Metaphorical use of "headache" and "migraine" in media: A longitudinal study of 1.3 million articles in major publications.

BACKGROUND: Stigmatization and trivialization of headache confront individuals with headache disorders, but the degree to which media may contribute is incompletely understood. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to quantify the frequency of disparaging metaphorical use of the words "headache" and "migraine" in articles and summaries of major publications. METHODS: This longitudinal study analyzed a dataset of 1.3 million articles and summaries written by authors and editors of 38 major publications. Data cover written publications from 1998 up to 2017. The use of the words "headache" or "migraine" in articles and summaries by major publications was rated by two authors (P.Z. and A.V.) as either "metaphorical" or "medical" based on their contextual application. Pearson's chi-squared test was applied to assess differences in the frequency of metaphorical use of "headache" in comparison to "migraine." Secondary outcomes were the source of publication and time of publication. RESULTS: A total of 6195 and 740 articles included the words "headache" or "migraine," respectively; 7100 sentences contained the word "headache" and 1652 sentences contained the word "migraine." Among a random sample of 1000 sentences with the word "headache," there was a metaphorical use in 492 (49.2% [95% CI, 46.1-52.3]) sentences. Among a random sample of 1000 sentences with the word "migraine," there was a metaphorical use in 45 (4.5% [95% CI, 3.2-5.8]) sentences. The five most prevalent sources were CNN, Fox News, The New York Times, The Guardian, and The Washington Post. There was an overall increase in the number of articles containing the words "headache" or "migraine" from database inception until analysis (1998 up to 2017). The database included no articles containing either "headache" or "migraine" in 1998; in 2016, this number was 1480 articles. CONCLUSIONS: In this longitudinal study, major publications applied a metaphorical use of "headache" about half of the time. The metaphorical use of "headache" is 11-fold greater than the metaphorical use of "migraine" in the same media sample. These depictions may contribute to the trivialization of headache and the stigmatization of individuals with headache disorders. Studies with individuals affected by headache disorders are needed to clarify potential influences.

Comparison of migraine with left- versus right-sided headache: A cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to clarify whether clinical differences exist between patients with migraine who experience headache that is typically left-sided ("left-migraine") versus right-sided ("right-migraine") during attacks. BACKGROUND: Migraine has been associated with unilateral headache for millennia and remains a supportive trait for the clinical diagnosis of migraine of the International Classification of Headache Disorders. It is currently unknown why headache in migraine is commonly unilateral, and whether headache-sidedness is associated with other clinical features. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional study comparing left- versus right-migraine using all available intake questionnaires of new patients evaluated at an academic tertiary headache center over a 20-year period. Eligibility was based on patient written responses indicating the typical location of headache during attacks. In our analyses, the side of headache (left or right) was the predictor variable. The outcomes included various migraine characteristics and psychiatric comorbidities. RESULTS: We identified 6527 patients with migraine, of which 340 met study eligibility criteria. Of these, 48.8% (166/340) had left migraine, and 51.2% (174/340) had right migraine. When comparing patients with left- versus right-migraine, patients with left migraine experienced 3.6 fewer headache-free days (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.3-5.9; p = 0.002) and 2.4 more severe headache days (95% CI 0.8-4.1; p = 0.004) in the previous 4 weeks. No significant differences in age, sex, handedness, migraine characteristics, or psychiatric comorbidities were identified between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with migraine with typically left-sided headache during attacks reported a higher burden of headache frequency and severity than those with typically right-sided headache during attacks. These findings may have implications for our understanding of migraine pathophysiology, treatment, and clinical trial design.

The location of pain in cluster headache: Data from the International Cluster Headache Questionnaire.

