Responder rates with eptinezumab over 24 weeks in patients with prior preventive migraine treatment failures: post hoc analysis of the DELIVER randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Eptinezumab reduced monthly migraine days more than placebo in the DELIVER study, a clinical trial with patients with difficult-to-treat migraine and prior preventive treatment failures. This post hoc analysis assesses the sustained response to eptinezumab at the population and patient level and evaluates the potential for response in initial non-responders. METHODS: Adults with chronic or episodic migraine and two to four prior preventive treatment failures were randomized to eptinezumab 100 mg, 300 mg or placebo every 12 weeks. Primary outcomes in this post hoc analysis are the proportion of patients with ≥30%, ≥50% or ≥75% reduction in monthly migraine days (i.e., migraine responder rates [MRRs]) during weeks 1-12 and weeks 13-24 and across 4-week intervals. Secondary outcomes are maintenance and shifts in MRRs from weeks 1-12 to weeks 13-24. RESULTS: Between weeks 1-12 and 13-24, ≥30% MRRs increased from 65.9% to 70.4% (100 mg) and from 71.0% to 74.5% (300 mg), versus 36.9% to 43.1% (placebo). The ≥50% and ≥75% MRRs were sustained or increased over the 24-week period. The largest increase in ≥30% MRRs occurred after the second infusion with eptinezumab. The percentage of initial non-responders (<30% MRRs during weeks 1-12) who experienced response (≥30% MRRs during weeks 13-24) to the second dose was 34.7% (100 mg) and 30.4% (300 mg) with eptinezumab versus 21.1% with placebo. CONCLUSION: Across MRR thresholds, most patients who responded to eptinezumab during weeks 1-12 maintained or improved response during weeks 13-24. More than one-third of initial non-responders became responders after their second infusion.

Meta-analysis of placebo-arm dropouts in osteoporosis randomized-controlled trials and implications for nocebo-associated discontinuation of anti-osteoporotic drugs in clinical practice.

Dropout from placebo arms in randomized-controlled trials is a surrogate for nocebo responses, resulting from patients' negative expectations to treatment. Among 16,460 placebo-treated patients in oral anti-osteoporotic drug trials, nocebo dropouts were 8% on average, being higher in older patients. This implies that nocebo may contribute to the osteoporosis treatment gap in clinical practice. PURPOSE: Osteoporosis is a common disease requiring long-term treatment. Despite the availability of effective anti-osteoporotic drugs, adherence to treatment is low. Nocebo, a behavior mostly related to the negative expectations to a certain treatment, decreases adherence and negatively affects treatment outcomes and health-related care costs in chronic diseases. Since in double-blind placebo-controlled randomized trials any unfavorable outcome leading to discontinuation in placebo arms is considered as nocebo, we aimed to investigate the size of nocebo response in patients participating in osteoporosis trials. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, SCOPUS, and Cochrane databases for dropouts due to reported adverse events in the placebo arms (nocebo dropouts) in all double-blind trials investigating anti-osteoporotic drugs published between January 1993 and March 2022. Only data on bisphosphonates and selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERMs) were analyzed (Prospero registration number CRD42020212843). RESULTS: Data from 44 trials were extracted. In 16,460 placebo-treated patients, the pooled nocebo-dropout was 8% both for bisphosphonates (average: 0.08; range 0.01-0.27; 95%CI 0.06-0.10) and SERMs (average: 0.08; range 0.03-0.15; 95%CI 0.05-0.13). Nocebo-dropouts were higher in bisphosphonate trials enrolling individuals ≥ 65 years (11%) (n = 18) compared to trials enrolling younger individuals (6%) (n = 18) (average: 0.11; 95%CI 0.08-0.13 vs. average: 0.06; 95%CI 0.05-0.08, respectively, p = 0.001). Participants' sex, dosing-intervals, publication year, or severity of osteoporosis had no impact on the nocebo-dropouts. CONCLUSION: Almost 1 in 10 osteoporosis patients receiving placebo in trials of bisphosphonates and SERMs experiences AEs leading to dropout, implying that nocebo contributes to treatment-discontinuation in clinical practice. Efforts to identify and minimize nocebo, especially in older patients, are warranted.

