Practice guideline update summary: Pharmacologic treatment for pediatric migraine prevention: Report of the Guideline Development, Dissemination, and Implementation Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology and the American Headache Society.

OBJECTIVE: To provide updated evidence-based recommendations for migraine prevention using pharmacologic treatment with or without cognitive behavioral therapy in the pediatric population. METHODS: The authors systematically reviewed literature from January 2003 to August 2017 and developed practice recommendations using the American Academy of Neurology 2011 process, as amended. RESULTS: Fifteen class I-III studies on migraine prevention in children in adolescents met inclusion criteria. There is insufficient evidence to determine if children and adolescents receiving divalproex, onabotulinumtoxinA, amitriptyline, nimodipine and flunarizine are more or less likely than those receiving placebo to have a reduction in headache frequency. Children with migraine receiving propranolol are possibly more likely than those receiving placebo to have an at least 50% reduction in headache frequency. Children and adolescents receiving topiramate and cinnarizine are probably more likely than those receiving placebo to have a decrease in headache frequency. Children with migraine receiving amitriptyline plus cognitive behavioral therapy are more likely than those receiving amitriptyline plus headache education to have a reduction in headache frequency. Recommendations The majority of randomized controlled trials studying the efficacy of preventive medications for pediatric migraine fail to demonstrate superiority to placebo. Recommendations for the prevention of migraine in children include counseling on lifestyle and behavioral factors that influence headache frequency, and assessment and management of comorbid disorders associated with headache persistence. Clinicians should engage in shared decision making with patients and caregivers regarding the use of preventive treatments for migraine, including discussion of the limitations in the evidence to support pharmacologic treatments.

Practice guideline update summary: Acute treatment of migraine in children and adolescents: Report of the Guideline Development, Dissemination, and Implementation Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology and the American Headache Society.

OBJECTIVE: To provide evidence-based recommendations for the acute symptomatic treatment of children and adolescents with migraine. METHODS: We performed a systematic review of the literature and rated risk of bias of included studies according to the American Academy of Neurology classification of evidence criteria. A multidisciplinary panel developed practice recommendations, integrating findings from the systematic review and following an Institute of Medicine-compliant process to ensure transparency and patient engagement. Recommendations were supported by structured rationales, integrating evidence from the systematic review, related evidence, principles of care, and inferences from evidence. RESULTS: There is evidence to support the efficacy of the use of ibuprofen, acetaminophen (in children and adolescents), and triptans (mainly in adolescents) for the relief of migraine pain, although confidence in the evidence varies between agents. There is high confidence that adolescents receiving oral sumatriptan/naproxen and zolmitriptan nasal spray are more likely to be headache free at 2 hours than those receiving placebo. No acute treatments were effective for migraine-related nausea or vomiting; some triptans were effective for migraine-related phonophobia and photophobia. RECOMMENDATIONS: Recommendations for the treatment of acute migraine in children and adolescents focus on the importance of early treatment, choosing the route of administration best suited to the characteristics of the individual migraine attack, and providing counselling on lifestyle factors that can exacerbate migraine, including trigger avoidance and medication overuse.

Naturalistic study of guideline implementation tool use via evaluation of website access and physician survey.

BACKGROUND: Clinical guidelines support decision-making at the point-of-care but the onus is often on individual users such as physicians to implement them. Research shows that the inclusion of implementation tools in or with guidelines (GItools) is associated with guideline use. However, there is little research on which GItools best support implementation by individual physicians. The purpose of this study was to investigate naturalistic access and use of GItools produced by the American Academy of Neurology (AAN) to inform future tool development. METHODS: Website accesses over six months were summarized for eight AAN guidelines and associated GItools published between July 2012 and August 2013. Academy members were surveyed about use of tools accompanying the sport concussion guideline. Data were analyzed using summary statistics and the Chi-square test. RESULTS: The clinician summary was accessed more frequently (29.0%, p < 0.001) compared with the slide presentation (26.8%), patient summary (23.2%) or case study (20.9%), although this varied by guideline topic. For the sport concussion guideline, which was accompanied by a greater variety of GItools, the mobile phone quick reference check application was most frequently accessed, followed by the clinician summary, patient summary, and slide presentation. For the sports concussion guideline survey, most respondents (response rate 21.8%, 168/797) were aware of the guideline (88.1%) and had read the guideline (78.6%). For GItool use, respondents indicated reading the reference card (51.2%), clinician summary (45.2%), patient summary (28.0%), mobile phone application (26.2%), and coach/athletic trainer summary (20.2%). Patterns of sports concussion GItool use were similar between respondents who said they had and had not yet implemented the guideline. CONCLUSIONS: Developers faced with resource limitations may wish to prioritize the development of printable or mobile application clinician summaries, which were accessed significantly more than other types of GItools. Further research is needed to understand how to optimize the design of such GItools.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Headache: 2022 Update.