OBJECTIVE: To identify the most common locations of cluster headache pain from an international, non-clinic-based survey of participants with cluster headache, and to compare these locations to other cluster headache features as well as to somatotopic maps of peripheral, brainstem, thalamic, and cortical areas. BACKGROUND: Official criteria for cluster headache state pain in the orbital, supraorbital, and/or temporal areas, yet studies have noted pain extending beyond these locations, and the occipital nerve appears relevant, given the effectiveness of suboccipital corticosteroid injections and occipital nerve stimulation. Furthermore, cranial autonomic features vary between patients, and it is not clear if the trigeminovascular reflex is dermatome specific (e.g., do patients with maxillary or V2 division pain have more rhinorrhea?). Finally, functional imaging studies show early activation of the posterior hypothalamus in a cluster headache attack. However, the first somatosensory area to be sensitized is unclear; the first area can be hypothesized based on the complete map of pain locations. METHODS: The International Cluster Headache Questionnaire was an internet-based cross-sectional survey that included a clickable pain map of the face. These data were compared to several other datasets: (1) a meta-analysis of 22 previous publications of pain location in cluster headache (consisting of 6074 patients); (2) four cephalic dermatome maps; (3) participants' survey responses for demographics, autonomic features, and effective medications; and (4) previously published somatotopic maps of the brainstem, thalamus, primary somatosensory cortex, and higher order somatosensory cortex. RESULTS: One thousand five hundred eighty-nine participants completed the pain map portion of the survey, and the primary locations of pain across all respondents was the orbital, periorbital, and temporal areas with a secondary location in the lower occiput; these primary and secondary locations were consistent with our meta-analysis of 22 previous publications. Of the four cephalic dermatomes (V1, V2, V3, and a combination of C2-3), our study found that most respondents had pain in two or more dermatomes (range 85.7% to 88.7%, or 1361-1410 of 1589 respondents, across the four dermatome maps). Dermatomes did not correlate with their respective autonomic features or with medication effectiveness. The first area to be sensitized in the canonical somatosensory pathway is either a subcortical (brainstem or thalamus) or higher order somatosensory area (parietal ventral or secondary somatosensory cortices) because the primary somatosensory cortex (area 3b) and somatosensory area 1 have discontinuous face and occipital regions. CONCLUSIONS: The primary pain locations in cluster headache are the orbital, supraorbital, and temporal areas, consistent with the official International Classification of Headache Disorders criteria. However, activation of the occiput in many participants suggests a role for the occipital nerve, and the pain locations suggest that somatosensory sensitization does not start in the primary somatosensory cortex.

Machine learning identifies factors most associated with seeking medical care for migraine: Results of the OVERCOME (US) study.

OBJECTIVE: Utilize machine learning models to identify factors associated with seeking medical care for migraine. BACKGROUND: Migraine is a leading cause of disability worldwide, yet many people with migraine do not seek medical care. METHODS: The web-based survey, ObserVational survey of the Epidemiology, tReatment and Care Of MigrainE (US), annually recruited demographically representative samples of the US adult population (2018-2020). Respondents with active migraine were identified via a validated diagnostic questionnaire and/or a self-reported medical diagnosis of migraine, and were then asked if they had consulted a healthcare professional for their headaches in the previous 12 months (i.e., "seeking care"). This included in-person/telephone/or e-visit at Primary Care, Specialty Care, or Emergency/Urgent Care locations. Supervised machine learning (Random Forest) and Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator (LASSO) algorithms identified 13/54 sociodemographic and clinical factors most associated with seeking medical care for migraine. Random Forest models complex relationships (including interactions) between predictor variables and a response. LASSO is also an efficient feature selection algorithm. Linear models were used to determine the multivariable association of those factors with seeking care. RESULTS: Among 61,826 persons with migraine, the mean age was 41.7 years (±14.8) and 31,529/61,826 (51.0%) sought medical care for migraine in the previous 12 months. Of those seeking care for migraine, 23,106/31,529 (73.3%) were female, 21,320/31,529 (67.6%) were White, and 28,030/31,529 (88.9%) had health insurance. Severe interictal burden (assessed via the Migraine Interictal Burden Scale-4, MIBS-4) occurred in 52.8% (16,657/31,529) of those seeking care and in 23.1% (6991/30,297) of those not seeking care; similar patterns were observed for severe migraine-related disability (assessed via the Migraine Disability Assessment Scale, MIDAS) (36.7% [11,561/31,529] vs. 14.6% [4434/30,297]) and severe ictal cutaneous allodynia (assessed via the Allodynia Symptom Checklist, ASC-12) (21.0% [6614/31,529] vs. 7.4% [2230/30,297]). Severe interictal burden (vs. none, OR 2.64, 95% CI [2.5, 2.8]); severe migraine-related disability (vs. little/none, OR 2.2, 95% CI [2.0, 2.3]); and severe ictal allodynia (vs. none, OR 1.7, 95% CI [1.6, 1.8]) were strongly associated with seeking care for migraine. CONCLUSIONS: Seeking medical care for migraine is associated with higher interictal burden, disability, and allodynia. These findings could support interventions to promote care-seeking among people with migraine, encourage assessment of these factors during consultation, and prioritize these domains in selecting treatments and measuring their benefits.

Headache attributed to SARS-CoV-2 infection, vaccination and the impact on primary headache disorders of the COVID-19 pandemic: A comprehensive review.