The prevalence and burden of medication overuse headache in Greece.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the prevalence and burden of medication overuse headache in a representative sample of the Greek population, aged 18-70 years old. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional descriptive observational study performed by quantitative computer-assisted telephone interviews, using a standardized 37-item questionnaire for headaches. The prevalence of medication overuse headache was estimated in the general population and compared within the groups formed by factors such as age, gender, diagnosis of headache type, prophylactic treatment used, geographical regions, social class, workdays lost and loss of productivity. RESULTS: 1197 (12.0%) participants reported headaches affecting performance out of 10,008 interviewees. The estimated prevalence of medication overuse headache in the general population was 0.7% (95% CI: 0.5-0.9). The female to male ratio was 3.6:1. The proportion of medication overuse headache was largest in the 35-54 age group, followed by the over 55 group. The Aegean islands and Crete were the regions with the highest proportion of medication overuse headache. Among participants with headaches, the proportion of medication overuse headache was 5.8% (95% CI: 4.4%-7.1%); 6.3% (95% CI: 4.7%-7.9%) among females and 4.4% (95% CI: 2.2%-6.6%) among males. In the same headache group, the proportion of medication overuse headache by prophylactic treatment for headache was 19.0% (95% CI: 9.5%-29.1%) for recipients and 5.0% (95% CI: 3.8-6.3) for non-recipients. The mean absenteeism in people with medication overuse headache was 1.0 days/month (95% CI: 0.4-1.6) and the mean presenteeism 6.3 days/month (95% CI: 3.9-8.7). The social class stratification showed a significant effect between the medication overuse headache in the sample of the general population and the C2 class, corresponding to skilled manual labour (OR: 0.7, CI: 0.5-0.9). In people with chronic migraine, and chronic tension type headache, as differentiated by the 37-item questionnaire, the proportion of medication overuse headache in the headache group estimated to be 50.5% (95% CI: 40.8%-60.1%) and 45.9%, (95% CI: 29.9%-62.0%) respectively. The group of people with acute headache medication overuse fulfilling the rest of the diagnostic criteria for medication overuse headache, except from the number of headache days per month (≥15 days/month), had a prevalence of 2.0% (95% CI: 1.75-2.30) and a proportion of 17.0% (95% CI: 14.8%-19.1%) among people with headache. In the episodic types of headache, the proportion of acute headache medication overuse was higher in the subgroup of people with high frequency episodic migraine, 24.9% (95% CI: 18.8%-31.0%), while it was 10.8% (95% CI: 8.2%-13.5%), for the low frequency episodic migraine and 8.5% (95% CI: 5.5%-10.4%), for the episodic tension type headache. CONCLUSION: The prevalence of medication overuse headache in the general population in Greece and its proportion among the people with headache belongs to the lower part of the range of the reported literature, while the 3.6:1 female to male ratio is in agreement with it. In the same line, the impact of absenteeism and presenteeism on the workplace renders the condition alarming socio-economic health problem demanding immediate health policy planning.

Real-world effectiveness of fremanezumab for the preventive treatment of migraine: Interim analysis of the pan-European, prospective, observational, phase 4 PEARL study.

BACKGROUND: The ongoing Pan-European Real Life (PEARL) phase 4 study is evaluating fremanezumab effectiveness and safety for the prevention of episodic and chronic migraine. This interim analysis reports primary, secondary and exploratory endpoints from when 500 participants completed at least six months of treatment. METHODS: Adults with episodic migraine or chronic migraine maintaining daily headache diaries were enrolled upon initiation of fremanezumab. Primary endpoint: proportion of participants with ≥50% reduction in monthly migraine days during the six-month period after fremanezumab initiation. Secondary endpoints: mean change from baseline across months 1-12 in monthly migraine days, acute migraine medication use, and headache-related disability. Exploratory endpoint: mean change in headache severity from baseline across months 1-12. Safety was assessed through adverse events reported. RESULTS: Overall, 897 participants were enrolled and 574 included in the effectiveness analyses (episodic migraine, 25.8%; chronic migraine, 74.2%). Of participants with data available, 175/313 (55.9%) achieved ≥50% monthly migraine days reduction during the six-month period post-initiation. Across months 1-12, there were sustained reductions in mean monthly migraine days, acute medication use, disability scores, and headache severity. Few adverse events were reported. CONCLUSION: PEARL interim results support the effectiveness and safety of fremanezumab for migraine prevention in a real-world population across several European countries.Trial registration: encepp.eu: EUPAS35111.

