The 2023 protocol for update to acute treatment of adults with migraine in the emergency department: The American Headache Society evidence assessment of parenteral pharmacotherapies.

OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of this proposed guideline is to update the prior 2016 guideline on parenteral pharmacotherapies for the management of adults with a migraine attack in the emergency department (ED). METHODS: We will conduct an updated systematic review and meta-analysis using the 2016 guideline methodology to provide clinical recommendations. The same search strategy will be used for studies up to 2023, with a new search strategy added to capture studies of nerve blocks and sphenopalatine blocks. Medline, Embase, Cochrane, clinicaltrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trial Registry Platform will be searched. Our inclusion criteria consist of studies involving adults with a diagnosis of migraine, utilizing medications administered intravenously, intramuscularly, or subcutaneously in a randomized controlled trial design. Two authors will perform the selection of studies based on title and abstract, followed by a full-text review. A third author will intervene in cases of disagreements. Data will be recorded in a standardized worksheet and subjected to verification. The risk of bias will be assessed using the American Academy of Neurology tool. When applicable, a meta-analysis will be conducted. The efficacy of medications will be evaluated, categorizing them as "highly likely," "likely", or "possibly effective" or "ineffective." Subsequently, clinical recommendations will be developed, considering the risk associated with the medications, following the American Academy of Neurology recommendation development process. RESULTS: The goal of this updated guideline will be to provide guidance on which injectable medications, including interventional approaches (i.e., nerve blocks, sphenopalatine ganglion), should be considered effective acute treatment for adults with migraine who present to an ED. CONCLUSIONS: The methods outlined in this protocol will be used in the design of a future systematic review and meta-analysis-informed guideline, which will then be assessed by and submitted for endorsement by the American Headache Society.

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

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

Assessment of Smartphone Apps for Common Neurologic Conditions (Headache, Insomnia, and Pain): Cross-sectional Study.

BACKGROUND: There are thousands of apps for individuals struggling with headache, insomnia, and pain, but it is difficult to establish which of these apps are best suited for patients' specific needs. If clinicians were to have access to a platform that would allow them to make an informed decision on the efficacy and feasibility of smartphone apps for patient care, they would feel confident in prescribing specific apps. OBJECTIVE: We sought to evaluate the quality of apps for some of the top common, disabling neurologic conditions (headache, insomnia, and pain) based on principles derived from the American Psychiatric Association's (APA) app evaluation model. METHODS: We used the Mobile Health Index and Navigation database and expanded upon the database's current supported conditions by adding 177 new app entries. Each app was rated for consistency with the APA's app evaluation model, which includes 105 objective questions based on the following 5 major classes of consideration: (1) accessibility, (2) privacy and security, (3) clinical foundation, (4) engagement style, and (5) interoperability. These characteristics were evaluated to gain a broader understanding of the significant features of each app category in comparison against a control group. RESULTS: Approximately 90% (187/201) of all apps evaluated were free to download, but only 50% (63/201) of headache- and pain-related apps were truly free. Most (87/106, 81%) sleep apps were not truly free to use. The apps had similar limitations with limited privacy, accessibility, and crisis management resources. For example, only 17% (35/201) of the apps were available in Spanish. The apps offered mostly self-help tools with little tailoring; symptom tracking was the most common feature in headache- (32/48, 67%) and pain-related apps (21/47, 45%), whereas mindfulness was the most common feature in sleep-related apps (73/106, 69%). CONCLUSIONS: Although there are many apps for headache, pain, and insomnia, all 3 types of apps have room for improvement around accessibility and privacy. Pain and headache apps share many common features, whereas insomnia apps offer mostly mindfulness-based resources. Given the many available apps to pick from, clinicians and patients should seek apps that offer the highest-quality features, such as complete privacy, remedial features, and the ability to download the app at no cost. These results suggest that there are many opportunities for the improvement of apps centered on headache, insomnia, and pain.

Migraine diagnosis and treatment: A knowledge and needs assessment of women's healthcare providers.

