgia. The core feature of lacrimal neuralgia is neuralgic pain located in the area supplied by the lacrimal nerve, and the etiology could be primary or secondary. Responsiveness to anesthetic blockade might better serve as a confirmational, rather than mandatory, criterion for diagnosis.

Application of Artificial Intelligence in the Headache Field.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Headache disorders are highly prevalent worldwide. Rapidly advancing capabilities in artificial intelligence (AI) have expanded headache-related research with the potential to solve unmet needs in the headache field. We provide an overview of AI in headache research in this article. RECENT FINDINGS: We briefly introduce machine learning models and commonly used evaluation metrics. We then review studies that have utilized AI in the field to advance diagnostic accuracy and classification, predict treatment responses, gather insights from various data sources, and forecast migraine attacks. Furthermore, given the emergence of ChatGPT, a type of large language model (LLM), and the popularity it has gained, we also discuss how LLMs could be used to advance the field. Finally, we discuss the potential pitfalls, bias, and future directions of employing AI in headache medicine. Many recent studies on headache medicine incorporated machine learning, generative AI and LLMs. A comprehensive understanding of potential pitfalls and biases is crucial to using these novel techniques with minimum harm. When used appropriately, AI has the potential to revolutionize headache medicine.

Pre-cluster symptoms in a Taiwanese cohort of cluster headache: symptom profiles and clinical predictions.

BACKGROUND: Pre-cluster symptoms (PCSs) are symptoms preceding cluster bouts and might have implications for the treatment of cluster headache (CH). This study investigated the prevalence of PCSs, and their utility in predicting upcoming bouts as well as the associations with therapeutic efficacy. METHODS: We prospectively collected data from patients with CH. Each patient received a structured interview and completed questionnaire surveys during CH bouts. In sub-study 1, we cross-sectionally analyzed the prevalence, symptomatology, and predictability of upcoming bouts. Overall, 34 PCSs, divided into seven categories, were queried, including head and neck pain, cranial autonomic symptoms, restlessness, fatigue or mood changes, sleep alterations, constitutional symptoms, and generalized pain. In sub-study 2, we recorded the weekly frequency of CH attacks after the initiation of verapamil concurrently with a 14-day transitional therapy based on the patients' headache diary. A responder to verapamil was defined as a patient who have a reduction from baseline of at least 50% in the weekly frequency of CH attacks 4 weeks after the initiation of verapamil. RESULTS: A total of 168 CH patients (women/men: 39/129) completed the study. In sub-study 1, we found 149 (88.7%) experienced PCSs, with a median of 24 (IQR 18 to 72) hours before the bouts. Up to 57.7% of patients with PCS reported that they could predict upcoming bouts. Among the seven categories of PCSs, head and neck pain was the most common (81.0%) and was associated with a higher predictability of upcoming bouts (odds ratio [OR] = 4.0; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.7-9.6). In sub-study 2, we found two categories of PCSs were associated with the response to verapamil: sleep alteration (OR = 2.5 [95% CI = 1.3-4.8], p = 0.004) and ≥ 1 cranial autonomic symptoms (OR = 2.7 [95% CI = 1.4-5.1], p = 0.003). CONCLUSION: PCSs were very common in CH and could be used to predict upcoming bouts. Different symptom categories of PCSs may have different clinical implications.

Narrative review of migraine management in patients with renal or hepatic disease.

OBJECTIVES/BACKGROUND: Treatment of migraine in the setting of either renal or hepatic disease can be daunting for clinicians. Not only does the method of metabolism have to be considered, but also the method of elimination/excretion of the parent drug and any active or toxic metabolites. Furthermore, it is difficult to think about liver or kidney disease in isolation, as liver disease can sometimes contribute to impaired renal function and renal disease can sometimes impair hepatic metabolism, through the cytochrome P450 system. METHODS: A detailed search for terms related to liver disease, renal disease, and migraine management was performed in PubMed, Ovid Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library.For each medication, product labels were retrieved and reviewed using the US FDA website, with additional review of IBM Micromedex, LiverTox, and the Renal Drug Handbook. RESULTS: This manuscript provides an overview of migraine drug metabolism and how it can be affected by liver and renal impairment. It reviews the standard terminology recommended by the US Food and Drug Administration for the different stages of hepatic and renal failure. The available evidence regarding the use of abortive and preventative medicines in the setting of organ failure is discussed in detail, including more recent therapies such as lasmiditan, gepants, and calcitonin gene-related peptide antibodies. CONCLUSIONS: For acute therapy, the use of NSAIDS should be limited, as these carry risk for both severe hepatic and renal disease. Triptans can be selectively used, often with dose guideline adjustments. Ubrogepant may be used in severe hepatic disease with dose adjustment and lasmiditan can be used in end stage renal disease. Though non-medicine strategies may be the most reasonable initial approach, many preventative medications can be used in the setting of hepatic and renal disease, often with dose adjustment. This review provides tables of guidelines, including reduced dosing recommendations, for the use of abortive and preventative migraine medications in hepatic and renal failure.

