Percutaneous Interventional Strategies for Migraine Prevention: A Systematic Review and Practice Guideline.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically evaluate the efficacy and effectiveness of percutaneous interventional treatments for prevention of migraine through a qualitative and (when possible) quantitative analysis. METHODS: An expert panel was asked to develop recommendations for the multidisciplinary preventive treatment of migraine, including interventional strategies. The committee conducted a systematic review and (when evidence was sufficient) a meta-analytic review by using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) criteria and the modified Cochrane Risk of Bias analysis available in the Covidence data management program. Clinical questions addressed adults with migraine who should be offered prevention. Examined outcomes included headache days, acute medication use, and functional impairment. Acute management of migraine was outside the scope of this guideline. RESULTS: The committee screened 1,195 studies and assessed 352 by full text, yielding 16 randomized controlled trials that met the inclusion criteria. RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS: As informed by evidence related to the preselected outcomes, adverse event profile, cost, and values and preferences of patients, onabotulinumtoxinA received a strong recommendation for its use for chronic migraine prevention and a weak recommendation against its use for episodic migraine prevention. Greater occipital nerve blocks received a weak recommendation for their use for chronic migraine prevention. For greater occipital nerve block, steroid received a weak recommendation against its use vs the use of local anesthetic alone. Occipital nerve with supraorbital nerve blocks, sphenopalatine ganglion blocks, cervical spine percutaneous interventions, and implantable stimulation all received weak recommendations for their use for chronic migraine prevention. The committee found insufficient evidence to assess trigger point injections in migraine prevention and highly discouraged the use of intrathecal medication.

The American Headache Society Consensus Statement: Update on integrating new migraine treatments into clinical practice.

OBJECTIVE: To incorporate recent research findings, expert consensus, and patient perspectives into updated guidance on the use of new acute and preventive treatments for migraine in adults. BACKGROUND: The American Headache Society previously published a Consensus Statement on the use of newly introduced treatments for adults with migraine. This update, which is based on the expanded evidence base and emerging expert consensus concerning postapproval usage, provides practical recommendations in the absence of a formal guideline. METHODS: This update involved four steps: (1) review of data about the efficacy, safety, and clinical use of migraine treatments introduced since the previous Statement was published; (2) incorporation of these data into a proposed update; (3) review and commentary by the Board of Directors of the American Headache Society and patients and advocates associated with the American Migraine Foundation; (4) consideration of these collective insights and integration into an updated Consensus Statement. RESULTS: Since the last Consensus Statement, no evidence has emerged to alter the established principles of either acute or preventive treatment. Newly introduced acute treatments include two small-molecule calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor antagonists (ubrogepant, rimegepant); a serotonin (5-HT1F ) agonist (lasmiditan); a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (celecoxib oral solution); and a neuromodulatory device (remote electrical neuromodulation). New preventive treatments include an intravenous anti-CGRP ligand monoclonal antibody (eptinezumab). Several modalities, including neuromodulation (electrical trigeminal nerve stimulation, noninvasive vagus nerve stimulation, single-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation) and biobehavioral therapy (cognitive behavioral therapy, biofeedback, relaxation therapies, mindfulness-based therapies, acceptance and commitment therapy) may be appropriate for either acute and/or preventive treatment; a neuromodulation device may be appropriate for acute migraine treatment only (remote electrical neuromodulation). CONCLUSIONS: The integration of new treatments into clinical practice should be informed by the potential for benefit relative to established therapies, as well as by the characteristics and preferences of individual patients.

The American Registry for Migraine Research: Research Methods and Baseline Data for an Initial Patient Cohort.