Headache is an ancient problem plaguing a large proportion of the population. At present, headache disorders rank third among the global causes of disability, accounting for over $78 billion per year in direct and indirect costs in the United States. Given the prevalence of headache and the wide range of possible etiologies, the goal of this document is to help clarify the most appropriate initial imaging guidelines for headache for eight clinical scenarios/variants, which range from acute onset, life-threatening etiologies to chronic benign scenarios. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision process support the systematic analysis of the medical literature from peer reviewed journals. Established methodology principles such as Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE are adapted to evaluate the evidence. The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method User Manual provides the methodology to determine the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where peer reviewed literature is lacking or equivocal, experts may be the primary evidentiary source available to formulate a recommendation.

Practice guideline update summary: Pharmacologic treatment for pediatric migraine prevention: Report of the Guideline Development, Dissemination, and Implementation Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology and the American Headache Society.

OBJECTIVE: To provide updated evidence-based recommendations for migraine prevention using pharmacologic treatment with or without cognitive behavioral therapy in the pediatric population. METHODS: The authors systematically reviewed literature from January 2003 to August 2017 and developed practice recommendations using the American Academy of Neurology 2011 process, as amended. RESULTS: Fifteen Class I-III studies on migraine prevention in children and adolescents met inclusion criteria. There is insufficient evidence to determine if children and adolescents receiving divalproex, onabotulinumtoxinA, amitriptyline, nimodipine, or flunarizine are more or less likely than those receiving placebo to have a reduction in headache frequency. Children with migraine receiving propranolol are possibly more likely than those receiving placebo to have an at least 50% reduction in headache frequency. Children and adolescents receiving topiramate and cinnarizine are probably more likely than those receiving placebo to have a decrease in headache frequency. Children with migraine receiving amitriptyline plus cognitive behavioral therapy are more likely than those receiving amitriptyline plus headache education to have a reduction in headache frequency. RECOMMENDATIONS: The majority of randomized controlled trials studying the efficacy of preventive medications for pediatric migraine fail to demonstrate superiority to placebo. Recommendations for the prevention of migraine in children include counseling on lifestyle and behavioral factors that influence headache frequency and assessment and management of comorbid disorders associated with headache persistence. Clinicians should engage in shared decision-making with patients and caregivers regarding the use of preventive treatments for migraine, including discussion of the limitations in the evidence to support pharmacologic treatments.

Practice guideline update summary: Acute treatment of migraine in children and adolescents: Report of the Guideline Development, Dissemination, and Implementation Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology and the American Headache Society.

OBJECTIVE: To provide evidence-based recommendations for the acute symptomatic treatment of children and adolescents with migraine. METHODS: We performed a systematic review of the literature and rated risk of bias of included studies according to the American Academy of Neurology classification of evidence criteria. A multidisciplinary panel developed practice recommendations, integrating findings from the systematic review and following an Institute of Medicine-compliant process to ensure transparency and patient engagement. Recommendations were supported by structured rationales, integrating evidence from the systematic review, related evidence, principles of care, and inferences from evidence. RESULTS: There is evidence to support the efficacy of the use of ibuprofen, acetaminophen (in children and adolescents), and triptans (mainly in adolescents) for the relief of migraine pain, although confidence in the evidence varies between agents. There is high confidence that adolescents receiving oral sumatriptan/naproxen and zolmitriptan nasal spray are more likely to be headache-free at 2 hours than those receiving placebo. No acute treatments were effective for migraine-related nausea or vomiting; some triptans were effective for migraine-related phonophobia and photophobia. RECOMMENDATIONS: Recommendations for the treatment of acute migraine in children and adolescents focus on the importance of early treatment, choosing the route of administration best suited to the characteristics of the individual migraine attack, and providing counseling on lifestyle factors that can exacerbate migraine, including trigger avoidance and medication overuse.

Practice guideline recommendations summary: Disease-modifying therapies for adults with multiple sclerosis: Report of the Guideline Development, Dissemination, and Implementation Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology.