BACKGROUND: Studies suggest that migraine is often underdiagnosed and inadequately treated in the primary care setting, despite many patients relying on their primary care provider (PCP) to manage their migraine. Many women consider their women's healthcare provider to be their PCP, yet very little is known about migraine knowledge and practice patterns in the women's healthcare setting. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess women's healthcare providers' knowledge and needs regarding migraine diagnosis and treatment. METHODS: The comprehensive survey assessing migraine knowledge originally developed for PCPs was used in this study, with the addition of a section regarding the use of hormonal medications in patients impacted by migraine. Surveys were distributed online, and primarily descriptive analyses were performed. RESULTS: The online survey was completed by 115 women's healthcare providers (response rate 28.6%; 115/402), who estimated that they serve as PCPs for approximately one-third of their patients. Results suggest that women's healthcare providers generally recognize the prevalence of migraine, but experience some knowledge gaps regarding migraine management. Despite 82.6% (95/115) of survey respondents feeling very comfortable or somewhat comfortable with diagnosing migraine, only 57.9% (66/114) reported routinely asking patients about headaches during annual visits. Very few were familiar with the American Academy of Neurology guidelines on preventative treatment (6.3%; 7/111) and the Choosing Wisely Campaign recommendations on migraine treatment (17.3%; 19/110), and many prescribed medications known to contribute to medication overuse headache. In addition, only 24.3% (28/115) would order imaging for a new type of headache, 35.7% (41/115) for worsening headache, and 47.8% (55/115) for headache with neurologic symptoms; respondents cited greater tendency with sending patients to an emergency department for the same symptoms. Respondents had limited knowledge of evidence-based, non-pharmacological treatments for migraine (i.e., biofeedback or cognitive behavioral therapy), with nearly none placing referrals for these services. Most providers were comfortable prescribing hormonal contraception (mainly progesterone only) to women with migraine without aura (80.9%; 89/110) and with aura (72.5%; 79/109), and followed American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) guidelines to limit combination hormonal contraception for patients with aura. When queried, 6.3% or less (5/79) of providers would prescribe estrogen-containing contraception for women with migraine with aura. Only 37.3% (41/110) of respondents reported having headache/migraine education. Providers indicated interest in education pertaining to migraine prevention and treatment (96.3%; 105/109), migraine-associated disability (74.3%; 81/109), and diagnostic testing (59.6%; 65/109). CONCLUSION: Women's healthcare providers appear to have several knowledge gaps regarding the management of migraine in their patients. These providers would likely benefit from access to a headache-specific educational curriculum to improve provider performance and patient outcomes.

Migraine Care in the Era of COVID-19: Clinical Pearls and Plea to Insurers.

OBJECTIVE: To outline strategies for the treatment of migraine which do not require in-person visits to clinic or the emergency department, and to describe ways that health insurance companies can remove barriers to quality care for migraine. BACKGROUND: COVID-19 is a global pandemic causing widespread infections and death. To control the spread of infection we are called to observe "social distancing" and we have been asked to postpone any procedures which are not essential. Since procedural therapies are a mainstay of headache care, the inability to do procedures could negatively affect our patients with migraine. In this manuscript we review alternative therapies, with particular attention to those which may be contra-indicated in the setting of COVID-19 infection. DESIGN/RESULTS: The manuscript reviews the use of telemedicine visits and acute, bridge, and preventive therapies for migraine. We focus on evidence-based treatment where possible, but also describe "real world" strategies which may be tried. In each section we call out areas where changes to rules from commercial health insurance companies would facilitate better migraine care. CONCLUSIONS: Our common goal as health care providers is to maximize the health and safety of our patients. Successful management of migraine with avoidance of in-person clinic and emergency department visits further benefits the current urgent societal goal of maintaining social distance to contain the COVID-19 pandemic.

Behavioral Therapy Preferences in People With Migraine.