OBJECTIVE: The objective is to summarize the knowledge on the epidemiology, pathophysiology and management of secondary headache attributed to SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination; as well as to delineate their impact on primary headache disorders. METHODS: This is a narrative review of the literature regarding primary and secondary headache disorders in the setting of COVID-19 pandemic. We conducted a literature search in 2022 on PubMed, with the keywords "COVID 19" or "vaccine" and "headache" to assess the appropriateness of all published articles for their inclusion in the review. RESULTS: Headache is a common and sometimes difficult-to-treat symptom of both the acute and post-acute phase of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Different pathophysiological mechanisms may be involved, with the trigeminovascular system as a plausible target. Specific evidence-based effective therapeutic options are lacking at present. Headache attributed to SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations is also common, its pathophysiology being unclear. People with primary headache disorders experience headache in the acute phase of COVID-19 and after vaccination more commonly than the general population. Pandemic measures, forcing lifestyle changes, seemed to have had a positive impact on migraine, and changes in headache care (telemedicine) have been effectively introduced. CONCLUSIONS: The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic is a global challenge, having an impact on the development of secondary headaches, both in people with or without primary headaches. This has created opportunities to better understand and treat headache and to potentiate strategies to manage patients and ensure care.

The increasing role of electronic media in headache.

Most individuals with access to the internet use social media platforms. These platforms represent an excellent opportunity to disseminate knowledge about management and treatment to the benefit of patients. The International Headache Society, The European Headache Federation, and The American Headache Society have electronic media committees to promote and highlight the organizations' expertise and disseminate research findings. A growing mistrust in science has made dealing with infodemics (i.e., sudden access to excessive unvetted information) an increasing part of clinical management. An increasing role of these committees will be to address this challenge. As an example, recent studies have demonstrated that the most popular online content on migraine management is not evidence-based and is disseminated by for-profit organizations. As healthcare professionals and members of professional headache organizations, we are obliged to prioritize knowledge dissemination. A progressive social media strategy is associated not only with increased online visibility and outreach, but also with a higher scientific interest. To identify gaps and barriers, future research should assess the range of available information on headache disorders in electronic media, characterize direct and indirect consequences on clinical management, and recognize best practice and strategies to improve our communication on internet-based communication platforms. In turn, these efforts will reduce the burden of headache disorders by facilitating improved education of both patients and providers.

Identifying Gender-Related Differences in Graduate Medical Education with the Use of a Web-Based Professionalism Monitoring Tool.

OBJECTIVES: Medical education is required to ensure a healthy training and learning environment for resident physicians. Trainees are expected to demonstrate professionalism with patients, faculty, and staff. West Virginia University Graduate Medical Education (GME) initiated a Web-based professionalism and mistreatment form ("button") on our Web site for reporting professionalism breaches, mistreatment, and exemplary behavior events. The purpose of this study was to identify characteristics in resident trainees who had a "button push" activation about their behavior to better understand ways to improve professionalism in GME. METHODS: This West Virginia University institutional review board-approved quality improvement study is a descriptive analysis of GME button push activations from July 2013 through June 2021. We compared characteristics of all of those trainees who had specific button activation(s) about their behavior. Data are reported as frequency and percentage. Nominal data and interval data were analyzed using the χ2 and the t test, respectively. P < 0.05 was significant. Logistic regression was used to analyze those differences that were significant. RESULTS: In the 8-year study period, there were 598 button activations, and 54% (n = 324) of the activations were anonymous. Nearly all of the button reports (n = 586, 98%) were constructively resolved within 14 days. Of the 598 button activations, 95% (n = 569) were identified as involving one sex, with 66.3% (n = 377) identified as men and 33.7% (n = 192) as women. Of the 598 activations, 83.7% (n = 500) involved residents and 16.3% (n = 98) involved attendings. One-time offenders comprised 90% (n = 538), and 10% (n = 60) involved individuals who had previous button pushes about their behavior. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of a professionalism-monitoring tool, such as our Web-based button push, identified gender differences in the reporting of professionalism breaches, because twice as many men as women were identified as the instigator of a professionalism breech. The tool also facilitated timely interventions and exemplary behavior recognition.

The relationship of headache as a symptom to COVID-19 survival: A systematic review and meta-analysis of survival of 43,169 inpatients with COVID-19.

