Can Long-Term Outcomes of Posttraumatic Headache be Predicted?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Headache is one of the most common symptoms of traumatic brain injury, and it is more common in patients with mild, rather than moderate or severe, traumatic brain injury. Posttraumatic headache can be the most persistent symptom of traumatic brain injury. In this article, we review the current understanding of posttraumatic headache, summarize the current knowledge of its pathophysiology and treatment, and review the research regarding predictors of long-term outcomes. RECENT FINDINGS: To date, posttraumatic headache has been treated based on the semiology of the primary headache disorder that it most resembles, but the pathophysiology is likely to be different, and the long-term prognosis differs as well. No models exist to predict long-term outcomes, and few studies have highlighted risk factors for the development of acute and persistent posttraumatic headaches. Further research is needed to elucidate the pathophysiology and identify specific treatments for posttraumatic headache to be able to predict long-term outcomes. In addition, the effect of managing comorbid traumatic brain injury symptoms on posttraumatic headache management should be further studied. Posttraumatic headache can be a persistent symptom of traumatic brain injury, especially mild traumatic brain injury. It has traditionally been treated based on the semiology of the primary headache disorder it most closely resembles, but further research is needed to elucidate the pathophysiology of posttraumatic headache and determine risk factors to better predict long-term outcomes.

Diagnostic accuracy of an artificial intelligence online engine in migraine: A multi-center study.

OBJECTIVE: This study assesses the concordance in migraine diagnosis between an online, self-administered, Computer-based, Diagnostic Engine (CDE) and semi-structured interview (SSI) by a headache specialist, both using International Classification of Headache Disorders, 3rd edition (ICHD-3) criteria. BACKGROUND: Delay in accurate diagnosis is a major barrier to headache care. Accurate computer-based algorithms may help reduce the need for SSI-based encounters to arrive at correct ICHD-3 diagnosis. METHODS: Between March 2018 and August 2019, adult participants were recruited from three academic headache centers and the community via advertising to our cross-sectional study. Participants completed two evaluations: phone interview conducted by headache specialists using the SSI and a web-based expert questionnaire and analytics, CDE. Participants were randomly assigned to either the SSI followed by the web-based questionnaire or the web-based questionnaire followed by the SSI. Participants completed protocols a few minutes apart. The concordance in migraine/probable migraine (M/PM) diagnosis between SSI and CDE was measured using Cohen's kappa statistics. The diagnostic accuracy of CDE was assessed using the SSI as reference standard. RESULTS: Of the 276 participants consented, 212 completed both SSI and CDE (study completion rate = 77%; median age = 32 years [interquartile range: 28-40], female:male ratio = 3:1). Concordance in M/PM diagnosis between SSI and CDE was: κ = 0.83 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.75-0.91). CDE diagnostic accuracy: sensitivity = 90.1% (118/131), 95% CI: 83.6%-94.6%; specificity = 95.8% (68/71), 95% CI: 88.1%-99.1%. Positive and negative predictive values = 97.0% (95% CI: 91.3%-99.0%) and 86.6% (95% CI: 79.3%-91.5%), respectively, using identified migraine prevalence of 60%. Assuming a general migraine population prevalence of 10%, positive and negative predictive values were 70.3% (95% CI: 43.9%-87.8%) and 98.9% (95% CI: 98.1%-99.3%), respectively. CONCLUSION: The SSI and CDE have excellent concordance in diagnosing M/PM. Positive CDE helps rule in M/PM, through high specificity and positive likelihood ratio. A negative CDE helps rule out M/PM through high sensitivity and low negative likelihood ratio. CDE that mimics SSI logic is a valid tool for migraine diagnosis.

Lasmiditan for the acute treatment of migraine: Subgroup analyses by prior response to triptans.