BACKGROUND: There are safe and well-tolerated level A evidence-based behavioral therapies for the prevention of migraine. They are biofeedback, cognitive behavioral therapy, and relaxation. However, the behavioral therapies for the prevention of migraine are underutilized. OBJECTIVES: We sought to examine whether people with migraine with 4 or more headache days a month had preferences regarding the type of delivery of the behavioral therapy (in-person, smartphone based, telephone) and whether they would be willing to pay for in-person behavioral therapy. We also sought to determine the predictors of likelihood to pursue the behavioral therapy. METHODS: Using a cross-sectional study design, we developed an online survey using TurkPrime, an online survey platform, to assess how likely TurkPrime participants who screened positive for migraine using the American Migraine Prevalence and Prevention screen were to pursue different delivery methods of the behavioral therapy. We report descriptive statistics and quantitative analyses. RESULTS: There were 401 participants. Median age was 34 [IQR: 29, 41] years. More than two thirds of participants (70.3%, 282/401) were women. Median number of headache days/ month was 5 [IQR: 2.83, 8.5]. Some (12.5%, 50/401) used evidence-based behavioral therapy for migraine. The participants reported that they were "somewhat likely" to pursue in-person or smartphone behavioral therapy and behavioral therapy covered by insurance but were neutral about pursuing the telephone-based behavioral therapy. Participants were "not very likely" to pay out of pocket for the behavioral therapy. Migraine-related disability as measured by the MIDAS grading score was associated with likelihood to pursue the behavioral therapy in-person (P = .004), via telephone (P = .015), and via smart phone (P < .001), and covered by insurance (P = .001). However, migraine-related disability was not associated with likelihood to pursue out of pocket (P = .769) behavioral therapy. Pain intensity was predictive of likelihood of pursuing the behavioral therapy for migraine when covered by insurance. Other factors including education, employment, and headache days were not predictors. CONCLUSION: People with migraine prefer in-person and smartphone-based behavioral therapy to telephone-based behavioral therapy. Migraine-related disability is associated with likelihood to pursue the behavioral therapy (independent of type of delivery of the behavioral therapy-in-person, telephone based or smartphone based). However, participants were not very likely to pay for the behavioral therapy.

Smartphone-based migraine behavioral therapy: a single-arm study with assessment of mental health predictors.

Progressive muscle relaxation (PMR) is an under-utilized Level A evidence-based treatment for migraine prevention. We studied the feasibility and acceptability of smartphone application (app)-based PMR for migraine in a neurology setting, explored whether app-based PMR might reduce headache (HA) days, and examined potential predictors of app and/or PMR use. In this single-arm pilot study, adults with ICHD3 migraine, 4+ HA days/month, a smartphone, and no prior behavioral migraine therapy in the past year were asked to complete a daily HA diary and do PMR for 20 min/day for 90 days. Outcomes were: adherence to PMR (no. and duration of audio plays) and frequency of diary use. Predictors in the models were baseline demographics, HA-specific variables, baseline PROMIS (patient-reported outcomes measurement information system) depression and anxiety scores, presence of overlapping pain conditions studied and app satisfaction scores at time of enrollment. Fifty-one patients enrolled (94% female). Mean age was 39 ± 13 years. The majority (63%) had severe migraine disability at baseline (MIDAS). PMR was played 22 ± 21 days on average. Mean/session duration was 11 ± 7 min. About half (47%) of uses were 1+ time/week and 35% of uses were 2+ times/week. There was a decline in use/week. On average, high users (PMR 2+ days/week in the first month) had 4 fewer days of reported HAs in month 2 vs. month 1, whereas low PMR users (PMR < 2 days/week in the first month) had only 2 fewer HA days in month 2. PROMIS depression score was negatively associated with the log odds of using the diary at least once (vs. no activity) in a week (OR = 0.70, 95% CI = [0.55, 0.85]) and of doing the PMR at least once in a week (OR = 0.77, 95% CI = [0.68, 0.91]). PROMIS anxiety was positively associated with using the diary at least once every week (OR = 1.33, 95% CI = [1.09, 1.73]) and with doing the PMR at least once every week (OR = 1.14 [95% CI = [1.02, 1.31]). In conclusion, about half of participants used smartphone-based PMR intervention based upon a brief, initial introduction to the app. App use was associated with reduction in HA days. Higher depression scores were negatively associated with diary and PMR use, whereas higher anxiety scores were positively associated.