OBJECTIVE: To study the relationship between coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) mortality and headache among patients evaluated for COVID-19 in Emergency Departments and hospitals. BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has disparate impacts on those who contract it. Headache, a COVID-19 symptom, has been associated with positive disease prognosis. We sought to determine whether headache is associated with relative risk of COVID-19 survival. METHODS: A systematic search in PubMed was performed independently by three reviewers to identify all COVID-19 clinical inpatient series in accordance with the PRISMA guideline. Studies were included if the study design, COVID-19 confirmation method, disease survival ratio, and presence of headache symptom were accessible. We included 48 cohort studies with a total of 43,169 inpatients with COVID-19: 81.4% survived (35,132/43,169) versus 18.6% non-survived (8037/43,169). A meta-analysis of the included studies was then performed. The study was registered on PROSPERO (ID: CRD42021260151). RESULTS: When considering headache as a symptom of COVID-19, we observed a significantly higher survival rate (risk ratio: 1.90 [1.46, 2.47], p < 0.0001) among COVID-19 inpatients with headache compared to those without headache. CONCLUSION: Headache among patients with COVID-19 presenting to hospitals may be a marker of host processes which enhance COVID-19 survival. Future studies should further confirm these findings, in order to better understand this relation and to try to address possible limitations related to the inclusion of more severe patients who would be unable to report symptoms (e.g., patients who were intubated).

The unique role of stigma in migraine-related disability and quality of life.

BACKGROUND: Stigma is increasingly recognized as an important social feature of living with migraine. METHODS: Adults with migraine recruited from neurology offices completed the validated Stigma Scale for Chronic Illnesses 8-item version (SSCI-8); two outcome measures (the Migraine Disability Assessment [MIDAS] and the Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire v 2.1 [MSQ]); and measures of allodynia (Allodynia Symptom Checklist [ASC-12]), pain cognition (Pain Catastrophizing Scale [PCS]), and psychiatric symptoms (Patient Reported Measurement Information System Anxiety [PROMIS-A] and Depression [PROMIS-D]). Pearson and Spearman correlations evaluated bivariate relationships, and linear (MSQ) and logistic (MIDAS Severe Disability, scores ≥21) regressions evaluated the unique variance associated with SSCI-8 beyond other study variables. Conditional process analysis evaluated mediation hypotheses between study variables. RESULTS: Participants (n = 121) reported levels of stigma on par with other chronic illnesses (SSCI-8 M = 53.0, standard deviation [SD] = 7.8), with 25/127 (19.6%) reporting clinically significant levels of stigma (SSCI-8 T-score ≥ 60). Higher SSCI-8 scores were associated with higher monthly headache day frequency (r = 0.35), MIDAS (ρ = 0.41), ASC-12 (r = 0.24, p < 0.01), PCS (r = 0.46), both PROMIS-A (r = 0.43) and D (r = 0.42), and lower MSQ subscale scores (Role Restriction r = -0.50; Role Prevention r = -0.48; Emotion Function r = -0.50), all ps <0.001 unless otherwise noted. The SSCI-8 contributed significantly beyond migraine symptoms and other psychological factors for MSQ Emotion Function (5% unique variance) and MIDAS Severe Disability (6% of unique variance). The SSCI-8 mediated relationships between headache frequency and the MSQ subscales and MIDAS Severe Disability. The PCS mediated relationships between the SSCI-8 and MSQ subscales. The PROMIS-D mediated relationships between the SSCI-8 and MSQ Role Restriction and MSQ Role Prevention. CONCLUSIONS: Migraine stigma has medium to large associations with migraine outcomes and psychiatric symptoms and is independently associated with migraine disability and emotion-related quality of life. Migraine stigma is an important contributor to the relationship between headache frequency and migraine outcomes.

Diagnosis, consultation, treatment, and impact of migraine in the US: Results of the OVERCOME (US) study.