OBJECTIVE: To develop recommendations for disease-modifying therapy (DMT) for multiple sclerosis (MS). METHODS: A multidisciplinary panel developed DMT recommendations, integrating findings from a systematic review; followed an Institute of Medicine-compliant process to ensure transparency and patient engagement; and developed modified Delphi consensus-based recommendations concerning starting, switching, and stopping DMTs pertinent to people with relapsing-remitting MS, secondary progressive MS, primary progressive MS, and clinically isolated syndromes of demyelination. Recommendations were supported by structured rationales, integrating evidence from one or more sources: systematic review, related evidence (evidence not from the systematic review), principles of care, and inference from evidence. RESULTS: Thirty recommendations were developed: 17 on starting DMTs, including recommendations on who should start them; 10 on switching DMTs if breakthrough disease develops; and 3 on stopping DMTs. Recommendations encompassed patient engagement strategies and individualization of treatment, including adherence monitoring and disease comorbidity assessment. The panel also discussed DMT risks, including counseling about progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy risk in people with MS using natalizumab, fingolimod, rituximab, ocrelizumab, and dimethyl fumarate; and made suggestions for future research to evaluate relative merits of early treatment with higher potency DMTs vs standard stepped-care protocols, DMT comparative effectiveness, optimal switching strategies, long-term effects of DMT use, definitions of highly active MS, and effects of treatment on patient-specified priority outcomes. This guideline reflects the complexity of decision-making for starting, switching, or stopping MS DMTs. The field of MS treatment is rapidly changing; the Academy of Neurology development process includes planning for future updates.

Comprehensive systematic review summary: Disease-modifying therapies for adults with multiple sclerosis: Report of the Guideline Development, Dissemination, and Implementation Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology.

OBJECTIVE: To review evidence on starting, switching, and stopping disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) for multiple sclerosis (MS) in clinically isolated syndrome (CIS), relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS), and progressive MS forms. METHODS: Relevant, peer-reviewed research articles, systematic reviews, and abstracts were identified (MEDLINE, CENTRAL, EMBASE searched from inception to November 2016). Studies were rated using the therapeutic classification scheme. Prior published Cochrane reviews were also used. RESULTS: Twenty Cochrane reviews and an additional 73 full-text articles were selected for data extraction through an updated systematic review (completed November 2016). For people with RRMS, many DMTs are superior to placebo (annualized relapses rates [ARRs], new disease activity [new MRI T2 lesion burden], and in-study disease progression) (see summary and full text publications). For people with RRMS who experienced a relapse on interferon-ß (IFN-ß) or glatiramer acetate, alemtuzumab is more effective than IFN-ß-1a 44 µg subcutaneous 3 times per week in reducing the ARR. For people with primary progressive MS, ocrelizumab is probably more effective than placebo (in-study disease progression). DMTs for MS have varying adverse effects. In people with CIS, glatiramer acetate and IFN-ß-1a subcutaneous 3 times per week are more effective than placebo in decreasing risk of conversion to MS. Cladribine, immunoglobulins, IFN-ß-1a 30 µg intramuscular weekly, IFN-ß-1b subcutaneous alternate day, and teriflunomide are probably more effective than placebo in decreasing risk of conversion to MS. Suggestions for future research include studies considering comparative effectiveness, usefulness of high-efficacy treatment vs stepped-care protocols, and research into predictive biomarkers.

Relapsing polychondritis presenting as meningoencephalitis with valvular abnormality: a case report.

Relapsing polychondritis is a rare rheumatologic disorder that is characterized by recurrent inflammation of selected connective tissue sites and destruction of cartilage throughout the body. We report a case of newly diagnosed relapsing polychondritis in a 40-year-old man presenting with episcleritis, deformed "cauliflower" ears, aortic regurgitation, and aseptic meningoencephalitis. Steroid therapy was instituted with good resolution of his clinical symptoms.

Practice guideline update summary: Botulinum neurotoxin for the treatment of blepharospasm, cervical dystonia, adult spasticity, and headache: Report of the Guideline Development Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology.