Correspondence regarding: Post-traumatic headache: the use of the sport concussion assessment tool (SCAT-3) as a predictor of post-concussion recovery.

This article consists of a Letter to the Editor regarding Post-traumatic headache: the use of the sport concussion assessment tool (SCAT-3) as a predictor of post-concussion recovery, recently published in The Journal of Headache and Pain, along with a response from the original authors.

Variation in Prescription Drug Coverage for Triptans: Analysis of Insurance Formularies.

OBJECTIVES: To analyze triptan coverage by insurers to examine (1) possible disparities in coverage for different formulations (oral, intranasal, etc) and (2) quantity limits and stepped care requirements to obtain triptans. BACKGROUND: Triptans are FDA approved migraine abortive medications. Patients frequently state that they have difficulty accessing triptans prescribed to them. METHODS: We searched the 2015 drug formularies of commercial and government health insurers providing coverage in NY State. We created a spreadsheet with all of the commercially available triptans and included information about covered formulations, tier numbers and quantity limits for each drug. We then calculated the number of listed plans that cover or do not cover each triptan or triptan formulation, the total number of medications not covered by an insurance provided across all of its plans, as well as the percentage of plans offered by individual companies and across all companies that covered each drug. We also calculated the number and proportion of plans that imposed quantity limits or step therapy for each drug. RESULTS: Of the 100 formularies searched, generic sumatriptan (all formulations), naratriptan, and zolmitriptan tablets were covered by all plans, and rizatriptan tablets and ODTs were covered by 98% of plans. Brand triptans were less likely to be covered: 4/36 Medicaid plans covered brand triptans. Commercial insurers were more likely to cover brand triptans. All plans imposed quantity limits on 1+ triptan formulations, with >80% imposing quantity limits on 14/19 formulations studied. Almost all plans used tiers for cost allocation for different medications. Generic triptans were almost always in Tier 1. Brand triptans were most commonly in Tier 3. Approximately 40% of brand triptans required step therapy, compared with 11% of generic triptans. CONCLUSIONS: There are substantial variations in coverage and quantity limits and a high degree of complexity in triptan coverage for both government and commercial plans.

Post-traumatic headache: the use of the sport concussion assessment tool (SCAT-3) as a predictor of post-concussion recovery.

BACKGROUND: Given that post-traumatic headache is one of the most prevalent and long-lasting post-concussion sequelae, causes significant morbidity, and might be associated with slower neurocognitive recovery, we sought to evaluate the use of concussion screening scores in a concussion clinic population to assess for post-traumatic headache. METHODS: This is a retrospective cross-sectional study of 254 concussion patients from the New York University (NYU) Concussion Registry. Data on the headache characteristics, concussion mechanism, concussion screening scores were collected and analyzed. RESULTS: 72% of the patients had post-traumatic headache. About half (56.3%) were women. The mean age was 35 (SD 16.2). 90 (35%) patients suffered from sport-related concussions (SRC). Daily post-traumatic headache patients had higher Sport Concussion Assessment Tool (SCAT)-3 symptom severity scores than the non-daily post-traumatic headache and the headache-free patients (50.2 [SD 28.2] vs. 33.1 [SD 27.5] vs. 21.6 SD23], p < 0.001). Patients with SRC had lower headache intensity (4.47 [SD 2.5] vs. 6.24 [SD 2.28], p < 0.001) and SCAT symptom severity scores (33.9 [SD 27.4] vs. 51.4 [SD 27.7], p < 0.001) than the other patients, but there were no differences in post-traumatic headache prevalence, frequency, and Standardized Assessment of Concussion (SAC) scores. CONCLUSION: The presence and frequency of post-traumatic headache are associated with the SCAT-3 symptom severity score, which is the most important predictor for post-concussion recovery. The SCAT-3 symptom severity score might be a useful tool to help characterize patients' post-traumatic headache.