Numbers needed to treat or harm and likelihood of being helped versus harmed for fremanezumab in patients who had prior inadequate response to two to four classes of migraine preventive medications: A post hoc analysis.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine the number needed to treat (NNT), number needed to harm (NNH), and likelihood of being helped or harmed (LHH) in a post hoc analysis of the phase 3b FOCUS trial. BACKGROUND: Fremanezumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody that selectively targets calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP), has demonstrated efficacy, tolerability, and safety in adults with episodic migraine (EM) or chronic migraine (CM), with documented previous inadequate response to two to four classes of migraine preventive medications. METHODS: In the 12-week double-blind period of the FOCUS study, patients were randomized (1:1:1) to quarterly fremanezumab, monthly fremanezumab, or matched monthly placebo. NNT was based on responder analysis, defined as ≥50% reduction in monthly average number of migraine days at 12 weeks. NNH was based on discontinuations due to adverse events (AEs). RESULTS: Among patients with CM (n = 509), response rates and discontinuation rates were 27% (45/169) and 0 for quarterly fremanezumab, 29% (50/173) and 2% (3/173) for monthly fremanezumab, and 8% (13/167) and <1% (1/167) for placebo, respectively. These results translated to NNTs of 5.3 and 4.7, NNHs of 1000 and 88, and LHHs of 188 and 19 for quarterly and monthly fremanezumab, respectively. Among patients with EM (n = 328), response rates were 47% (50/107) for quarterly fremanezumab, 43% (47/110) for monthly fremanezumab, and 10% (11/111) for placebo. Discontinuation rates were <1% (n = 1) in all three groups. These results translated to NNTs of 2.7 and 3.0, NNHs of 1000 and 1000, and LHHs of 368 and 328 for quarterly and monthly fremanezumab, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The NNT, NNH, and LHH for quarterly and monthly fremanezumab compare favorably with those for traditional oral preventive medications, including topiramate, valproate, and propranolol.

Therapies targeting CGRP signaling for medication overuse headache.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Medication overuse headache (MOH) affects more than 60 million individuals worldwide causing enormous personal and social burden. Only repurposed drugs are available for MOH that share limited evidence for efficacy. The preclinical data suggesting that activation of the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) pathway is involved in headache chronification along with clinical evidence that monoclonal antibodies targeting CGRP (anti-CGRP mAbs) have good efficacy in preventing chronic migraine, triggered this review that aims to summarize the current data on the effectiveness and safety of mAbs against CGRP in MOH. RECENT FINDINGS: Post hoc analyses of phase-3 trials of erenumab, fremanezumab, galcanezumab, and eptinezumab for the prevention of chronic migraine revealed that patients with MOH benefit from the treatment over placebo. Several real-world studies confirm the efficacy of erenumab and galcanezumab in patients with MO. However, all published trials evaluated treatments in patients with chronic migraine with MO collectively, not in patients with MOH exclusively. SUMMARY: The available data indicate that anti-CGRP mAbs represent a good mechanism-based and disease-specific therapeutical option with for MOH as long as detoxification and additional nonpharmaceutical interventions are operated. Future research should focus on long-term-controlled trials in MOH populations exclusively.

Migraine: integrated approaches to clinical management and emerging treatments.

Migraine is a highly disabling neurological disorder that directly affects more than 1 billion individuals worldwide. Available treatment options differ between countries and include acute, preventive, and non-pharmacological therapies. Because of major progress in the understanding of migraine pathogenesis, novel mechanism-based medications have emerged and expanded the armamentarium of treatments. We provide a comprehensive overview of the current standard of care that will enable informed clinical management. First, we discuss the efficacy, tolerability, and safety profile of various pharmacological therapies for acute and preventive treatment of migraine. Second, we review the current knowledge on non-pharmacological therapies, such as neuromodulation and biobehavioural approaches, which can be used for a multidisciplinary approach to clinical management. Third, we emphasise that any effective treatment strategy starts with building a therapeutic plan tailored to individual clinical characteristics, preferences, and needs. Finally, we explore the outlook of emerging mechanism-based treatments that could address unmet challenges in clinical management of migraine.