OBJECTIVE: The ObserVational survey of the Epidemiology, tReatment and Care of MigrainE (OVERCOME; United States) study is a multicohort, longitudinal web survey that assesses symptomatology, consulting, diagnosis, treatment, and impact of migraine in the United States. BACKGROUND: Regularly updating population-based views of migraine in the United States provides a method for assessing the quality of ongoing migraine care and identifying unmet needs. METHODS: The OVERCOME (US) 2018 migraine cohort involved: (I) creating a demographically representative sample of US adults using quota sampling (n = 97,478), (II) identifying people with active migraine in the past year via a validated migraine diagnostic questionnaire and/or self-reported medical diagnosis of migraine (n = 24,272), and (III) assessing consultation, diagnosis, and treatment of migraine (n = 21,143). The current manuscript evaluated whether those with low frequency episodic migraine (LFEM; 0-3 monthly headache days) differed from other categories on outcomes of interest. RESULTS: Among the migraine cohort (n = 21,143), 19,888 (94.1%) met our International Classification of Headache Disorders, 3rd edition-based case definition of migraine and 12,905 (61.0%) self-reported a medical diagnosis of migraine. Respondents' mean (SD) age was 42.2 (15.0) years; 15,697 (74.2%) were women. Having at least moderate disability was common (n = 8965; 42.4%) and around half (n = 10,783; 51.0%) had consulted a medical professional for migraine care in the past year. Only 4792 (22.7%) of respondents were currently using a triptan. Overall, 8539 (40.4%) were eligible for migraine preventive medication and 3555 (16.8%) were currently using migraine preventive medication. Those with LFEM differed from moderate and high frequency episodic migraine and chronic migraine on nearly all measures of consulting, diagnosis, and treatment. CONCLUSION: The OVERCOME (US) 2018 cohort revealed slow but steady progress in diagnosis and preventive treatment of migraine. However, despite significant impact among the population, many with migraine have unmet needs related to consulting for migraine, migraine diagnosis, and getting potentially beneficial migraine treatment. Moreover, it demonstrated the heterogeneity and varying unmet needs within episodic migraine.

Cluster headache is one of the most intensely painful human conditions: Results from the International Cluster Headache Questionnaire.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the pain intensity of cluster headache through a large survey by comparing it to other painful disorders. Furthermore, to investigate the relationship between maximal pain, autonomic, and other clinical symptoms, as well as demographic attributes of cluster headache. BACKGROUND: The pain of cluster headache is anecdotally considered to be one of the worst pains in existence. The link between pain and autonomic features of cluster headache is understood mechanistically through the trigeminovascular reflex, though it is not clear if this is a graded response. Links between pain and other features of cluster headache are less well understood. METHODS: This Internet-based cross-sectional survey included questions on cluster headache diagnostic criteria, which were used as part of the inclusion/exclusion criteria for the study. Respondents were asked to rate a cluster headache attack on the 0-10 numerical rating scale. Additionally, they were asked if they had experienced a list of other painful conditions such as labor pain or nephrolithiasis; if so they were asked to rate that pain as well. The survey also included demographics, mood scores, and treatment responses. RESULTS: A total of 1604 cluster headache respondents were included in the analysis. Respondents rated cluster headache as significantly (p < 0.001) more intense than every other pain condition examined. Cluster headache attacks were rated as 9.7 ± 0.6 (mean ± standard deviation) on the numerical rating scale, followed by labor pain (7.2 ± 2.0), pancreatitis (7.0 ± 1.5), and nephrolithiasis (6.9 ± 1.9). The majority of cluster headache respondents rated a cluster headache attack at maximal or 10.0 pain (72.1%, 1157/1604). Respondents with maximal pain were statistically significantly more likely to have cranial autonomic features compared to respondents with less pain: conjunctival injection or lacrimation 91% (1057/1157) versus 85% (381/447), eyelid edema 77% (887/1157) versus 66% (293/447), forehead/facial sweating 60% (693/1157) versus 49% (217/447), fullness in the ear 47% (541/1157) versus 35% (155/447), and miosis/ptosis 85% (1124/1157) versus 75% (426/447) (all p values <0.001). Respondents with maximal pain also had other statistically significant findings: more frequent attacks (4.0 ± 2.0 attacks per day vs. 3.5 ± 2.0 attacks per day), higher Hopelessness Depression Symptom Questionnaire scores (24.5 ± 16.9 vs. 21.1 ± 15.2), decreased overall effectiveness from calcium channel blockers (on a 5-point Likert scale), and more likely female: 34% (389/1157) versus 24% (108/447) (all p values <0.001). Pain intensity was not associated with restlessness, headache duration, age of onset, episodic/chronic status, or the effectiveness of any acute or preventive medication other than calcium channel blockers. CONCLUSIONS: Cluster headache is an intensely painful disorder, even in the context of other disorders considered intensely painful. Maximal pain intensity is associated with more cranial autonomic features, suggesting a graded response between pain and autonomic features. Maximal pain intensity is also associated with headache frequency but not duration, suggesting a relationship between pain intensity and mechanisms controlling headache onset, but not between pain intensity and mechanisms controlling headache offset.

Cluster headache epidemiology including pediatric onset, sex, and ICHD criteria: Results from the International Cluster Headache Questionnaire.

