Disability in migraine: Multicountry results from the Chronic Migraine Epidemiology and Outcomes - International (CaMEO-I) Study.

BACKGROUND: Few studies of migraine have evaluated migraine disability across multiple countries using the same methodology. METHODS: This cross-sectional, web-based survey was conducted in 2021-2022 in Canada, France, Germany, Japan, UK and USA. Respondents with migraine were identified based on modified International Classification of Headache Disorders, 3rd edition, criteria. Headache features (Migraine Symptom Severity Score (MSSS, range: 0-21), presence of allodynia (Allodynia Symptom Checklist, ASC-12)) and migraine burden (Patient Health Questionnaire-4 (PHQ-4), Migraine-Specific Quality of Life questionnaire version 2.1 (MSQ v2.1), Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI) questionnaire) were evaluated. RESULTS: Among 14,492 respondents with migraine across countries, the mean ± SD MSSS was 15.4 ± 3.2 and 48.5% (7026/14,492) of respondents had allodynia based on ASC-12. Of all respondents living with migraine, 35.5% (5146/14,492) reported moderate to severe anxiety and/or depression symptoms. Mean ± SD MSQ v2.1 Role Function-Restrictive, Role Function-Preventive and Emotional Function domain scores were 60.7 ± 22.9, 71.5 ± 23.0 and 65.1 ± 27.2, respectively. The WPAI mean ± SD percentages of respondents who missed work or worked impaired as a result of migraine were 6.8 ± 18.1% and 41.0 ± 30.1%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: For every country surveyed, migraine was associated with high levels of symptom severity, with allodynia and with substantial burden.

Characterizing barriers to care in migraine: multicountry results from the Chronic Migraine Epidemiology and Outcomes - International (CaMEO-I) study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess rates of traversing barriers to care to access optimal clinical outcomes in people with migraine internationally. BACKGROUND: People in need of medical care for migraine should consult a health care professional knowledgeable in migraine management, obtain an accurate diagnosis, and receive an individualized treatment plan, which includes scientific society guideline-recommended treatments where appropriate. METHODS: The Chronic Migraine Epidemiology and Outcomes-International (CaMEO-I) Study was a cross-sectional, web-based survey conducted from July 2021 through March 2022 in Canada, France, Germany, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States (US). Respondents who met modified International Classification of Headache Disorders, 3rd edition, criteria for migraine and had Migraine Disability Assessment Scale (MIDAS) scores of ≥ 6 (i.e., mild, moderate, or severe disability) were deemed to need medical care and were included in this analysis. Minimally effective treatment required that participants were currently consulting a health care professional for headache (barrier 1), reported an accurate diagnosis (barrier 2), and reported use of minimally appropriate pharmacologic treatment (barrier 3; based on American Headache Society 2021 Consensus Statement recommendations). Proportions of respondents who successfully traversed each barrier were calculated, and chi-square tests were used to assess overall difference among countries. RESULTS: Among 14,492 respondents with migraine, 8,330 had MIDAS scores of ≥ 6, were deemed in need of medical care, and were included in this analysis. Current headache consultation was reported by 35.1% (2926/8330) of respondents. Compared with the US, consultation rates and diagnosis rates were statistically significantly lower in all other countries except France where they were statistically significantly higher. Total appropriate treatment rates were also statistically significantly lower in all other countries compared with the US except France, which did not differ from the US. All 3 barriers were traversed by only 11.5% (955/8330) of respondents, with differences among countries (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Of people with migraine in need of medical care for migraine, less than 15% traverse all 3 barriers to care. Although rates of consultation, diagnosis, and treatment differed among countries, improvements are needed in all countries studied to reduce the global burden of migraine. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NA.

Chronic Migraine Epidemiology and Outcomes - International (CaMEO-I) Study: Methods and multi-country baseline findings for diagnosis rates and care.