BACKGROUND: Lasmiditan demonstrated superiority to placebo in the acute treatment of migraine in adults with moderate/severe migraine disability in two similarly designed Phase 3 trials, SAMURAI and SPARTAN. Post-hoc integrated analyses evaluated the efficacy of lasmiditan in patients who reported a good or insufficient response to triptans and in those who were triptan naïve. METHODS: Subgroups of patients reporting an overall response of "good" or "poor/none" to the most recent use of a triptan at baseline (defined as good or insufficient responders, respectively) and a triptan-naïve subpopulation were derived from combined study participants randomized to receive lasmiditan 50 mg (SPARTAN only), 100 mg or 200 mg, or placebo, as the first dose. Outcomes including headache pain-freedom, most bothersome symptom-freedom, and headache pain relief 2 hours post-first dose of lasmiditan were compared with placebo. Treatment-by-subgroup analyses additionally investigated whether therapeutic benefit varied according to prior triptan response (good or insufficient). RESULTS: Regardless of triptan response, lasmiditan showed higher efficacy than placebo (most comparisons were statistically significant). Treatment-by-subgroup analyses found that the benefit over placebo of lasmiditan did not vary significantly between patients with a good response and those with an insufficient response to triptans. Lasmiditan also showed higher efficacy than placebo in triptan-naïve patients. CONCLUSIONS: Lasmiditan demonstrated comparable efficacy in patients who reported a good or insufficient response to prior triptan use. Lasmiditan also showed efficacy in those who were triptan naïve. Lasmiditan may be a useful therapeutic option for patients with migraine. TRIAL REGISTRATION: SAMURAI (NCT02439320); SPARTAN (NCT02605174).

Long-Term Safety Evaluation of Ubrogepant for the Acute Treatment of Migraine: Phase 3, Randomized, 52-Week Extension Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the long-term safety and tolerability of ubrogepant for the acute treatment of migraine. BACKGROUND: Ubrogepant is an oral, calcitonin gene-related receptor antagonist in development for the acute treatment of migraine. The efficacy of ubrogepant was demonstrated in 2 phase 3 trials in which a significant improvement was observed in migraine headache pain, migraine-associated symptoms, and ability to function. METHODS: This was a phase 3, multicenter, randomized, open-label, 52-week extension trial. Adults with migraine with or without aura entered the trial after completing one of 2 phase 3 lead-in trials and were re-randomized 1:1:1 to usual care, ubrogepant 50 mg, or ubrogepant 100 mg. Randomization to ubrogepant dose was blinded. Those randomized to usual care continued to treat migraine attacks with their own medication. The usual care arm was included in this trial to capture background rates of hepatic laboratory parameters and contextualize hepatic safety assessments. Safety and tolerability were the primary outcome measures. The safety population for the ubrogepant arms included all randomized participants who received at least 1 dose of treatment. All cases of alanine aminotransferase (ALT)/aspartate aminotransferase (AST) elevations of ≥3 times the upper limit of normal were adjudicated by an independent panel of liver experts who were blinded to dose. RESULTS: The safety population included 1230 participants (404 in the ubrogepant 50-mg group, 409 in the ubrogepant 100-mg group, and 417 in the usual care group). Participants were on average 42 years of age, 90% (1106/1230) female and 85% (1043/1230) white, with an average BMI of 30 kg/m2 . Throughout the trial, 21,454 migraine attacks were treated with 31,968 doses of ubrogepant. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were reported by 268/404 (66%) participants receiving ubrogepant 50 mg and 297/409 (73%) receiving ubrogepant 100 mg. The most commonly reported TEAE was upper respiratory tract infection (<12%); findings were similar across dose groups. Treatment-related TEAEs were reported by 42/404 (10%) participants in the ubrogepant 50-mg group and 43/409 (11%) in the ubrogepant 100-mg group. Serious adverse events (SAEs) were reported by 9/404 (2%) participants in the ubrogepant 50-mg group and 12/409 (3%) participants in the ubrogepant 100-mg group. Twenty cases of ALT/AST levels of ≥3 times the upper limit of normal were reported and reviewed by an independent clinical adjudication committee of liver experts. There were no cases of Hy's Law. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term intermittent use of ubrogepant 50 and 100 mg given as 1 or 2 doses per attack for the acute treatment of migraine was safe and well tolerated, as indicated by a low incidence of treatment-related TEAEs and SAEs and discontinuations due to adverse events in this 1-year trial.

Effectiveness and Safety of Chronic Migraine Preventive Treatments: A Systematic Literature Review.