Evaluation and treatment of headache associated with moyamoya disease - a narrative review.

BACKGROUND: Headache in patients with moyamoya disease is an under-addressed topic in the medical literature. Delay in the diagnosis of moyamoya disease or inappropriate treatment of headache could lead to devastating cerebrovascular outcome. With the evolving understanding of moyamoya disease, migraine pathophysiology, and various migraine-specific medications that have become available, it is crucial to provide an updated overview on this topic. METHODS: We searched PubMed for keywords including moyamoya disease, moyamoya syndrome, headache in moyamoya, surgical revascularization, surgical bypass, migraine and moyamoya, and calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP). We summarized the literature and provide a comprehensive review of the headache presentation, possible mechanisms, the impact of various surgical revascularizations on headache in patients with moyamoya disease, and the medical management of headache incorporating novel migraine-specific treatments.Results and conclusion: The most common headache phenotype is migraine; tension-type headache, hemiplegic migraine, and cluster headache have also been reported. Most patients experience improvement of headache after surgical revascularization, though some patients report worsening, or new-onset headache after surgery. Given the complexity of moyamoya disease, careful consideration of different types of medical therapy for headache is necessary to improve the quality of life while not increasing the risk of adverse cerebrovascular events. More prospective studies are warranted to better understand and manage headache in patients with moyamoya disease.

Migrainous infarction of the eye: Two cases of monocular ischemic complications associated with retinal migraine.

BACKGROUND: Retinal migraine is defined by fully reversible monocular visual phenomena. We present two cases that were complicated by permanent monocular vision deficits. CASES: A 57-year-old man with history of retinal migraine experienced persistent monocular vision loss after one stereotypical retinal migraine, progressing to finger-count vision over 4 days. He developed paracentral acute middle maculopathy that progressed to central retinal artery occlusion. A 27-year-old man with history of retinal migraine presented with persistent right eye superotemporal scotoma after a retinal migraine. Relative afferent pupillary defect and superotemporal visual field defect were noted, consistent with ischemic optic neuropathy. CONCLUSION: Retinal migraine can complicate with permanent monocular visual loss, suggesting potential migrainous infarction of the retina or optic nerve. A thorough cerebrovascular evaluation must be completed, which was unrevealing in our cases. Acute and preventive migraine therapy may be considered in retinal migraine patients, to mitigate rare but potentially permanent visual loss.

Acute Treatment of Headache (Focus on Migraine).

Acute treatments for migraine and cluster headache are necessary to abort attacks, relieve pain and associated symptoms, and restore an individual's ability to function. Acute headache treatments consist of a variety of medication and nonmedication options. In this article, we discuss the approach to acute treatment of migraine and cluster headache. We summarize the level of evidence to support each acute medication class according to recent systematic reviews and meta-analyses, as well as guideline recommendations from the American Headache Society, American Academy of Neurology, and European Federation of Neurological Society.

Narrative review of peripheral nerve blocks for the management of headache.