BACKGROUND: The Chronic Migraine Epidemiology and Outcomes-International study provides insight into people with migraine in multiple countries. METHODS: This cross-sectional, observational, web-based cohort study was conducted in Canada, France, Germany, Japan, United Kingdom, and United States. An initial Screening Module survey solicited general healthcare information from a representative sample and identified participants with migraine based on modified International Classification of Headache Disorders-3 criteria; those with migraine completed a detailed survey based on validated migraine-specific assessments. RESULTS: Among 90,613 people who correctly completed the screening surveys, 76,121 respondents did not meet the criteria for migraine, while 14,492 did. Among respondents with migraine, mean age ranged from 40 to 42 years. The median number of monthly headache days ranged from 2.33 to 3.33 across countries, while the proportion of respondents with moderate-to-severe disability (measured by Migraine Disability Assessment) ranged from 30% (Japan) to 52% (Germany). The proportion of respondents with ≥15 monthly headache days ranged from 5.4% (France) to 9.5% (Japan). Fewer than half of respondents with migraine in each country reported having received a migraine diagnosis. CONCLUSION: These results demonstrated high rates of migraine-related disability and underdiagnosis of migraine across six countries. This study will characterize country-level burden, treatment patterns, and geographical differences in care.

Pre- and post-headache phases of migraine: multi-country results from the CaMEO - International Study.

BACKGROUND: Individuals with migraine frequently experience pre- and post-headache symptoms. This analysis aimed to characterize the relative frequency and burden of pre- and post-headache symptoms in people with migraine using data collected through the Chronic Migraine Epidemiology and Outcomes - International Study. METHODS: This cross-sectional, observational, web-based survey was conducted in 2021-2022 in Canada, France, Germany, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Respondents who met modified International Classification of Headache Disorders, 3rd edition, criteria were offered the opportunity to participate. Information collected included migraine-related disability, depression/anxiety symptoms, cutaneous allodynia, activity limitations, and acute treatment optimization. Respondents indicated how often they had pre- or post-headache symptoms using a 5-point scale, ranging from 0 to 4, with a rating of 2 or higher classified as a pre- or post-headache symptom case. Modeling was used to examine relationships with monthly headache days (MHDs) and activity limitations during pre-headache and post-headache phases. RESULTS: Among a total of 14,492 respondents, pre-headache symptoms were reported by 66.9%, while post-headache symptoms were reported by 60.2%. Both pre-headache and post-headache symptoms were reported by 49.5% of respondents, only pre-headache by 17.4%, only post-headache by 10.7%, and neither pre- nor post-headache symptoms by 22.4%. Compared with respondents who experienced only pre- or post-headache symptoms, respondents who experienced both pre- and post-headache symptoms had the highest rates of 4-7, 8-14, and ≥ 15 monthly headache days (23.1%, 14.1%, and 10.9%, respectively). Of respondents with both pre- and post-headache symptoms, 58.5% reported moderate-to-severe disability, 47.7% reported clinically significant symptoms of depression, 49.0% reported clinically significant symptoms of anxiety, and 63.8% reported cutaneous allodynia with headache (ASC-12). Moderate-to-severe activity limitations were reported during the pre-headache (29.5%) and post-headache phases (27.2%). For all outcomes modeled, after controlling for covariates, having pre-headache symptoms, post-headache symptoms, or both were associated with worse outcomes than having neither. CONCLUSIONS: Pre- and post-headache phases of migraine are common, carry unrecognized burden, and may be a target for treatment.

A real-world, observational study of erenumab for migraine prevention in Canadian patients.

OBJECTIVES: To assess real-world effectiveness, safety, and usage of erenumab in Canadian patients with episodic and chronic migraine with prior ineffective prophylactic treatments. BACKGROUND: In randomized controlled trials, erenumab demonstrated efficacy for migraine prevention in patients with ≤4 prior ineffective prophylactic migraine therapies. The "Migraine prevention with AimoviG: Informative Canadian real-world study" (MAGIC) assessed real-world effectiveness of erenumab in Canadian patients with migraine. METHODS: MAGIC was a prospective open-label, observational study conducted in Canadian patients with chronic migraine (CM) and episodic migraine (EM) with two to six categories of prior ineffective prophylactic therapies. Participants were administered 70 mg or 140 mg erenumab monthly based on physician's assessment. Migraine attacks were self-assessed using an electronic diary and patient-reported outcome questionnaires. The primary outcome was the proportion of subjects achieving ≥50% reduction in monthly migraine days (MMD) after the 3-month treatment period. RESULTS: Among the 95 participants who mostly experienced two (54.7%) or three (32.6%) prior categories of ineffective prophylactic therapies and who initiated erenumab, treatment was generally safe and well tolerated; 89/95 (93.7%) participants initiated treatment with 140 mg erenumab. At week 12, 32/95 (33.7%) participants including 17/64 (26.6%) CM and 15/32 (48.4%) EM achieved ≥50% reduction in MMD while 30/86 (34.9%) participants including 19/55 (34.5%) CM and 11/31 (35.5%) EM achieved ≥50% reduction in MMD at week 24. Through patient-reported outcome questionnaires, 62/95 (65.3%) and 45/86 (52.3%) participants reported improvement of their condition at weeks 12 and 24, respectively. Physicians observed improvement in the condition of 78/95 (82.1%) and 67/86 (77.9%) participants at weeks 12 and 24, respectively. CONCLUSION: One-third of patients with EM and CM achieved ≥50% MMD reduction after 3 months of erenumab treatment. This study provides real-world evidence of erenumab effectiveness, safety, and usage for migraine prevention in adult Canadian patients with multiple prior ineffective prophylactic treatments.