Visual snow: A systematic review and a case series.

BACKGROUND: Visual Snow Syndrome is a recently recognized neurological condition presenting, continuous, tiny dots across the entire visual field, accompanied by nyctalopia, photophobia and palinopsia that persist for months. It may be part of migraine aura spectrum, yet its definition is still questionable. Diagnostic criteria for Visual Snow Syndrome are included in the supplemental material of ICHD-3. We aimed to summarize recent data to improve the understanding of Visual Snow Syndrome. METHODS: After presenting four new cases, we conducted a PRISMA systematic search in PubMed/MEDLINE and Embase databases using the keyword "visual snow" with specific inclusion and exclusion criteria. RESULTS: From the 855 articles identified 30 were included for the qualitative analysis. These reports covered five aspects related to Visual Snow Syndrome: epidemiology, clinical features, comorbidities, pathophysiology, and treatment. We found limited data concerning Visual Snow Syndrome's epidemiology (one study). Clinical presentation (22 articles) and the comorbidities (migraine with aura and tinnitus most often, five reports) are described in detail. The pathophysiology of Visual Snow Syndrome is only approached with hypotheses, but several neuroimaging studies have been identified (seven articles). Treatment is based on single case reports only. CONCLUSION: Data for Visual Snow Syndrome are few and not strong enough to support Visual Snow Syndrome as a medical identity. Further investigation is needed.

Drug tolerability: How much ambiguity can be tolerated? A systematic review of the assessment of tolerability in clinical studies.

AIMS: Drug tolerability refers to the degree to which drugs' overt adverse effects can be tolerated by patients. The tolerability profile is of comparative importance to its efficacy and safety, as it largely determines adherence to treatment and ultimately treatment success or failure. However, the term is frequently used imprecisely, and it is unclear if tolerability is limited to subjective patient-reported symptoms or also covers certain objective signs and findings. The aim of this systematic review was to assess how clinical studies define, evaluate and present drug tolerability. METHODS: The study consisted of a systematic review of clinical studies in PubMed® reporting the term "tolerability". RESULTS: Eighty clinical studies were screened and 56 studies reporting drug tolerability were retained. None of the retained studies defined events encompassed by the term tolerability by making a distinction between safety and tolerability. Twenty-five studies claimed to evaluate tolerability, but none of them described how to evaluate tolerability from the patient perspective. Most studies (54 out of 56) concluded that the treatment was well tolerated, apparently implying favourable safety. However, none of them actually presented tolerability in terms of a contrast between safety and tolerability. CONCLUSIONS: Tolerability is used frequently, albeit incorrectly, to refer to a drug's favourable safety profile. Focused evaluation of drug tolerability (i.e., the patient perspective of adverse drug reactions) should become routine. Presentation in regulatory documents, such as risk management plan summaries, product information and patient leaflets should be a continuation of the process of patient-centred healthcare.

Understanding frontal lobe function in epilepsy: Juvenile myoclonic epilepsy vs. frontal lobe epilepsy.

AIM: To compare neuropsychological function in juvenile myoclonic epilepsy (JME) and frontal lobe epilepsy (FLE) since frontal circuitry is involved in both conditions. By drawing on previously theory-guided hypotheses and findings, a particular emphasis is placed on the way different cognitive-pathophysiological mechanisms act upon to produce frontal dysfunction in JME (frontal-executive and attention-related problems: vigilance, reaction times, processing speed, and response inhibition) and in FLE (reflecting the coproduct of the functional deficit zone), respectively. METHODS: A total of 16 patients with JME, 34 patients with FLE, and 48 normal controls, all matched for age and education, were administered a comprehensive battery of tests to assess frontal-executive functions, as well as attention, memory, and learning domains. Participants did not take medications other than antiepileptics or have a psychiatric history. RESULTS: Patients with FLE overall showed worse neuropsychological performance compared to both JME and HCs. With respect to JME, patients with FLE did significantly worse in measures of verbal and nonverbal executive function, short-term-, and long-term- auditory-verbal memory and learning, immediate and delayed episodic recall, visual attention and motor function, visuo-motor coordination and psychomotor speed, speed of visual information processing, and vocabulary. Patients with JME performed significantly worse compared to FLE only in associative semantic processing, while the former outperformed all groups in vocabulary, visuomotor coordination, and psychomotor speed. CONCLUSION: We suggest that selective impairments of visual- and mostly auditory-speed of information processing, vigilance, and response inhibition may represent a salient neuropsychological feature in JME. These findings suggest the existence of an aberrantly working executive-attention system, secondary to pathological reticulo-thalamo-cortical dynamics. Contrariwise, cortically (frontal and extra-frontal) and subcortically induced malfunction in FLE is determined by the functional deficit zone i.e., the ensemble of cortical and subcortical areas that are functionally abnormal between seizures.