OBJECTIVE: To validate the diagnoses and to investigate epidemiological data from an international, non-clinic-based, and large (n = 1604) survey of participants with cluster headache. BACKGROUND: There are several limitations in current epidemiological data in cluster headache including a lack of large non-clinic-based studies. There is also limited information on several aspects of cluster headache, such as pediatric incidence. METHODS: The International Cluster Headache Questionnaire was an internet-based survey that included questions on cluster headache demographics, criteria from the International Classification of Headache Disorders (ICHD), and medications. RESULTS: A total of 3251 subjects participated in the survey, and 1604 respondents met ICHD criteria for cluster headache. For validation, we interviewed a random sample of 5% (81/1604) of participants and confirmed the diagnosis of cluster headache in 97.5% (79/81). Pediatric onset was found in 27.5% (341/1583) of participants, and only 15.2% (52/341) of participants with pediatric onset were diagnosed before the age of 18. Men were more likely to have episodic cluster headache between ages 10 and 50, but the sex ratio was approximately equal for other ages. An overwhelming majority of respondents had at least one autonomic feature (99.0%, 1588/1604) and had restlessness (96.6%, 1550/1604), but many also had prototypical migrainous features including photophobia or phonophobia (50.1%, 804/1604), pain aggravated by physical activity (31.4%, 503/1604), or nausea and vomiting (27.5%, 441/1604). Interestingly, the first-line medications for acute treatment (oxygen) and preventive treatment (calcium channel blockers) were perceived as significantly less effective in chronic cluster headache (3.2 ± 1.1 and 2.1 ± 1.0 respectively on a 5-point ordinal scale) compared with episodic cluster headache (3.5 ± 1.0 and 2.4 ± 1.1, respectively, p < 0.001 for both comparisons). CONCLUSIONS: Cluster headache often occurs in the pediatric population, although they are typically not diagnosed until adulthood. The onset of cluster headache is the inverse of that in migraine; in migraine women are more likely to have migraine between ages 10 and 50 but the sex ratio is approximately equal otherwise. Prototypical migrainous features are not useful in differentiating cluster headache from migraine. Participant data from a large international study also suggest that chronic cluster headache is not only less responsive to newer treatments (like noninvasive vagus nerve stimulation and galcanezumab), but to traditional first-line treatments as well.

What Will it Take to Move the Needle for Headache Disorders? An Advocacy Perspective.

Discrimination toward people living with migraine and other headache disorders is widespread and socially accepted. Stigma toward these diseases is both a manifestation of these discriminatory attitudes and a sustainer of them. For those living with migraine and headache disorders, stigma limits the full expression of their lives, as well as the likelihood of receiving health care to reduce the burden. In the past decade, public advocacy organizations have emerged in the United States and internationally to counter the consequences of this stigma. These organizations have raised public awareness of these diseases, corrected misconceptions, and empowered millions of people affected by them. The Alliance for Headache Disorders Advocacy has focused on addressing the structural stigma inherent in discriminatory policies of employers, government agencies, and public institutions. While notable progress has been made, there is considerable work left to be done to increase resources and equity for people living with headache disorders.

The Stereotypical Image of a Person With Migraine According to Mass Media.

BACKGROUND: People with migraine have historically been depicted as "frail and perfectionist women." While these presentations are from a different cultural context, we may today still be at risk of stereotyping and stigmatizing this patient group. Portrayals of people with migraine on the Internet and in mass media offer a window of how society today views this patient group. The aim of this study was to explore how persons with migraine are being portrayed according to 2 popular sources of photographic images. METHODS: Using the search term "migraine," we retrieved the 200 highest-indexed images of people with migraine from each of 2 popular image-searching websites, Shutterstock and Google Images. For each included image, we analyzed different attributes including (1) gender; (2) age; (3) race; (4) body type; (5) posture; (6) extent of eye closure; (7) clothing attire; (8) environment/setting; (9) lighting; (10) position of left hand; and (11) position of right hand. RESULTS: We included 283 images. The 283 images depicted 305 persons with migraine. The images representing persons with migraine were predominately female (82%), of adult age (90%), white (64%), and with an ectomorph body type (86%). The eyes were closed in most of the portrayals (82%). The hands were on both temporal regions at the same time in half of the portrayals (49%). CONCLUSION: The demographics in terms of gender, race, and age reflect large population studies of migraine; however, we are concerned about the stereotypical depiction of "acute pain behavior" (ie, eye closed, hands on temples) on these images as this is inconsistent with the actual presentations of people with migraine in our clinical experience. This disparity may both derive from, and further contribute to, social stigmatization and lack of public and employer validation of migraine-related disability. We suggest that future efforts in migraine advocacy may focus on ensuring the portrayal in mass media of an accurate representation of people with migraine.