Changes in patient functioning and disability: results from a phase 3, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial evaluating galcanezumab for chronic migraine prevention (REGAIN).

PURPOSE: To evaluate secondary outcomes including changes in functioning and disability associated with galcanezumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody to calcitonin gene-related peptide, in patients with chronic migraine. METHODS: Patients randomly received galcanezumab (120 mg n = 278, 240 mg n = 277) or placebo (n = 558) during 3 months of double-blind treatment, followed by a 9-month open-label extension. The Migraine-Specific Quality-of-Life Questionnaire v2.1 (MSQv2.1) measured the impact of migraine on patient functioning. The Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) quantified headache-related disability. Changes from baseline were analyzed with mixed model repeated measures or analysis of covariance. RESULTS: Total MSQ score at baseline was 44.88 ± 18.02 (mean ± SD), indicating significant functional impairment. At Month 3, least squares (LS) mean change ± SE in total MSQ for galcanezumab-treated patients were 20.51 ± 1.49 (120 mg) and 20.49 ± 1.49 (240 mg), both statistically significantly greater vs placebo-treated patients (14.55 ± 1.21; both P < 0.001). Total MIDAS score at baseline was 67.24 ± 57.31 (mean ± SD). At Month 3, LS mean change ± SE from baseline in total MIDAS for galcanezumab-treated patients was statistically significantly greater than placebo for 120 mg group (placebo: - 11.53 ± 3.38 vs 120 mg: - 20.27 ± 4.07; P < 0.05) but not for 240 mg group (- 17.02 ± 4.05). At Month 12, within-group mean changes from baseline for total MSQ (28.56 ± 1.19 previous placebo; 29.53 ± 1.51 previous 120 mg; 25.83 ± 1.49 previous 240 mg) and MIDAS scores (- 28.47 ± 2.95 previous placebo; - 31.47 ± 3.69 previous 120 mg; - 31.13 ± 3.62 previous 240 mg) were statistically significant (P < 0.001) for the open-label treatment population regardless of previous double-blind treatment assignment. CONCLUSIONS: Galcanezumab-treated patients with chronic migraine reported statistically significant improvements in functioning and disability, representing a clinically significant change. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov registry: NCT02614261. Registered 25 November 2015.

Vancouver Declaration II on Global Headache Patient Advocacy 2019.

In 2017, the International Headache Society convened a Global Patient Advocacy Summit (GPAS-1) to begin a collaborative effort involving patients, patient advocates, patient advocacy organizations, healthcare professionals, scientists, professional pain, neurology, and headache societies, pharmaceutical manufacturers, and regulatory agencies to advance issues of importance to patients affected by headache worldwide. In September 2019, the second Global Patient Advocacy Summit (GPAS-2) was convened to revisit issues from the inaugural meeting, assess the progress of the International Headache Society Global Patient Advocacy Coalition (IHS-GPAC) in meeting the goals set forth therein, and discuss strategies for achieving established goals and supporting future development. Short- and long-term mandates from the first Summit were realized, including publishing the Vancouver Declaration on Global Headache Patient Advocacy 2018, determining the governing and operational structures of the IHS-GPAC, and helping to facilitate the first World Federation of Neurology World Brain Day dedicated to migraine. Another short-term mandate, creating a unified advocacy strategy, was fulfilled by the Coalition's decision to focus on encouraging support from employers and implementing employee support programs for people with migraine. To help execute the strategy, the Coalition is developing an employer engagement toolkit that will educate employers and employees about the impact of migraine in the workplace, reduce stigma directed toward employees with migraine, and facilitate the care of employees with migraine to reduce the burden of illness and improve workplace productivity. Coalition members will disseminate the toolkit and encourage the adoption of migraine workplace programs by employers worldwide. The Coalition has established an alliance with two global, multinational employers to expand migraine awareness and support among policy makers and other stakeholders around the world. The IHS-GPAC met many of the goals established at GPAS-1, and it has initiated a global strategy focused on the psychosocial and economic toll of headache disorders, especially migraine, in the workplace. Ongoing and future activities will explore a range of opportunities with employers and across the full spectrum of advocacy goals.