INTRODUCTION: Numerous medications are used for the preventive treatment of chronic migraine (CM), including oral treatments, onabotulinumtoxinA (onabotA; BOTOX), and calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibodies (mAbs). Despite substantial clinical trial evidence, less is published about the real-world experience of these treatments based on data routinely collected from a variety of sources. This systematic review assessed real-world evidence on the effectiveness and safety of preventive treatments for CM in adults. METHODS: A systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane library with back-referencing and supplementary searches retrieved data published between January 2010 and February 2020. Publications were screened, extracted, and quality assessed. Data were narratively synthesized. Search criteria included preventive medications for CM. Evidence was available for topiramate, onabotulinumtoxinA, CGRP mAbs (erenumab, galcanezumab, and fremanezumab). OnabotulinumtoxinA was most commonly assessed (55 studies), followed by erenumab (six studies), multiple CGRP mAbs (one study), and topiramate (one study). Long-term data (> 1 year) were available for onabotulinumtoxinA only, with erenumab reported up 6 months, topiramate up to 3 months, and multiple CGRP mAbs up to 12 months. RESULTS: Substantial data demonstrated that onabotulinumtoxinA reduces the number/frequency of headaches, concomitant acute medication use, and impact of headaches on well-being and daily activity. More limited evidence showed benefits for the same parameters with erenumab. Single studies suggested topiramate and multiple CGRP mAbs decrease the number/frequency of headaches and impact of headaches. To date, onabotulinumtoxinA is the only preventive treatment for CM that has long-term safety data in real-world settings reporting treatment-related adverse events of up to 3 years. CONCLUSION: While substantial real-world evidence supports the long-term effectiveness and safety of onabotulinumtoxinA, real-world data on other preventive treatments of CM are currently limited to short term effectiveness due to their more recent approvals.

Real-world persistence and costs among patients with chronic migraine treated with onabotulinumtoxinA or calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies.