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.

Familial "Diplegic" Migraine - Description of a Family With a Novel CACNA1A Mutation.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize phenotypes of a novel CACNA1A mutation causing familial hemiplegic migraine type 1. BACKGROUND: Familial hemiplegic migraine is a rare monogenic form of migraine associated with attacks of fully reversible unilateral motor weakness. We now report a novel CACNA1A gene mutation associated with fully reversible bilateral motor weakness (diplegia). METHODS: The proband underwent genotyping which identified a novel CACNA1A missense mutation (c.622 [isoform 1] G > A [p.Gly208Arg]). To characterize phenotypes associated with this novel mutation, the proband and 8 of her similarly affected family members underwent a semi-structured interview. RESULTS: All 9 subjects who were interviewed met ICHD-3 phenotypic diagnostic criteria for FHM, including reporting attacks with reversible unilateral motor weakness. Additionally, 7 of 9 subjects reported attacks including reversible motor weakness affecting both sides of the body simultaneously. CONCLUSIONS: We describe a novel CACNA1A mutation associated with migraine attacks including reversible diplegia.

No Gastrointestinal Dysmotility in Transgenic Mouse Models of Migraine.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether transgenic mouse models of migraine exhibit upper gastrointestinal dysmotility comparable to those observed in migraine patients. BACKGROUND: There is considerable evidence supporting the comorbidity of gastrointestinal dysmotility and migraine. Gastrointestinal motility, however, has never been investigated in transgenic mouse models of migraine. METHODS: Three transgenic mouse strains that express pathogenic gene mutations linked to monogenic migraine-relevant phenotypes were studied: CADASIL (Notch3-Tg88), FASP (CSNK1D-T44A), and FHM1 (CACNA1A-S218L). Upper gastrointestinal motility was quantified by measuring gastric emptying and small intestinal transit in mutant and control animals. Gastrointestinal motility was measured at baseline and after pretreatment with 10 mg/kg nitroglycerin (NTG). RESULTS: No significant differences were observed for gastric emptying or small intestinal transit at baseline for any of the 3 transgenic strains when compared to appropriate controls or after pretreatment with NTG when compared to vehicle. CONCLUSIONS: We detected no evidence of upper gastrointestinal dysmotility in mice that express mutations in genes linked to monogenic migraine-relevant phenotypes. Future studies seeking to understand why humans with migraine experience delayed gastric emptying may benefit from pursuing other modifiers of gastrointestinal motility, such as epigenetic or microbiome-related factors.