A Nursing Intervention Increases Quality of Life and Self-Efficacy in Migraine: A 1-Year Prospective Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the impact of a combined nursing and medical approach to a medical follow-up only on headache outcomes, quality of life, and self-efficacy in a cohort of migraineurs. BACKGROUND: Interdisciplinary approaches have been proposed for migraine management. A nursing intervention could improve patient outcomes. METHODS: We prospectively studied new patients referred to our tertiary headache center for migraine. The control group was followed by a physician; the active group was also followed by a nurse with a personalized intervention including adaptation of the lifestyle. RESULTS: Two hundred patients (176 women and 24 men, mean age 40 years old) were included and classified according to headache frequency. Each group was followed for 12 months with daily headache diaries. One hundred and sixty-two completed the study. There were no significant differences between groups for the decrease in headache days, the percent of chronic patients reverting to episodic status or the cessation of medication overuse. Patients in the control group were more likely to find a successful prophylaxis (55.6 vs 27.7%, P = .002). Despite this, the mean decrease in HIT-6 scores at month 8 was 5.23 ± 9.18 for the active group compared with a decrease of 2.10 ± 9.27 for the control group (P = .030, clinically significant difference of 3.13). Headache Management Self-Efficacy Scale (HMSE) scores, representing the feeling of self-efficacy, increased by 14.35 ± 18.41 for the active group vs 4.69 ± 21.22 in the control group (P = .002). CONCLUSION: A nursing intervention can lower the impact of migraines on the patient's life. The improvement in the HIT-6 score in this study was correlated with improvements in self-efficacy.

Neurostimulation for Refractory Cervicogenic Headache: A Three-Year Retrospective Study.

BACKGROUND: Occipital nerve stimulation (ONS) has been used for the treatment of neuropathic pain conditions and could be a therapeutic approach for refractory cervicogenic headache (CeH). AIM: The aim of this study is to assess the efficacy and safety of unilateral ONS in patients suffering from refractory CeH. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective chart review on patients implanted from 2011 to 2013 at CHUM. The primary outcome was a 50% reduction in headache days per month. Secondary outcomes included change in EuroQol Group Visual Analog Scale rating of health-related quality of life (EQ VAS), six item headache impact test (HIT-6) score, hospital anxiety and depression scale (HADS) score, work status, and medication overuse. RESULTS: Sixteen patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria; they had suffered from daily moderate to severe CeH for a median of 15 years. At one year follow-up, 11 patients were responders (69%). There was a statistically significant improvement in the EQ VAS score (median change: 40 point increase, p = 0.0013) and HIT-6 score (median change: 17.5 point decrease, p = 0.0005). Clinically significant anxiety and depression scores both resolved amongst 60% of patients. At three years, six patients were responders (37.5%). Out of the 11 responders at one-year post implantation, five had remained headache responders (R-R) and one additional patient became a responder (NR-R). There was a statistically significant improvement in the EQ VAS score (median change: 15 point increase, p = 0.019) and HIT-6 score (median change: 7.5 point decrease, p = 0.0017) compared with baseline. Clinically significant anxiety and depression scores both, respectively, resolved among 22.5% and 33.9% of patients. Five out of seven disabled patients were back to work. CONCLUSION: ONS may be a safe and effective treatment modality for patients suffering from a refractory CeH. Further study may be warranted.

Canadian Headache Society systematic review and recommendations on the treatment of migraine pain in emergency settings.