OBJECTIVE: To provide an overview of the current available literature on peripheral nerve blocks for the management of migraine and other headache disorders in adults. BACKGROUND: Peripheral nerve blocks have been commonly performed in the headache practice for migraine, cluster headache, occipital neuralgia, and other headache disorders, despite a paucity of evidence supporting their use historically. In the past decade, there has been an effort to explore the efficacy and safety of peripheral nerve blocks for the management of headache, with the greatest interest centered around greater occipital blocks. DESIGN: We performed a search in PubMed using key words including "occipital nerve blocks," "peripheral nerve blocks," "occipital nerve," "migraine," "cluster headache," and "neuralgia." We reviewed the randomized controlled trials (RCTs), observational studies, and case series, and summarized the anatomy, techniques, and the evidence for the use of peripheral nerve blocks in different headache disorders, with particular focus on available RCTs. Case reports were included for a detail review of adverse events. RESULTS: Of 12 RCTs examining the use of greater occipital nerve blocks for migraine, all but one demonstrate efficacy with reduction in headache frequency, intensity, and/or duration compared to placebo. Studies have not demonstrated a difference in clinical outcomes with the use of corticosteroids for nerve blocks compared to blocks with local anesthetic in the treatment of migraine. There are two RCTs supporting the use of greater occipital blockade for cluster headache, both showing benefit of suboccipitally injected corticosteroid. One RCT suggests benefit of greater occipital nerve blocks for cervicogenic headache. Observational studies and case series/reports show that greater occipital nerve block may be effective in prolonged migraine aura, status migrainosus, post-dural puncture headache, and occipital neuralgia. Overall, peripheral nerve blocks are well tolerated. Serious side effects are rare but have been reported, including acute cerebellar syndrome and infection. CONCLUSIONS: Peripheral nerve blocks, especially occipital nerve blocks, are a viable treatment option for migraine and may be helpful in cluster headache as a transitional therapy or rescue therapy. Additional prospective studies are needed to investigate the efficacy and safety of occipital nerve blocks for long-term migraine prevention, as well as for other headache disorders, such as occipital neuralgia.

Migraine with aura associates with a higher artificial intelligence: ECG atrial fibrillation prediction model output compared to migraine without aura in both women and men.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the artificial intelligence-enabled electrocardiogram (AI-ECG) atrial fibrillation (AF) prediction model output in patients with migraine with aura (MwA) and migraine without aura (MwoA). BACKGROUND: MwA is associated with an approximately twofold risk of ischemic stroke. Longitudinal cohort studies showed that patients with MwA have a higher incidence of developing AF compared to those with MwoA. The Mayo Clinic Cardiology team developed an AI-ECG algorithm that calculates the probability of concurrent paroxysmal or impending AF in ECGs with normal sinus rhythm (NSR). METHODS: Adult patients with an MwA or MwoA diagnosis and at least one NSR ECG within the past 20 years at Mayo Clinic were identified. Patients with an ECG-confirmed diagnosis of AF were excluded. For each patient, the ECG with the highest AF prediction model output was used as the index ECG. Comparisons between MwA and MwoA were conducted in the overall group (including men and women of all ages), women only, and men only in each age range (18 to <35, 35 to <55, 55 to <75, ≥75 years), and adjusted for age, sex, and six common vascular comorbidities that increase risk for AF. RESULTS: The final analysis of our cross-sectional study included 40,002 patients (17,840 with MwA, 22,162 with MwoA). The mean (SD) age at the index ECG was 48.2 (16.0) years for MwA and 45.9 (15.0) years for MwoA (p < 0.001). The AF prediction model output was significantly higher in the MwA group compared to MwoA (mean [SD] 7.3% [15.0%] vs. 5.6% [12.4%], mean difference [95% CI] 1.7% [1.5%, 2.0%], p < 0.001). After adjusting for vascular comorbidities, the difference between MwA and MwoA remained significant in the overall group (least square means of difference [95% CI] 0.7% [0.4%, 0.9%], p < 0.001), 18 to <35 (0.4% [0.1%, 0.7%], p = 0.022), and 35 to <55 (0.5% [0.2%, 0.8%], p < 0.001), women of all ages (0.6% [0.3%, 0.8%], p < 0.001), men of all ages (1.0% [0.4%, 1.6%], p = 0.002), women 35 to <55 (0.6% [0.3%, 0.9%], p < 0.001), and men 18 to <35 (1.2% [0.3%, 2.1%], p = 0.008). CONCLUSIONS: Utilizing a novel AI-ECG algorithm on a large group of patients, we demonstrated that patients with MwA have a significantly higher AF prediction model output, implying a higher probability of concurrent paroxysmal or impending AF, compared to MwoA in both women and men. Our results suggest that MwA is an independent risk factor for AF, especially in patients <55 years old, and that AF-mediated cardioembolism may play a role in the migraine-stroke association for some patients.