BACKGROUND: Chronic migraine (CM) is a common neurologic disorder that imposes substantial burden on payers, patients, and society. Low rates of persistence to oral migraine preventive medications have been previously documented; however, less is known about persistence and costs associated with innovative nonoral migraine preventive medications. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate real-world persistence and costs among adults with CM treated with onabotulinumtoxinA (onabotA) or calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies (CGRP mAbs). METHODS: This was a retrospective, longitudinal, observational study analyzing the IBM MarketScan Commercial and Medicare databases. The study sample included adults with CM initiating treatment with either onabotA or a CGRP mAb on or after January 1, 2018. Persistence and costs over 12 months after treatment initiation were evaluated using chi-square and Student's t-tests. Persistence to onabotA was compared with CGRP mAbs as a weighted average of the class and by individual CGRP mAbs. Mean pharmacy (acute and preventive), medical (inpatient, emergency department, and outpatient), and total costs are reported. Multivariate regression analyses were conducted to generate adjusted estimates of persistence and costs after controlling for potential confounders (age, sex, region, insurance type, number of baseline comorbidities, Charlson Comorbidity Index, and number of previously used oral migraine preventive medications). RESULTS: Of 66,303 individuals with onabotA or CGRP mAb claims, 2,697 with CM met the inclusion/exclusion criteria. In the total population, individuals were primarily female (85.5%), lived in the South (48.5%), and had a mean (SD) age of 44 (12) years, which was consistent across the onabotA and CGRP mAb cohorts. Common comorbid conditions included anxiety (23.9%), depression (18.2%), hypertension (16.5%), and sleep disorders (16.9%). After adjusting for potential confounding variables, persistence to onabotA during the 12-month follow-up period was 40.7% vs 27.8% for CGRP mAbs (odds ratio [OR] = 0.683; 95% CI = 0.604-0.768; P < 0.0001). Persistence to erenumab, fremanezumab, and galcanezumab was 25.5% (OR = 0.627; 95% CI = 0.541-0.722; P < 0.0001), 30.3% (OR = 0.746; 95% CI = 0.598-0.912; P = 0.0033), and 33.7% (OR = 0.828; 95% CI = 0.667-1.006; P = 0.058). All-cause ($18,292 vs $18,275; P = 0.9739) and migraine-related ($8,990 vs $9,341; P = 0.1374) costs were comparable between the onabotA and CGRP mAb groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among adults with CM receiving onabotA and CGRP mAbs, individuals initiating onabotA treatment had higher persistence compared with those receiving CGRP mAbs. Total all-cause and migraine-related costs over 12 months were comparable between those receiving onabotA and CGRP mAbs. DISCLOSURES: This study was sponsored by Allergan (prior to its acquisition by AbbVie), they contributed to the design and interpretation of data and the writing, reviewing, and approval of final version. Writing and editorial assistance was provided to the authors by Dennis Stancavish, MS, of Peloton Advantage, LLC, an OPEN Health company, Parsippany, NJ, and was funded by AbbVie. The opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors. The authors received no honorarium/fee or other form of financial support related to the development of this article. Dr Schwedt serves on the Board of Directors for the American Headache Society and the American Migraine Foundation. Within the prior 12 months he has received research support from Amgen, Henry Jackson Foundation, Mayo Clinic, National Institutes of Health, Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, SPARK Neuro, and US Department of Defense. Within the past 12 months, he has received personal compensation for serving as a consultant or advisory board member for AbbVie, Allergan, Axsome, BioDelivery Science, Biohaven, Collegium, Eli Lilly, Ipsen, Linpharma, Lundbeck, and Satsuma. He holds stock options in Aural Analytics and Nocira. He has received royalties from UpToDate. Dr Lee and Ms Shah are employees of AbbVie and may hold AbbVie stock. Dr Gillard was an employee of AbbVie and may hold AbbVie stock. Dr Knievel has served as a consultant for AbbVie, Amgen, Eli Lilly, and Biohaven; conducted research for AbbVie, Amgen, and Eli Lilly; and is on speaker programs for AbbVie and Amgen. Dr McVige has served as a speaker and/or received research support from Allergan (now AbbVie Inc.), Alder, Amgen/Novartis, Avanir, Biohaven, Eli Lilly, Lundbeck, and Teva. Ms Wang and Ms Wu are employees of Genesis Research, which provides consulting services to AbbVie. Dr Blumenfeld, within the past 12 months, has served on advisory boards for Allergan, AbbVie, Aeon, Alder, Amgen, Axsome, BDSI, Biohaven, Impel, Lundbeck, Lilly, Novartis, Revance, Teva, Theranica, and Zosano; as a speaker for Allergan, AbbVie, Amgen, BDSI, Biohaven, Lundbeck, Lilly, and Teva; as a consultant for Allergan, AbbVie, Alder, Amgen, Biohaven, Lilly, Lundbeck, Novartis, Teva, and Theranica; and as a contributing author for Allergan, AbbVie, Amgen, Biohaven, Novartis, Lilly, and Teva. He has received grant support from AbbVie and Amgen. AbbVie is committed to responsible data sharing regarding the clinical trials we sponsor. This includes access to anonymized, individual, and trial-level data (analysis data sets), as well as other information (eg, protocols, clinical study reports, or analysis plans), as long as the trials are not part of an ongoing or planned regulatory submission. This includes requests for clinical trial data for unlicensed products and indications. These clinical trial data can be requested by any qualified researchers who engage in rigorous, independent scientific research, and will be provided following review and approval of a research proposal and Statistical Analysis Plan and execution of a Data Sharing Agreement. Data requests can be submitted at any time after approval in the United States and Europe and after acceptance of this manuscript for publication. The data will be accessible for 12 months, with possible extensions considered. For more information on the process, or to submit a request, visit the following link: https://www.abbvieclinicaltrials.com/hcp/data-sharing/.

Ubrogepant Is Safe and Efficacious in Participants Taking Concomitant Preventive Medication for Migraine: A Pooled Analysis of Phase 3 Trials.

INTRODUCTION: Ubrogepant is a calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonist indicated for acute treatment of migraine that can be used to treat breakthrough attacks in individuals taking preventive treatment for migraine. We evaluated the impact of preventive medication use on the efficacy and safety of ubrogepant for the acute treatment of migraine. METHODS: This was an analysis of pooled efficacy data from the ACHIEVE I and ACHIEVE II phase 3 trials, in which efficacy of ubrogepant was assessed at 2 h after taking study medication for pain freedom, absence of most bothersome symptom (MBS), and pain relief. In addition, a long-term safety (LTS) extension trial was completed where safety was assessed on the basis of incidence and severity of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). Outcomes were compared between participants with or without prior (within 6 months) preventive medication use (anticonvulsants, beta blockers, antidepressants, or onabotulinumtoxinA). For efficacy analyses, data were pooled across ACHIEVE trials for the 50 mg and placebo groups; for safety analyses, data for all dose groups (50 mg and 100 mg) in the LTS trial were pooled. RESULTS: Preventive treatments were used by 417 of 2247 (18.6%) participants analyzed in the ACHIEVE trials and by 143 of 813 (17.5%) participants in the LTS trial. Responder rates for all outcomes were similar between participants with or without preventive treatment within each dose group (p > 0.05). No significant differences were noted across the different preventive medications. Rates and types of TEAEs were similar between participants with or without preventive treatment. No serious treatment-related adverse events were reported. CONCLUSION: Efficacy and safety of ubrogepant for the acute treatment of migraine were similar between participants with or without prior or current use of concomitant preventive medication. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT02828020 (ACHIEVE I), NCT02867709 (ACHIEVE II), and NCT02873221 (long-term safety trial).