Effectiveness of Oxygen and Other Acute Treatments for Cluster Headache: Results From the Cluster Headache Questionnaire, an International Survey.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness and adverse effects of acute cluster headache medications in a large international sample, including recommended treatments such as oxygen, commonly used medications such as opioids, and emerging medications such as intranasal ketamine. Particular focus is paid to a large subset of respondents 65 years of age or older. BACKGROUND: Large international surveys of cluster headache are rare, as are examinations of treatments and side effects in older cluster headache patients. This article presents data from the Cluster Headache Questionnaire, with respondents from over 50 countries and with the vast majority from the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada. METHODS: This internet-based survey included questions on cluster headache diagnostic criteria, which were used as part of the inclusion/exclusion criteria for the study, as well as effectiveness of medications, physical and medical complications, psychological and emotional complications, mood scores, and difficulty obtaining medications. The diagnostic questions were also used to create a separate group of respondents with probable cluster headache. Limitations to the methods include the use of nonvalidated questions, the lack of a formal clinical diagnosis of cluster headache, and the grouping of some medications (eg, all triptans as opposed to sumatriptan subcutaneous alone). RESULTS: A total of 3251 subjects participated in the questionnaire, and 2193 respondents met criteria for this study (1604 cluster headache and 589 probable cluster headache). Of the respondents with cluster headache, 68.8% (1104/1604) were male and 78.0% (1245/1596) had episodic cluster headache. Over half of respondents reported complete or very effective treatment for triptans (54%, 639/1139) and oxygen (54%, 582/1082). Between 14 and 25% of respondents reported complete or very effective treatment for ergot derivatives (dihydroergotamine 25%, 42/170; cafergot/ergotamine 17%, 50/303), caffeine and energy drinks (17%, 7/41), and intranasal ketamine (14%, 5/37). Less than 10% reported complete or very effective treatment for opioids (6%, 30/541), intranasal capsaicin (5%, 7/151), and intranasal lidocaine (2%, 5/241). Adverse events were especially low for oxygen (no or minimal physical and medical complications 99%, 1077/1093; no or minimal psychological and emotional complications 97%, 1065/1093), intranasal lidocaine (no or minimal physical and medical complications 97%, 248/257; no or minimal psychological and emotional complications 98%, 251/257), intranasal ketamine (no or minimal physical and medical complications 95%, 38/40; no or minimal psychological and emotional complications 98%, 39/40), intranasal capsaicin (no or minimal physical and medical complications 91%, 145/159; no or minimal psychological and emotional complications 94%, 150/159), and caffeine and energy drinks (no or minimal physical and medical complications 89%, 39/44; no or minimal psychological and emotional complications 91%, 40/44). This is in comparison to ergotamine/cafergot (no or minimal physical and medical complications 83%, 273/327; no or minimal psychological and emotional complications 89%, 290/327), dihydroergotamine (no or minimal physical and medical complications 81%, 143/176; no or minimal psychological and emotional complications 91%, 160/176), opioids (no or minimal physical and medical complications 76%, 416/549; no or minimal psychological and emotional complications 77%, 423/549), or triptans (no or minimal physical and medical complications 73%, 883/1218; no or minimal psychological and emotional complications 85%, 1032/1218). A total of 139 of 1604 cluster headache respondents (8.7%) were age 65 and older and reported similar effectiveness and adverse events to the general population. The 589 respondents with probable cluster headache reported similar medication effectiveness to respondents with a full diagnosis of cluster headache. CONCLUSIONS: Oxygen is reported by survey respondents to be a highly effective treatment with few complications in cluster headache in a large international sample, including those 65 years or over. Triptans are also very effective with some side effects, and newer medications deserve additional study. Patients with probable cluster headache may respond similarly to acute medications as patients with a full diagnosis of cluster headache.

Lasmiditan for acute treatment of migraine in patients with cardiovascular risk factors: post-hoc analysis of pooled results from 2 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trials.

BACKGROUND: In addition to the increased risk for cardiovascular (CV) disease and CV events associated with migraine, patients with migraine can also present with a number of CV risk factors (CVRFs). Existing treatment options can be limited due to contraindications, increased burden associated with monitoring, or patient avoidance of side effects. Safe and effective migraine treatment options are needed for patients with migraine and a history of CV or cerebrovascular disease or with increased risk for CV events. This analysis was designed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of oral lasmiditan, a selective serotonin 5-hydroxytryptamine 1F receptor agonist, in acute treatment of migraine attacks in patients with CVRFs. METHODS: SAMURAI and SPARTAN were similarly designed, Phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials in adults treating a single migraine attack with lasmiditan 50, 100, or 200 mg. Both studies included patients with CVRFs, and SPARTAN allowed patients with coronary artery disease, clinically significant arrhythmia, or uncontrolled hypertension. Efficacy and safety of lasmiditan in subgroups of patients with differing levels of CVRFs are reported. For efficacy analyses, logistic regression was used to assess treatment-by-subgroup interactions. For safety analyses, Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test of general association evaluated treatment comparisons; Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio assessed significant treatment effects. RESULTS: In this pooled analysis, a total of 4439 patients received ≥1 dose of study drug. A total of 3500 patients (78.8%) had ≥1 CVRF, and 1833 patients (41.3%) had ≥2 CVRFs at baseline. Both trials met the primary endpoints of headache pain freedom and most bothersome symptom freedom at 2 h. The presence of CVRFs did not affect efficacy results. There was a low frequency of likely CV treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) overall (lasmiditan, 30 [0.9%]; placebo, 5 [0.4%]). There was no statistical difference in the frequency of likely CV TEAEs in either the absence or presence of any CVRFs. The only likely CV TEAE seen across patients with ≥1, ≥ 2, ≥ 3, or ≥ 4 CVRFs was palpitations. CONCLUSIONS: When analyzed by the presence of CVRFs, there was no statistical difference in lasmiditan efficacy or the frequency of likely CV TEAEs. Despite the analysis being limited by a single-migraine-attack design, the lack of differences in efficacy and safety with increasing numbers of CVRFs indicates that lasmiditan might be considered in the treatment algorithm for patients with CVRFs. Future studies are needed to assess long-term efficacy and safety. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02439320 (SAMURAI), registered 18 March 2015 and ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02605174 (SPARTAN), registered 11 November 2015.