Real-World Patient Experience of CGRP-Targeting Therapy for Migraine: a Narrative Review.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To summarize available calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP)-targeting therapies for migraine and discuss their use in real-world populations. BACKGROUND: CGRP has long been a topic of interest in migraine pathophysiology, with new therapies targeting CGRP since 2018 for both the preventive and acute treatment of migraine. METHODS: We searched PubMed using keywords including "migraine," "CGRP," "real-world," "erenumab," "galcanezumab," "fremanezumab," "eptinezumab," "ubrogepant," "rimegepant," and "atogepant." We reviewed all pertinent studies and summarized main findings. We also compiled detailed patient characteristics (e.g., migraine diagnoses, medication overuse, prior treatment failures) and treatment outcome measures, such as 50% responder rates, reduction in migraine days, and adverse event rates in several tables. Overall, studies reporting real-world patient experiences of CGRP-targeting therapies suggested meaningful effectiveness for migraine treatment with response rates comparable to the numbers reported in clinical trials. Furthermore, studies suggested benefit in patients with multiple prior unsuccessful treatment trials, medication overuse, and complex medical comorbidities. In some studies, adverse event rates have been notably higher than reported in clinical trials. Additional long-term data is needed to further evaluate sustained efficacy, predictors of treatment response, and adverse events.

Patient experience of telemedicine for headache care during the COVID-19 pandemic: An American Migraine Foundation survey study.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to investigate the patient experience of telemedicine for headache care during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. BACKGROUND: The use of telemedicine has rapidly expanded and evolved since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. Telemedicine eliminates the physical and geographic barriers to health care, preserves personal protective equipment, and prevents the spread of COVID-19 by allowing encounters to happen in a socially distanced way. However, few studies have assessed the patient perspective of telemedicine for headache care. METHODS: The American Migraine Foundation (AMF) designed a standardized electronic questionnaire to assess the patient experience of telemedicine for headache care between March and September 2020 to help inform future quality improvement as part of its patient advocacy initiative. The date parameters were identified as the emergence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 disease and the declaration of a national emergency in the United States. The questionnaire was distributed electronically to more than 100,000 members of the AMF community through social media platforms and the AMF email database. RESULTS: A total of 1172 patients responded to our electronic questionnaire, with 1098 complete responses. The majority, 1081/1153 (93.8%) patients, had a previous headache diagnosis prior to the telemedicine encounter. A total of 648/1127 (57.5%) patients reported that they had used telemedicine for headache care during the study period. Among those who participated in telehealth visits, 553/647 (85.5%) patients used it for follow-up visits; 94/647 (14.5%) patients used it for new patient visits. During the telemedicine encounters, 282/645 (43.7%) patients were evaluated by headache specialists, 222/645 (34.4%) patients by general neurologists, 198/645 (30.7%) patients by primary care providers, 73/645 (11.3%) patients by headache nurse practitioners, and 21/645 (3.2%) patients by headache nurses. Only 47/633 (7.4%) patients received a new headache diagnosis from telemedicine evaluation, whereas the other 586/633 (92.6%) patients did not have a change in their diagnoses. During these visits, a new treatment was prescribed for 358/636 (52.3%) patients, whereas 278/636 (43.7%) patients did not have changes made to their treatment plan. The number (%) of patients who rated the telemedicine headache care experience as "very good," "good," "fair," "poor," and "other" were 396/638 (62.1%), 132/638 (20.7%), 67/638 (10.5%), 23/638 (3.6%), and 20/638 (3.1%), respectively. Detailed reasons for "other" are listed in the manuscript. Most patients, 573/638 (89.8%), indicated that they would prefer to continue to use telemedicine for their headache care, 45/638 (7.1%) patients would not, and 20/638 (3.1%) patients were unsure. CONCLUSIONS: Our study evaluating the patient perspective demonstrated that telemedicine facilitated headache care for many patients during the COVID-19 pandemic, resulting in high patient satisfaction rates, and a desire to continue to use telemedicine for future headache care among those who completed the online survey.