Management of Adults With Acute Migraine in the Emergency Department: The American Headache Society Evidence Assessment of Parenteral Pharmacotherapies.

OBJECTIVE: To provide evidence-based treatment recommendations for adults with acute migraine who require treatment with injectable medication in an emergency department (ED). We addressed two clinically relevant questions: (1) Which injectable medications should be considered first-line treatment for adults who present to an ED with acute migraine? (2) Do parenteral corticosteroids prevent recurrence of migraine in adults discharged from an ED? METHODS: The American Headache Society convened an expert panel of authors who defined a search strategy and then performed a search of Medline, Embase, the Cochrane database and clinical trial registries from inception through 2015. Identified articles were rated using the American Academy of Neurology's risk of bias tool. For each medication, the expert panel determined likelihood of efficacy. Recommendations were created accounting for efficacy, adverse events, availability of alternate therapies, and principles of medication action. RESULTS/CONCLUSIONS: The search identified 68 unique randomized controlled trials utilizing 28 injectable medications. Of these, 19 were rated class 1 (low risk of bias), 21 were rated class 2 (higher risk of bias), and 28 were rated class 3 (highest risk of bias). Metoclopramide, prochlorperazine, and sumatriptan each had multiple class 1 studies supporting acute efficacy, as did dexamethasone for prevention of headache recurrence. All other medications had lower levels of evidence. RECOMMENDATIONS: Intravenous metoclopramide and prochlorperazine, and subcutaneous sumatriptan should be offered to eligible adults who present to an ED with acute migraine (Should offer-Level B). Dexamethasone should be offered to these patients to prevent recurrence of headache (Should offer-Level B). Because of lack of evidence demonstrating efficacy and concern about sub-acute or long-term sequelae, injectable morphine and hydromorphone are best avoided as first-line therapy (May avoid-Level C).

Migraine diagnosis and treatment: A knowledge and needs assessment among primary care providers.

BACKGROUND: Studies reveal that migraine is often under-recognized, misdiagnosed and inadequately treated in the primary care setting. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this article is to assess primary care providers' (PCP) knowledge and needs regarding migraine diagnosis and management. METHODS: We held semi-structured group interviews and distributed a brief questionnaire to PCPs in our hospital network. Building on the information from the interviews, we developed a comprehensive survey assessing PCPs' knowledge about migraine. Descriptive analyses were performed. RESULTS: The initial interviews and brief questionnaires revealed that PCPs are aware of the prevalence of migraine but are uncertain about the details of management. Eighty-three of 120 physicians completed the comprehensive survey. Only 47% would order imaging for a new type of headache, 31% for worsening headache, and 35% for a headache unresponsive to treatment. Only 28% were familiar with the American Academy of Neurology guidelines on preventive treatment and 40% were familiar with the Choosing Wisely Campaign recommendations on migraine treatment. Just 34% were aware that opioids can cause medication-overuse headache. Non-pharmacologic treatment was not usually recommended. PCPs favored educational opportunities involving direct contact with headache physicians (56%). CONCLUSIONS: PCPs are not universally aware of the specific recommendations for managing migraine patients. Future work should focus on innovative ways to provide decision support and education for PCPs caring for migraineurs.

New Investigator and Trainee Task Force Survey on the Recruitment and Retention of Headache Specialists.