BACKGROUND: There is a considerable amount of practice variation in managing migraines in emergency settings, and evidence-based therapies are often not used first line. METHODS: A peer-reviewed search of databases (MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL) was carried out to identify randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials of interventions for acute pain relief in adults presenting with migraine to emergency settings. Where possible, data were pooled into meta-analyses. RESULTS: Two independent reviewers screened 831 titles and abstracts for eligibility. Three independent reviewers subsequently evaluated 120 full text articles for inclusion, of which 44 were included. Individual studies were then assigned a US Preventive Services Task Force quality rating. The GRADE scheme was used to assign a level of evidence and recommendation strength for each intervention. INTERPRETATION: We strongly recommend the use of prochlorperazine based on a high level of evidence, lysine acetylsalicylic acid, metoclopramide and sumatriptan, based on a moderate level of evidence, and ketorolac, based on a low level of evidence. We weakly recommend the use of chlorpromazine based on a moderate level of evidence, and ergotamine, dihydroergotamine, lidocaine intranasal and meperidine, based on a low level of evidence. We found evidence to recommend strongly against the use of dexamethasone, based on a moderate level of evidence, and granisetron, haloperidol and trimethobenzamide based on a low level of evidence. Based on moderate-quality evidence, we recommend weakly against the use of acetaminophen and magnesium sulfate. Based on low-quality evidence, we recommend weakly against the use of diclofenac, droperidol, lidocaine intravenous, lysine clonixinate, morphine, propofol, sodium valproate and tramadol.

Licit and illicit drug use in cluster headache.

Cluster headache patients seem to use more licit and illicit substances than the general population. The epidemiologic data supporting this is growing. We included the licit drugs in this review because their use seems to be driven by the same addiction mechanisms leading to illicit drug abuse. Some drugs may be used in an attempt to treat cluster headache, especially cocaine and hallucinogens. Drug exposure may also play a role in CH pathophysiology, as suggested by interesting data on tobacco use and second-hand smoke exposure. A common factor may contribute both to CH and drug use predisposition. Genetic factors may be at play, and the dopaminergic and orexinergic pathways could be targeted for future studies.

Use of cannabis among 139 cluster headache sufferers.

AIMS: A case report suggested the efficacy of cannabis to treat cluster headache (CH) attacks. Our aims were to study the frequency of cannabis use in CH patients, and the reported effects on attacks. METHODS: A total of 139 patients with CH attending two French headache centers filled out questionnaires. RESULTS: Sixty-three of the 139 patients (45.3%) had a history of cannabis use. As compared to nonusers, cannabis users were more likely to be younger (p < 0.001), male (p = 0.002) and tobacco smokers (p < 0.001). Among the 27 patients (19.4% of the total cohort) who had tried cannabis to treat CH attacks, 25.9% reported some efficacy, 51.8% variable or uncertain effects, and 22.3% negative effects. CONCLUSIONS: Cannabis use is very frequent in CH patients, but its efficacy for the treatment of the attacks is limited. Less than one third of self-reported users mention a relief of their attacks following inhalation. Cannabis should not be recommended for CH unless controlled trials with synthetic selective cannabinoids show a more convincing therapeutic benefit.

Canadian Headache Society Guideline: acute drug therapy for migraine headache.

OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of this guideline is to assist the practitioner in choosing an appropriate acute medication for an individual with migraine, based on current evidence in the medical literature and expert consensus. It is focused on patients with episodic migraine ( headache on ≤ 14 days a month). METHODS: A detailed search strategy was used to find a relevant meta-analyses, systematic reviews and randomized double-blind controlled trials. Recommendations were graded with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group, using a consensus group. In addition, a general literature review and expert consensus were used for aspects of acute therapy for which randomized controlled trials were not available. RESULTS: Twelve acute medications received a strong recommendation for use in acute migraine therapy (almotriptan, eletriptan, frovatriptan, naratriptan, rizatriptan, sumatriptan, zomitriptan, ASA, ibuprofen, naproxen sodium, diclofenac potassium, and acetaminophen). Four received a weak recommendation for use (dihydroergotamine, ergotamine, codeine-containing combination analgesics, and tramadol- containing medications). Three of these were NOT recommended for routine use (ergotamine and codeine- and tramadol- containing medications). Strong recommendations were made to avoid use of butorphanol and butalbital- containing medications. Metoclopramide and domperidone were strongly recommended for use when necessary. Our analysis also resulted in the formulation of eight general acute migraine management strategies. These were grouped into: 1) two mild-moderate attack strategies, 2) two moderate-severe attack or NSAID failure strategies, 3) three refractory migraine strategies, and 4) a vasoconstrictor unresponsive-contraindicated strategy. Additional were developed for menstrual migraine during pregnancy, and migraine during lactation. CONCLUSION: This guideline provides evidence-based advice on acute pharmacological migraine therapy, and should be helpful to both health professionals and patients, The available medications have been organized into a series of strategies based on patient clinical features. These strategies may help practitioners make appropriate acute medication choices for patients with migraine.