COVID-19 vaccine safety and nocebo-prone associated hesitancy in patients with systemic rheumatic diseases: a cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the rate and type of adverse effects (AEs) and the frequency of disease flares after COVID-19 vaccination and to assess the reasons for vaccination hesitancy (non-vaccination) in SRD patients. METHODS: Telephone interviews were conducted of SRD patients consecutively enrolled (15/06/2021-1/7/2021). Participants were asked about the type of AEs and disease flare after vaccination. Reasons for vaccination hesitancy were recorded. Univariate and mutivariable analyses examined associations of demographic, clinical and other features, with occurrence of AEs, disease flare and non-vaccination. For the latter, association with negative vaccination behaviour (not influenza vaccinated for the last 2 years) and nocebo-prone behaviour (denoting AEs attributed to negative expectations [Q-No questionnaire]) was also tested. RESULTS: 561 out of 580 contacted patients were included in the study. 441/561 (78.6%) patients were vaccinated [90% (Pfizer, Moderna), 10% (Astra-Zeneca)]. AEs were reported by 148/441 (33.6%), with rates being comparable between the three vaccines. AEs were more common in females and those with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease [OR, 95% CI; females: 2.23 (1.30-3.83); COPD: 3.31 (1.24-8.83)]. Disease flare was reported in 9/441 (2%) patients. For those unvaccinated, fear that the vaccine would be harmful (53.3%), could cause disease flare (24.2%) and/or could cause thrombosis (21.7%) were the main reasons to do so. Multivariable analysis identified as independent variables for non-vaccination: nocebo-prone behaviour (OR; 95% CI, 3.88; 1.76-8.55), negative vaccination behaviour (6.56; 3.21-13.42) and previous COVID-19 infection (2.83; 1.13-7.05). Higher educational status was protective (0.49; 0.26-0.92). CONCLUSION: No new safety signals for COVID-19 vaccination were observed. Vaccination campaign should target SRD patients with nocebo-prone and negative influenza vaccination behaviour.

Anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies for migraine prevention: A systematic review and likelihood to help or harm analysis.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Monoclonal antibodies targeting the calcitonin gene-related peptide pathway (anti-CGRP mAbs) have shown promising efficacy in randomised clinical trials for the prevention of episodic and chronic migraine, but no head-to-head comparisons with established treatments are available. We aimed to examine absolute differences in benefit-risk ratios between anti-CGRP mAbs, topiramate and propranolol for the prevention of episodic migraine and between anti-CGRP mAbs, topiramate and onabotulinumtoxinA for the prevention of chronic migraine using a likelihood to help versus harm analysis. METHODS: The number of patients needed to be treated for a patient to achieve ≥ 50% reduction in migraine days (NNTB50%) was used as an effect size metric of efficacy. The number of patients needed to be treated for a patient to experience an adverse event that led to treatment discontinuation (NNTHD-AE) was used as a measure of risk. Likelihood to help versus harm values - which are the ratios of NNTH:NNTB - were calculated using data from phase 3 randomised clinical trials. RESULTS: All agents tested were more likely to be beneficial than harmful (likelihood to help versus harm > 1) with the exception of topiramate at 200 mg per day for the prevention of episodic migraine. Anti-CGRP mAbs in all tested doses had higher LHH values than propranolol or topiramate for episodic migraine and onabotulinumtoxinA or topiramate for chronic migraine prevention. Fremanezumab had the highest LHH ratio in episodic migraine and galcanezumab in chronic migraine. CONCLUSION: This analysis showed that anti-CGRP mAbs exhibit a more favourable benefit-risk ratio than established treatments for episodic and chronic migraine. Head-to-head studies are needed to confirm these results.