Real-world efficacy, tolerability, and safety of ubrogepant.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the real-world efficacy, tolerability, and safety of ubrogepant in a tertiary headache center. BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of ubrogepant for the acute treatment of migraine were established in phase 3 randomized controlled trials. However, there is no real-world data of patient experience with ubrogepant in a population in which the majority of patients have chronic migraine, multiple prior unsuccessful treatments, complex medical comorbidities, and concurrent use of other migraine-specific medications. METHOD: This was a post-market cohort study conducted at Mayo Clinic Arizona. All patients prescribed ubrogepant were tracked and contacted 1-3 months after the prescription to answer a list of standardized questions. Demographic information and additional headache history were obtained from chart review. RESULTS: We obtained eligible questionnaire responses from 106 patients. Chronic migraine accounted for 92/106 (86.8%) of the population. Complete headache freedom (from mild/moderate/severe to no pain) and headache relief (from moderate/severe to mild/no pain or mild to no pain) for ≥75% of all treated attacks at 2 hours after taking ubrogepant were achieved in 20/105 (19.0%) and 50/105 (47.6%) patients, respectively. A total of 33/106 (31.1%) patients reported being "very satisfied" with ubrogepant. Adverse events were reported in 42/106 (39.6%) patients, including fatigue in 29/106 (27.4%), dry mouth in 8/106 (7.5%), nausea/vomiting in 7/106 (6.6%), constipation in 5/106 (4.7%), dizziness in 3/106 (2.8%), and other adverse events in 7/106 (6.6%). Predictive factors for being a "good responder" to ubrogepant, defined as headache relief for ≥75% of all treated attacks at 2 hours after taking ubrogepant, included migraine with aura, episodic migraine, <5 prior unsuccessful preventive or acute treatment trials. Additionally, prior treatment responses to a CGRP monoclonal antibody and onabotulinumtoxinA injections are predictive of treatment responses and patient satisfaction to ubrogepant. For the 62/106 (58.5%) patients concurrently using a CGRP monoclonal antibody, there was no difference in the "good responder" rate or adverse event rate compared to those who were not on a CGRP monoclonal antibody, though the rate of moderate, as opposed to mild adverse events was higher, 11/62 (47.8%) versus 3/44 (17.6%), p = 0.048. Additionally, 16 patients had a history of significant cardiovascular or cerebrovascular diseases. No severe adverse events were reported in any patient. CONCLUSION: Our study confirms and extends the efficacy profile and tolerability of ubrogepant in a real-world tertiary headache clinic and identifies factors that may predict efficacy. Adverse event rates were higher than reported in clinical trials. Further studies are needed to confirm these findings and to evaluate the long-term efficacy and safety of ubrogepant.

Migraine with Visual aura and the Risk of Stroke- a Narrative Review.

OBJECTIVES: Patients with migraine with visual aura (MwvA) often present to eye care providers for evaluation. A thorough ophthalmological history and examination is needed to exclude ophthalmologic disorders. Additionally, it has been increasingly recognized that MwvA is associated with ischemic stroke (IS). The aim of this narrative review is to provide a comprehensive overview of the differential diagnosis of MwvA and its association with IS. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a PubMed search using key words including "migraine aura", "visual aura without headache", "late onset migraine accompaniment", "migraine and stroke", "migraine and atrial fibrillation", and "migraine and patent foramen ovale (PFO)". We narratively summarized the main findings of the identified studies in sections including age of onset and frequency of migraine with aura, stroke subtypes, and the role of cardioembolism in the migraine-stroke association. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: For women younger than 50 years, MwvA is associated with an increased risk of IS, and the risk further increases in patients who also smoke and use oral contraceptives. Age of onset of MwvA 50 years or greater is associated with IS that occurs in late life. Studies reported that increased frequency of aura is associated with an increased risk of IS in women. MwvA is associated with an increased risk of cardioembolic stroke and a higher incidence of atrial fibrillation compared to migraine without aura. Most studies that assessed the migraine-stroke association were based on patients with MwvA. The risks of stroke associated with other types of migraine aura or aura without headache, as well as such association in men require further investigation. More data is needed to determine the absolute risk of stroke when evaluating MwvA in situations including smoking and low dose estrogen use, new or late onset (>50 years) MwvA, to facilitate the development of practice guidelines for stroke prevention in specific clinical scenarios.

A pilot exploratory study comparing the King-Devick test (KDT) during and between migraine attacks.