OBJECTIVE: To update the 2008 American Academy of Neurology (AAN) guidelines regarding botulinum neurotoxin for blepharospasm, cervical dystonia (CD), headache, and adult spasticity. METHODS: We searched the literature for relevant articles and classified them using 2004 AAN criteria. RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Blepharospasm: OnabotulinumtoxinA (onaBoNT-A) and incobotulinumtoxinA (incoBoNT-A) are probably effective and should be considered (Level B). AbobotulinumtoxinA (aboBoNT-A) is possibly effective and may be considered (Level C). CD: AboBoNT-A and rimabotulinumtoxinB (rimaBoNT-B) are established as effective and should be offered (Level A), and onaBoNT-A and incoBoNT-A are probably effective and should be considered (Level B). Adult spasticity: AboBoNT-A, incoBoNT-A, and onaBoNT-A are established as effective and should be offered (Level A), and rimaBoNT-B is probably effective and should be considered (Level B), for upper limb spasticity. AboBoNT-A and onaBoNT-A are established as effective and should be offered (Level A) for lower-limb spasticity. Headache: OnaBoNT-A is established as effective and should be offered to increase headache-free days (Level A) and is probably effective and should be considered to improve health-related quality of life (Level B) in chronic migraine. OnaBoNT-A is established as ineffective and should not be offered for episodic migraine (Level A) and is probably ineffective for chronic tension-type headaches (Level B).

Peptidergic nociceptors of both trigeminal and dorsal root ganglia express serotonin 1D receptors: implications for the selective antimigraine action of triptans.

Agonists at serotonin 1D (5-HT1D) receptors relieve migraine headache but are not clinically used as general analgesics. One possible explanation for this difference is that 5-HT1D receptors are preferentially expressed by cranial afferents of the trigeminal system. We compared the distribution of 5-HT1D receptor-immunoreactive (5-HT1D-IR) peripheral afferents within the trigeminal ganglion (TRG) and lumbar dorsal root ganglion (DRG) of the rat. We also examined the neurochemical identity of 5-HT1D-IR neurons with markers of primary afferent nociceptors, peripherin, isolectin B4, and substance P, and markers of myelinated afferents, N52 and SSEA3. We observed a striking similarity in the size, distribution, and neurochemical identity of 5-HT1D-IR neurons in TRG and lumbar DRG afferents. Furthermore, the vast majority of 5-HT1D-IR neurons are unmyelinated peptidergic afferents that distribute peripherally, including the dura, cornea, and the sciatic nerve. In the central projections of these afferents within the trigeminal nucleus caudalis and the spinal cord dorsal horn, 5-HT1D-IR fibers are concentrated in laminas I and outer II; a few axons penetrate to lamina V. At the ultrastructural level, 5-HT1D receptors in the spinal cord dorsal horn are localized exclusively within dense core vesicles of synaptic terminals. We observed scattered 5-HT1D-IR neurons in the nodose ganglia, and there was sparse terminal immunoreactivity in the solitary nucleus. The visceral efferents of the superior cervical ganglia did not contain 5-HT1D immunoreactivity. Our finding, that 5-HT1D receptors are distributed in nociceptors throughout the body, raises the possibility that triptans can regulate not only headache-associated pain but also nociceptive responses in extracranial tissues.

The American Academy of Neurology's top five choosing wisely recommendations.

OBJECTIVE: To discuss the American Academy of Neurology (AAN)'s Top Five Recommendations in the Choosing Wisely campaign promoting high-value neurologic medicine and physician-patient communication. The AAN published its Top Five Recommendations in February 2013 in collaboration with the American Board of Internal Medicine Foundation and Consumer Reports. METHODS: A Choosing Wisely Working Group of 10 AAN members was formed to oversee the process and craft the evidence-based recommendations. AAN members were solicited for recommendations, the recommendations were sent out for external review, and the Working Group members (article authors) used a modified Delphi process to select their Top Five Recommendations. RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: The Working Group submitted 5 neurologic recommendations to the AAN Practice Committee and Board of Directors; all 5 were approved by both entities in September 2012. Recommendation 1: Don't perform EEGs for headaches. Recommendation 2: Don't perform imaging of the carotid arteries for simple syncope without other neurologic symptoms. Recommendation 3: Don't use opioids or butalbital for treatment of migraine, except as a last resort. Recommendation 4: Don't prescribe interferon-ß or glatiramer acetate to patients with disability from progressive, nonrelapsing forms of multiple sclerosis. Recommendation 5: Don't recommend carotid endarterectomy for asymptomatic carotid stenosis unless the complication rate is low (<3%).

The changing face of migraine.

Migraine is a major source of pain-related disability. Despite the personal and societal impact of this disorder, migraine continues to be misdiagnosed and undertreated even though well-established diagnostic criteria and safe and effective treatments are available. The recent revision of diagnostic criteria for headache diagnosis and consensus guidelines for migraine treatment hopefully will promote better medical care for headache sufferers. Advancements in understanding the neurobiology of migraine will guide the development of new treatments.