OBJECTIVES: We sought to survey the New Investigators and Trainees Section (NITS) members of the American Headache Society (AHS) to better understand their exposure to headache medicine during training and to determine their perceptions and attitudes about the field and the future of headache medicine. BACKGROUND: Despite the high prevalence of headache disorders in the general population, only about 2% of neurology residents pursue headache medicine fellowships. Furthermore, there is a paucity of United Council of Neurologic Subspecialties headache specialists in the country to meet the population demands. Thus, there needs to be a focus on how to recruit and retain more headache specialists. METHODS: A survey was distributed via SurveyMonkey to the NITS listserv. It remained online for 60 days, during which reminder emails were sent to members of the listserv. In addition, the survey was available on laptops at NITS-related events at an annual AHS meeting. Descriptive analyses were then conducted using SurveyMonkey and Excel. RESULTS: Of the 93 members of NITS, 64 of the 96 (68.8%) clicked to initiate the survey and 52.7% successfully completed it. Attendings made up the majority of respondents (62.5%), followed by fellows (10.9%), and residents (7.8%). Key highlights of the survey included the following: just under 10% reported no exposure to a headache center during any time in their training (medical school, residency, or fellowship); less than 2% had exposure to a headache center during medical school; less than half of participants reported exposure to a headache center in residency (45.3%) and during fellowship (43.4%). Having a mentor in the field, liking the patient population, and working in a headache center, 64.7%, 52.9%, and 41.2%, respectively, were the top ways in which participants became interested in headache. The journal Headache (56.9%), attendings (56.3%), and the AHS/American Academy of Neurology guidelines for migraine management (52.0%) are the resources cited as being used all/most of the time. About 82.4% strongly agree that there needs to be improved headache education for physicians of all specialties (primary care, emergency department, psychiatry); 84.4% feel that they are appreciated by their patients; 68.6% feel that there is strong support in their departments for headache; 56.9% believe that their work schedule leaves enough time for personal and family life; and 60.8% agreed that their professional life will improve in years to come. Participants agreed/strongly agreed that they like to treat the following diseases/symptoms: migraine headache (98.0%), cluster headache (92%), chronic daily headache (84%), and post-concussive syndrome (71.4%). Participants disagreed/strongly disagreed that they like to treat the following comorbid conditions/symptoms: low back pain (66.6%), dizziness (42.9%), sleep apnea (36.7%), depression (32.0%), and anxiety (32.0%). CONCLUSIONS: In this detailed survey on the recruitment and retention of headache specialists, the following themes emerged: mentorship and exposure to a headache center are key foundations in the young investigator/trainee experience. Young headache specialists appear positive about their field of medicine. These specialists like to treat various headache types but not necessarily some of the related comorbidities (sleep disorders, depression, anxiety, back pain, and dizziness). Finally, there was strong agreement that there needs to be improved headache education for physicians of other medical specialties.

Factors associated with emergency department visits for migraine: an observational study.

OBJECTIVE/BACKGROUND: This study aims to determine why patients with migraine present to an emergency department (ED). While migraine accounts for over 800,000 ED visits annually, no prospectively gathered data characterize patients' reasons for presenting to an ED. METHODS: We prospectively interviewed 309 consecutive patients presenting to an urban ED for headache. Patients were asked 100 closed-ended questions regarding sociodemographics, headache history, and current headache attack. We performed descriptive analyses on patients fulfilling International Classification of Headache Disorders 2 migraine criteria. RESULTS: Of 186 patients who met migraine criteria, 77% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 71, 83%) had a primary care provider (PCP), 87% (95% CI: 82, 92%) had medical insurance, and 83% (95% CI: 77, 88%) had drug coverage. Fifty-three percent (95% CI: 46, 60%) reported that they previously visited a doctor for headache. Fifty-five percent (95% CI: 48, 62%) previously received a migraine diagnosis. Twenty-two percent (95% CI: 16, 28%) sought medical care for the current headache prior to ED presentation. Fifty-five percent (95% CI: 48, 63%) took abortive medication for migraine on the day of the ED visit. Median headache duration was 24 hours (IQR: 12-72). Forty-nine percent (95% CI: 42, 57%) screened positive for depression. The most common reason for visiting the ED was a perceived emergency condition or referral by a physician (33.3% [95% CI: 27, 40%]). Other commonly cited reasons related to access to care. CONCLUSIONS: Most migraineurs presenting to the ED have a PCP and health insurance. ED visits commonly result from an inability to access care elsewhere and because patients consider pain to be an emergency condition. Missed opportunities for diagnosis and treatment likely contribute to ED visits.