BACKGROUND: The King-Devick test is a timed rapid number naming task that involves complex cerebral functions. The objective of this pilot exploratory study is to determine whether there is a difference in the King-Devick test during a migraine attack compared to the interictal phase. METHODS: We evaluated 29 adult subjects with migraine with aura or migraine without aura. For each participant, we performed King-Devick tests during migraine attacks and interictal phases. Subjects served as their own controls. RESULTS: The King-Devick test was slower during the migraine attack compared to the interictal baseline (median 4.6 sec slower, p < 0.001). The slowing of the King-Devick test during migraine attack was more prominent in those with migraine with aura compared to subjects with migraine without aura (median 7.5 vs. 2.8 sec, p = 0.028). CONCLUSIONS: This exploratory, observational study shows changes in the King-Devick test during migraine compared to the interictal phase. Future studies are required to determine if the King-Devick test may be used as a rapid and simple tool to objectively characterize migraine-associated disability.

COVID-19 and Headache Medicine: A Narrative Review of Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drug (NSAID) and Corticosteroid Use.

OBJECTIVE: To summarize the current literature on non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug and corticosteroid use during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, recognizing that these are commonly used treatments in the field of headache medicine. BACKGROUND: The use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and corticosteroids in patients during the COVID-19 pandemic has been a controversial topic within the medical community and international and national health organizations. Lay press and social media outlets have circulated opinions on this topic despite the fact that the evidence for or against the use of these medications is sparse. In the field of headache medicine, these medications are used commonly and both patients and clinicians may have questions or hesitations pertaining to their use during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: A detailed search of the scientific and popular literature was performed. RESULTS: There is limited literature pertaining to the safety of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and corticosteroids during the COVID-19 pandemic. To date, there are no clear scientific data that preclude the use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in the general population who may acquire COVID-19 or in those acutely infected with the virus. Several health organizations have concluded that treatment with corticosteroids during active infection should be avoided due to concerns of prolonged viral shedding in the respiratory tract and the lack of survival benefit based on the data from past coronaviruses and influenza virus; specific exceptions exist including treatment for underlying asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, septic shock, and acute respiratory distress syndrome. CONCLUSION: Scientific information regarding the COVID-19 pandemic is constantly evolving, and limited or contradictory information can lead to confusion for both patients and clinicians. It is recommended that prior to prescribing non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and steroids for the treatment of headache, clinicians have open discussions with their patients about the potential risks and benefits of using these medications during the COVID-19 pandemic. This manuscript summarizes the currently available evidence and understanding about these risks and benefits to help clinicians navigate such discussions.

RAcial Disparities in Ich after IV-tPA and Neurointerventional Treatment (RADIANT).

OBJECTIVE: To study the rate of symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage (SxICH) and major systemic hemorrhage (MSH) after acute stroke treatments among different ethnicities/races. BACKGROUND: Studies have reported ethnic/racial disparities in intravenous tPA treatment (IV tPA). The adverse outcome of tPA and/or intra-arterial intervention (IA) among different ethnicities/races requires investigation. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed all patients from an IRB-approved registry between June 2004 and June 2018. Patients who received IV tPA, IA, or both for acute stroke were identified and classified into 2 ethnic groups: non-Hispanics or Hispanics (NH/H) and 4 racial groups: Asian, Black, Other (Native Americans and Pacific Islanders), and White (A/B/O/W). RESULTS: We identified 916 patients that received acute therapy (A/B/O/W: n = 50/104/16/746, H/NH: n = 184/730). For those received IV tPA only (n = 759), IA only (n = 85), and IV tPA+IA (n = 72), the SxICH rate was 4.3%, 4.7%, and 6.9%; the MSH rate was 1.3%, 0%, and 0%, respectively. No significant difference in the rate of SxICH or MSH among different racial or ethnic groups was found after either therapy. Asian race (OR 14.17, P = .01), in association with age, international normalized value (INR), and Partial thromboplastin time (PTT) (OR 1.06, 46.52, and 1.18, P = .020, 0.037, and 0.042, respectively), was predictive of SxICH after IV tPA. There was a significant correlation between age and National Institute of Health Stroke Scale with SxICH (P < .01, P = .02, respectively). Age, INR, and PTT were independent predictors of SxICH after IV tPA (OR 1.06, 46.52, and 1.18, P = .02, 0.04, and 0.04, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: There was no significant difference in the rate of SxICH or MSH after IV tPA, IA, or IV tPA+IA among different racial or ethnic groups. Larger studies are needed to elucidate the race specific causes of SxICH and MSH after acute stroke treatment.