A population-based survey for disabling headaches in Greece: Prevalence, burden and treatment preferences.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the prevalence, burden and current treatment of disabling primary headaches in a large sample of the Greek population aged 18-70 years old. METHODS: This is an observational descriptive study, with cross-sectional design performed by quantitative computer-assisted telephone interviews, using a validated 37-item questionnaire for headaches. The prevalence, burden, and current treatment of primary headaches (ICHD-3) were recorded along with participants' treatment preferences. RESULTS: Out of 10,008 interviewed participants, 1197 (12.0%) reported headaches affecting performance. The annual prevalence of migraine was 8.1% (95% confidence interval, 7.6-8.7, corresponding to 0.6 million Greeks), of chronic migraine 1.0% (95% confidence interval, 0.8-1.2, corresponding to 0.1 million), and of tension-type headache 3.8% (95% confidence interval, 3.4-4.2, corresponding to 0.3 million). The participants with headaches reported 0.5 headache-induced lost workdays per month (corresponding to 5.8 million lost workdays annually) and reductions in performance on 2.8 workdays per month (corresponding to 30.9 million workdays annually). In all, 43.4% of headache participants felt bad/ashamed because of headaches and 21.9% sought professional treatment, most often from a private neurologist. 83.8% of headache participants had never taken pharmacological prophylaxis, and only 5.5% were currently under preventative treatment. For both prophylactic and acute treatment, headache participants prefer oral medication to injection or stimulation devices. CONCLUSION: More than 10% of the Greek adult population up to 70 years old experience disabling headaches, causing a dramatic work loss. More than 80% of these have never taken pharmacological prophylaxis. Thus, enriching the quality of life of people with headaches relies crucially on expanding awareness about headaches and their treatment.

Structured headache services as the solution to the ill-health burden of headache: 1. Rationale and description

In countries where headache services exist at all, their focus is usually on specialist (tertiary) care. This is clinically and economically inappropriate: most headache disorders can effectively and more efficiently (and at lower cost) be treated in educationally supported primary care. At the same time, compartmentalizing divisions between primary, secondary and tertiary care in many health-care systems create multiple inefficiencies, confronting patients attempting to navigate these levels (the "patient journey") with perplexing obstacles.High demand for headache care, estimated here in a needs-assessment exercise, is the biggest of the challenges to reform. It is also the principal reason why reform is necessary.The structured headache services model presented here by experts from all world regions on behalf of the Global Campaign against Headache is the suggested health-care solution to headache. It develops and refines previous proposals, responding to the challenge of high demand by basing headache services in primary care, with two supporting arguments. First, only primary care can deliver headache services equitably to the large numbers of people needing it. Second, with educational supports, they can do so effectively to most of these people. The model calls for vertical integration between care levels (primary, secondary and tertiary), and protection of the more advanced levels for the minority of patients who need them. At the same time, it is amenable to horizontal integration with other care services. It is adaptable according to the broader national or regional health services in which headache services should be embedded.It is, according to evidence and argument presented, an efficient and cost-effective model, but these are claims to be tested in formal economic analyses.

Lateralization of Insular Ischemic Stroke is Not Associated With Any Stroke Clinical Outcomes: The Athens Stroke Registry.