Occipital injections for trigemino-autonomic cephalalgias: evidence and uncertainties.

Cluster headache is a debilitating disorder. Oral prophylactic treatments may act with a significant delay, cause side effects, or fail to control the attacks. Injections targeting the occipital nerve have raised interest for the management of CH. Their efficacy is thought to result from the anatomical convergence of trigeminal and cervical afferents in the trigeminal nucleus caudalis. Efficacy and safety of occipital injections are now documented by 2 randomized controlled trials and several case series, though the optimal technique and substance to be injected are still subject to discussion due to varied approaches in the published studies. The evidence supports the use of injected steroids, with or without the addition of an anesthetic. Side effects of local pain are common, but unlikely to be severe. Systemic effects related to steroid absorption are reported but infrequent. Occipital injections provide a rapid benefit on the frequency of attacks and can be used as an adjunct to an oral prophylactic for a quicker improvement. Whether or not this approach can be used without any oral prophylaxis is still to be determined. The technique is easy to master, has a low cost, and should be learned by physicians involved in CH management.

Real-Life Response to Erenumab in a Therapy-Resistant Case Series of Migraine Patients From the Province of Québec, Eastern Canada.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Erenumab is the first migraine-specific preventive therapy approved by Health Canada since the approval of onabotulinumtoxinA 10 years ago. It is one of four calcitonin gene-related peptide antagonist monoclonal antibodies that have been commercialized worldwide for use in the headache pipeline. The objective of our study was to determine real-life efficacy of monthly erenumab for the prevention of migraine in a small case series of difficult-to-treat patients followed at a tertiary headache clinic from the Canadian province of Québec. METHODS: We performed a retrospective chart audit of patients having failed four or more conventional migraine oral preventive therapies and who were treated with monthly self-administered subcutaneous erenumab (70 or 140 mg/mL dose) over a 1-year period. We assessed the patients' baseline characteristics, response to treatment, and tolerability. RESULTS: A total of 18 patients with a diagnosis of high-frequency episodic migraines or chronic migraine met criteria (83.3% female; mean age: 48.7 years; mean duration of migraine condition: 32.9 years). Patients self-administered erenumab using a prefilled disposable autoinjector on a monthly basis; 16 patients received a 140 mg/mL dosage, two patients received a 70 mg/mL dosage. At 1 year follow-up, 50% of patients reported ≥ 50% reduction in migraine frequency and were deemed responders. Patients attempted six doses of erenumab therapy prior to discontinuation for non-response, except for two patients with other concomitant chronic pain conditions, who required ten doses to reach a 50% response. For the overall cohort, there was a decrease of 5.2 monthly migraine days; 9 days for responders and 1.3 days for non-responders (t-test (df = 16) = - 2.77, p = 0.014). There was an additional decrease of 7 monthly non-migraine days amongst patients with unremitting daily headaches; 8 days for responders and 5 days for non-responders (p > 0.05). There was a decrease of 5.4 monthly days using acute analgesics; 8.9 days for responders and 2 days for non-responders (T(16) = - 2.33, p = 0.033). The overall mean reduction in disability using the Headache Impact Test (HIT-6) score was 5.6 points; only responders showed a reduction in HIT-6 severity category (p > 0.05). The most commonly reported adverse event was constipation (16.7%), which did not lead to treatment discontinuation and was successfully managed in all patients with early counselling and intervention. CONCLUSION: This study supports the efficacy of erenumab in a case series of therapy-resistant migraine patients from the region of Québec. A high rate of previously failed preventive oral agents and medication overuse did not predict response in our patient cohort. In the presence of real-world complexity factors, such as psychological distress, regular opioid consumption and concomitant chronic pain conditions, a longer therapy trial may be warranted in obtaining optimal response.

Evaluation of Patients with Insufficient Efficacy and/or Tolerability to Triptans for the Acute Treatment of Migraine: A Systematic Literature Review.