BACKGROUND: The American Registry for Migraine Research (ARMR) is a multicenter, prospective, longitudinal patient registry, biorepository, and neuroimaging repository that collects clinical data, electronic health record (EHR) data, blood samples, and brain imaging data from individuals with migraine or other headache types. In this manuscript, we outline ARMR research methods and report baseline data describing an initial cohort of ARMR participants. METHODS: Adults with any International Classification of Headache Disorders (ICHD) diagnosis were prospectively enrolled from one of the 8 participating headache specialty centers. At baseline, ARMR participants complete web-based questionnaires, clinicians enter the participant's ICHD diagnoses, an optional blood specimen is collected, and neuroimaging data are uploaded to the ARMR neuroimaging repository. Participants maintain the ARMR daily headache diary longitudinally and follow-up questionnaires are completed by participants every 3 months. EHR data are integrated into the ARMR database from a subset of ARMR sites. Herein, we describe the ARMR methodology and report the summary data from ARMR participants who had, from February 2016 to May 2019, completed at least 1 baseline questionnaire from which data are reported in this manuscript. Descriptive statistics are used to provide an overview of patient's sociodemographics, headache diagnoses, headache characteristics, most bothersome symptoms other than headache, headache-related disability, comorbidities, and treatments. RESULTS: Data were available from 996 ARMR participants, enrolled from Mayo Clinic Arizona, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, University of Utah, University of Colorado, Thomas Jefferson University, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Georgetown University Medical Center, and DENT Neurological Institute. Among ARMR participants, 86.7% (n = 864) were female and the mean age at the time of enrollment was 48.6 years (±13.9; range 18-84). The most common provider-reported diagnosis was chronic migraine (n = 622), followed by migraine without aura (n = 327), migraine with aura (n = 196), and medication overuse headache (n = 65). Average headache frequency was 19.1 ± 9.2 days per month (n = 751), with 68% reporting at least 15 headache days per month. Sensitivity to light was the most frequent (n = 222) most bothersome symptom overall, other than headache, but when present, cognitive dysfunction was most frequently (n = 157) the most bothersome symptom other than headache. Average migraine disability assessment (MIDAS) score was 52 ± 49 (n = 760), (very severe headache-related disability); however, 17% of the ARMR population had MIDAS scores suggesting "no" or "mild" disability. The most common non-headache health issues were allergies (n = 364), back pain (n = 296), neck pain (n = 296), depression (n = 292), and anxiety (n = 278). Nearly 85% (n = 695) of patients were using preventive medications and 24.7% were using non-medication preventive therapy (eg, vitamins and neuromodulation). The most common preventive medication classes were neurotoxins, anticonvulsants, antidepressants, vitamins/supplements, and anticalcitonin gene-related peptide ligand or receptor-targeted monoclonal antibodies. Nearly 90% (n = 734) of ARMR participants was taking medications to treat migraine attacks, with the most common classes being triptans, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, antiemetics, acetaminophen, and combination analgesics. CONCLUSIONS: ARMR is a source of real-world patient data, biospecimens, and brain neuroimaging data that provides comprehensive insight into patients with migraine and other headache types being seen in headache specialty clinics in the United States. ARMR data will allow for longitudinal and advanced analytics that are expected to lead to a better characterization of patient heterogeneity, healthcare resource utilization, identification of endophenotypes, factors that predict treatment outcomes and clinical course, and ultimately advance the field toward precision headache medicine.

Neuromodulation for the Acute and Preventive Therapy of Migraine and Cluster Headache.

Headache disorders are among the most common and disabling medical conditions worldwide. Pharmacologic acute and preventive treatments are often insufficient and poorly tolerated, and the majority of patients are unable to adhere to their migraine treatments due to these issues. With improvements in our understanding of migraine and cluster headache pathophysiology, neuromodulation devices have been developed as safe and effective acute and preventive treatment options. In this review, we focus on neuromodulation devices that have been studied for migraine and cluster headache, with special attention to those that have gained food and drug administration (FDA) clearance. We will also explore how these devices can be used in patients who might have limited pharmacologic options, including the elderly, children, and pregnant women.

Traditional and Novel Migraine Therapy in the Aging Population.

Migraine is a common disabling disorder that affects 36 million Americans. The clinical features of migraine are less typical in the people above age 60, making the diagnosis and treatment difficult in this group. In this review, we will discuss migraine-specific drugs and their use in populations about age 60 who suffer from migraine. This discussion will include an overview of traditional treatments for the acute and preventive treatment of migraine, and considerations for their use in patient populations above age 60. In addition, we will discuss newer agents that show a more promising safety profile.

Procedural Headache Medicine in Neurology Residency Training: A Survey of US Program Directors.

OBJECTIVE: To survey neurology residency program directors (PDs) on trainee exposure, supervision, and credentialing in procedures widely utilized in headache medicine. BACKGROUND: Clinic-based procedures have assumed a prominent role in headache therapy. Headache fellows obtain procedural competence, but reliance on fellowship-trained neurologists cannot match the population eligible for treatments. The inclusion of educational modules and mechanisms for credentialing trainees pursuing procedural competence in residency curricula at individual programs is not known. METHODS: A web-based survey of US neurology residency PDs was designed by the American Headache Society (AHS) procedural special interest section in collaboration with AHS and American Academy of Neurology's Headache and Facial Pain section leadership. The survey addressed exposure, training, and credentialing in: (1) onabotulinumtoxinA (onabotA) injections, (2) extracranial peripheral nerve blocks (PNBs), and (3) trigger point injections (TPIs). RESULTS: Fifty-five PDs (42.6%) completed the survey. Compared to noncompleters, survey completers were more likely to feature headache fellowships at their institutions (38.2% vs 10.8%, P=0.0002). High exposure (onabotA=90.9%, PNBs=80.0%, TPIs=70.9%) usually featured hands-on patient instruction (66.2%) and lectures (55.7%). Supervised performance rates were high (onabotA=65.5%, PNBs=60.0%, TPIs=52.7%), usually in continuity clinic (60.0%) or headache elective (50.9%). Headache specialists (69.1%) or general neurology (32.7%) faculty most commonly trained residents. Formal credentialing was uncommon (16.4-18.2%), mostly by documenting supervised procedures (25.5%). Only 27.3% of programs permitted trainees to perform procedures independently. Most PDs felt procedural exposure (80.0-90.9%) and competence (50.9-56.4%) by all trainees was important. CONCLUSIONS: Resident exposure to procedures for headache is high, but credentialing mechanisms, while desired by most PDs, are not generally in place. Implementation of a credentialing process may ensure trainees enter practice with the ability to perform procedures safely and effectively.