BACKGROUND: Controversial evidence suggests that right insular stroke may be associated with worse outcomes compared to the left insular ischemic lesion. OBJECTIVES: We investigated whether lateralization of insular stroke is associated with early and late outcome in terms of in-hospital complications, stroke recurrence, cardiovascular events, and death. METHODS: Data were prospectively collected from the Athens Stroke Registry. Insular cortex involvement was identified based on brain CT scans or MRI images. Patients were followed up prospectively at 1, 3, 6 months after hospital discharge and yearly thereafter up to 5-years or until death. The assessed outcomes were in-hospital complications, functional outcome assessed by the modified Rankin Scale, stroke recurrence, cardiovascular events, and death. Cox-regression analysis was performed to estimate the cumulative probability of each outcome according to the lateralization of insular strokes. RESULTS: Among the 1212 patients, 650 had left insular stroke involvement and 562 had right. New onset of in-hospital atrial fibrillation was similar between right and left insular strokes (11.6% versus 12.9%, P = .484). During the 5-year follow-up sudden death occurred in 21 (3.7%) patients with right insular compared to 30 (4.6%) with left insular stroke (P = .476). There was no difference between left and right insular strokes regarding mortality (adjusted odds ratio [OR]: .92, 95% confidence interval [CI]: .80-1.06), stroke recurrence (4.3% versus 4.9%; adjusted OR: .81 95% CI: .58-1.13), cardiovascular events, and sudden death (adjusted OR: .99, 95% CI: .76-1.29) and on death and dependency (adjusted OR: .88, 95% CI: .75-1.02) during a 5-year follow up. CONCLUSIONS: Lateralization of insular ischemic stroke involvement is not associated with stroke outcomes.

European Headache Federation recommendations for placebo and nocebo terminology.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Despite recent publications, practitioners remain unfamiliar with the current terminology related to the placebo and nocebo phenomena observed in clinical trials and practice, nor with the factors that modulate them. To cover the gap, the European Headache Federation appointed a panel of experts to clarify the terms associated with the use of placebo in clinical trials. METHODS: The working group identified relevant questions and agreed upon recommendations. Because no data were required to answer the questions, the GRADE approach was not applicable, and thus only expert opinion was provided according to an amended Delphi method. The initial 12 topics for discussion were revised in the opinion of the majority of the panelists, and after a total of 6 rounds of negotiations, the final agreement is presented. RESULTS/RECOMMENDATIONS: Two primary and mechanism-based recommendations are provided for the results of clinical trials: [1] to distinguish the placebo or nocebo response from the placebo or nocebo effect; and [2] for any favorable outcome observed after placebo administration, the term "placebo response" should be used, and for any unfavorable outcome recorded after placebo administration, the term "nocebo response" should be used (12 out of 17 panelists agreed, 70.6% agreement). The placebo or nocebo responses are attributed to a set of factors including those that are related to the medical condition (e.g. natural history, random comorbidities, etc.), along with idiosyncratic ones, in which the placebo or nocebo effects are attributed to idiosyncratic, or nonspecific mechanisms, exclusively (e.g. expectation, conditioning, observational learning etc.). To help investigators and practitioners, the panel summarized a list of environmental factors and idiosyncratic dynamics modulating placebo and nocebo effects. Some of them are modifiable, and investigators or physicians need to know about them in order to modify these factors appropriately to improve treatment. One secondary recommendation addresses the use of the terms "placebo" and "nocebo" ("placebos" and "nocebos" in plural), which refer to the triggers of the placebo/nocebo effects or responses, respectively, and which are inert agents or interventions that should not be confused with the placebo/nocebo responses or effects themselves (all panelists agreed, 100% agreement). CONCLUSION: The working group recommends distinguishing the term response from effect to describe health changes from before to after placebo application and to distinguish the terms placebo(s) or nocebo(s) from the health consequences that they cause (placebo/nocebo responses or effects).

Trigeminal-Targeted Treatments in Migraine: Is 60% the Magic Number?

Trigeminal-targeted treatments (TTTs), the most specific and selective therapeutic migraine approach to date, are effective in approximately 60% of patients regardless of treatment type or mechanism, at least if used alone. Sixty percent is also the proportion of migraineurs who develop migraine-like episodes following experimental intravenous administration of trigeminal neuropeptides and roughly 60% is the percentage of patients with a unilateral migraine tracing the area of cutaneous distribution of the trigeminal ophthalmic branch. Hence, mechanisms other than the trigeminovascular activation are probably involved in the 40% of migraineurs who do not respond to TTTs. A closer cooperation between clinical and basic neuroscientists is needed to explore migraine models because only a careful appraisal of migraine endophenotypes may help to unravel their underlying multifaceted pathophysiological machinery.

Consensus of the Hellenic Headache Society on the diagnosis and treatment of migraine.