INTRODUCTION: Use of triptans for acute treatment of migraine is associated with insufficient efficacy and/or tolerability in approximately 30-40% of people. We conducted a systematic literature review (SLR) to synthesize definitions, terminology, subsequent treatment outcomes, and characteristics associated with this subpopulation. METHODS: A comprehensive SLR was conducted to identify studies, published from Jan 1995 to May 2019, which focused on insufficient efficacy and/or tolerability to triptans. RESULTS: Thirty-five publications were identified, of which 22 described randomized controlled trials and open-label studies, and 13 described observational studies. Across studies, multiple objectives and a high amount of variability in methodologies and outcomes were noted. The most commonly applied measures of efficacy were headache pain freedom and pain relief at 2 h. Ten studies assessed efficacy of switching or optimizing treatment in patients with historical insufficient efficacy or tolerability to previous triptan treatment and demonstrated varying levels of success. Factors associated with increased risk of triptan insufficient efficacy included severe baseline headache severity, photophobia, phonophobia, nausea, and depression. CONCLUSIONS: Irrespective of the methodology or definition used to identify people with insufficient efficacy and/or tolerability to triptans, study results support the assertion that a high unmet need remains for effective acute treatment of migraine.

Two randomized migraine studies of galcanezumab: Effects on patient functioning and disability.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate changes from baseline in patient-reported outcomes for measures of functioning and disability among patients with migraine treated with galcanezumab or placebo. METHODS: Patients with episodic migraine (4-14 monthly migraine headache days) were treated with either galcanezumab (Evaluation of LY2951742 in the Prevention of Episodic Migraine [EVOLVE]-1: 120 mg n = 210, 240 mg n = 208; EVOLVE-2: 120 mg n = 226, 240 mg n = 220) or placebo (EVOLVE-1 n = 425; EVOLVE-2 n = 450) during 6 months of treatment. Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire v2.1 (MSQv2.1) measured the effect of migraine on patient functioning (physical and emotional) in 3 domains, and the Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) quantified headache-related disability associated with missed or reduced productivity at work or home and social events. Both were collected at baseline and during the treatment period (MSQv2.1 = monthly; MIDAS = months 3 and 6 only). RESULTS: Differences in MSQv2.1 total score least squares (LS) mean change from baseline (month 4-6) for galcanezumab (120 and 240 mg, respectively) were superior to placebo (EVOLVE-1 = 7.3 and 6.7 [both p < 0.001]; EVOLVE-2 = 8.5 and 7.3 [both p < 0.001]). Differences were similar for all domain scores (p < 0.001 for both galcanezumab doses compared with placebo), were observed as early as month 1, and were sustained for 6 months for most domains. Differences of MIDAS LS mean change from baseline (month 6) for galcanezumab (120 and 240 mg, respectively) compared with placebo were: EVOLVE-1 = -6.3 (p < 0.001) and -5.2 (p = 0.002); EVOLVE-2 = -9.2 and -8.2 (both p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with episodic migraine treated with galcanezumab reported significant and clinically meaningful improvements in daily functioning and decreased disability compared with patients who received placebo. CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE: This study provides Class II evidence that for patients with migraine, galcanezumab (120 mg or 240 mg) given once monthly improved functioning and reduced disability.

A case report of complex auricular neuralgia treated with the great auricular nerve and facet blocks.

BACKGROUND: The great auricular nerve is a cutaneous branch of the cervical plexus originating from the C2 and C3 spinal nerves. It innervates the skin over the external ear, the angle of the mandible and the parotid gland. It communicates with the ansa cervicalis. Great auricular neuralgia is rarely diagnosed in clinical practice and can be refractory. We present a new approach using ultrasound-guided nerve blocks. CASE: We present a case of a 41-year-old female with paroxysmal ear pain accompanied by dysautonomia, tingling in the tongue, dysphagia, dysarthria and abdominal symptoms. No significant findings were found on cervical and brain imaging. The patient responded partially to a great auricular nerve block. A combined approach using this block with facet block of C2 and C3 induced a more pronounced and prolonged benefit. CONCLUSION: Great auricular neuralgia is not often encountered in practice and can be accompanied by symptoms originating from the ansa cervicalis network. A combined approach of nerve blocks can be considered in refractory cases.