More than 0.6 million people suffer from disabling migraines in Greece causing a dramatic work loss, but only a small proportion of migraineurs attend headache centres, most of them being treated by non-experts. On behalf of the Hellenic Headache Society, we report here a consensus on the diagnosis and treatment of adult migraine that is based on the recent guidelines of the European Headache Federation, on the principles of Good Clinical Practice and on the Greek regulatory affairs. The purposes are three-fold: (1) to increase awareness for migraine in Greece; (2) to support Greek practitioners who are treating migraineurs; and (3) to help Greek migraineurs to get the most appropriate treatment. For mild migraine, symptomatic treatment with high dose simple analgesics is suggested, while for moderate to severe migraines triptans or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, or both, should be administered following an individually tailored therapeutic strategy. A rescue acute treatment option should always be advised. For episodic migraine prevention, metoprolol (50-200 mg/d), propranolol (40-240 mg/d), flunarizine (5-10 mg/d), valproate (500-1800 mg/d), topiramate (25-100 mg/d) and candesartan (16-32 mg/d) are the drugs of first choice. For chronic migraine prevention topiramate (100-200 mg/d), valproate (500-1800 mg/d), flunarizine (5-10 mg/d) and venlafaxine (150 mg/d) may be used, but the evidence is very limited. Botulinum toxin type A and monoclonal antibodies targeting the CGRP pathway (anti-CGRP mAbs) are recommended for patients suffering from chronic migraine (with or without medication overuse) who failed or did not tolerate two previous treatments. Anti-CGRP mAbs are also suggested for patients suffering from high frequency episodic migraine (≥8 migraine days per month and less than 14) who failed or did not tolerate two previous treatments.

Male and female sex hormones in primary headaches.

BACKGROUND: The three primary headaches, tension-type headache, migraine and cluster headache, occur in both genders, but all seem to have a sex-specific prevalence. These gender differences suggest that both male and female sex hormones could have an influence on the course of primary headaches. This review aims to summarise the most relevant and recent literature on this topic. METHODS: Two independent reviewers searched PUBMED in a systematic manner. Search strings were composed using the terms LH, FSH, progesteron*, estrogen*, DHEA*, prolactin, testosterone, androgen*, headach*, migrain*, "tension type" or cluster. A timeframe was set limiting the search to articles published in the last 20 years, after January 1st 1997. RESULTS: Migraine tends to follow a classic temporal pattern throughout a woman's life corresponding to the fluctuation of estrogen in the different reproductive stages. The estrogen withdrawal hypothesis forms the basis for most of the assumptions made on this behalf. The role of other hormones as well as the importance of sex hormones in other primary headaches is far less studied. CONCLUSION: The available literature mainly covers the role of sex hormones in migraine in women. Detailed studies especially in the elderly of both sexes and in cluster headache and tension-type headache are warranted to fully elucidate the role of these hormones in all primary headaches.

Calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies for migraine prevention: comparisons across randomized controlled studies.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The results of phase 2 randomized controlled trials for the prevention of episodic and chronic migraine demonstrating the efficacy and safety of four mAbs targeting the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) pathway [ALD403 (eptinezumab), AMG334 (erenumab), LY2951742 (galcanezumab) and TEV48125 (fremanezumab)] have been published recently, and phase 3 trials are in process. This development will change headache management fundamentally. We aim to summarize and compare the phase 2 data. RECENT FINDINGS: The change from baseline in the number of migraine days at the end of treatment in high-frequency episodic migraine was -1 (at weeks 5-8), -1.1 (at weeks 9-12), -1.2 (at weeks 9-12) and -2.6 (at weeks 9-12) days for ALD403, AMG344, LY2951742 and TEV48125 (225 mg), respectively. Number needed to treats for responders and odds ratio for any adverse event were 4.7, 6.2, 4.0 and 4.0 and 1.09, 0.96, 1.07 and 1.05, respectively. SUMMARY: All four CGRP antibodies display comparable efficacy that does not differ significantly from that of the currently available oral antimigraine drugs. However, their safety and tolerability profiles as well as low frequency of administration looks promising but remains to be verified in long-term and large-scale trials. Considerations related to pregnancy, risk for cardiovascular effects and cost are subject for further evaluation.