Use of Intracranial Pressure Monitoring Frequently Refutes Diagnosis of Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension.

BACKGROUND: The diagnosis and management of patients with idiopathic intracranial hypertension (IIH) frequently relies on lumbar puncture to ascertain intracranial pressure (ICP). However, ICP values derived this way may be spurious owing to patient body habitus and behavior. We recently incorporated direct continuous ICP monitoring into the work-up for IIH. METHODS: Through billing records, we identified all patients during a 3-year period who had a diagnosis of IIH and who underwent ICP monitoring before shunt placement or revision. Patient demographics and clinical data were reviewed. RESULTS: Of 30 patients who underwent ICP monitoring with an intraparenchymal wire, 17 had undergone lumbar puncture within the previous 6 months. Results from lumbar punctures showed an elevated opening pressure in all 17 patients, whereas only 2 patients (12%) were found to have consistently elevated ICP with direct ICP monitoring. Of 15 patients being evaluated for shunting, 4 (27%) were found to have elevated ICP. Of the 15 patients with existing shunts, 2 patients (13%) were found to have malfunctioning shunts after pressure monitoring, and 3 patients (20%) had shunts that were found to be unnecessary and were removed. No patient experienced any complication from invasive monitoring. CONCLUSIONS: Direct ICP monitoring is the gold standard for determining ICP and can be safely and effectively applied to the work-up and treatment of patients with IIH to reduce the occurrence of misdiagnosis and unnecessary surgery.

Incidence and predictors of dural venous sinus pressure gradient in idiopathic intracranial hypertension and non-idiopathic intracranial hypertension headache patients: results from 164 cerebral venograms.

OBJECTIVE Cerebral venous pressure gradient (CVPG) from dural venous sinus stenosis is implicated in headache syndromes such as idiopathic intracranial hypertension (IIH). The incidence of CVPG in headache patients has not been reported. METHODS The authors reviewed all cerebral venograms with manometry performed for headache between January 2008 and May 2015. Patient demographics, headache etiology, intracranial pressure (ICP) measurements, and radiographic and manometric results were recorded. CVPG was defined as a difference ≥ 8 mm Hg by venographic manometry. RESULTS One hundred sixty-four venograms were performed in 155 patients. There were no procedural complications. Ninety-six procedures (58.5%) were for patients with IIH. The overall incidence of CVPG was 25.6% (42 of 164 procedures): 35.4% (34 of 96 procedures) in IIH patients and 11.8% (8 of 68 procedures) in non-IIH patients. Sixty procedures (36.6%) were performed in patients with preexisting shunts. Seventy-seven patients (49.7%) had procedures preceded by an ICP measurement within 4 weeks of venography, and in 66 (85.7%) of these patients, the ICP had been found to be elevated. CVPG was seen in 8.3% (n = 5) of the procedures in the 60 patients with a preexisting shunt and in 0% (n = 0) of the 11 procedures in the 77 patients with normal ICP (p < 0.001 for both). Noninvasive imaging (MR venography, CT venography) was assessed prior to venography in 112 (68.3%) of 164 cases, and dural venous sinus abnormalities were demonstrated in 73 (65.2%) of these cases; there was a trend toward CVPG (p = 0.07). Multivariate analysis demonstrated an increased likelihood of CVPG in patients with IIH (OR 4.97, 95% CI 1.71-14.47) and a decreased likelihood in patients with a preexisting shunt (OR 0.09, 95% CI 0.02-0.44). CONCLUSIONS CVPG is uncommon in IIH patients, rare in those with preexisting shunts, and absent in those with normal ICP.

Lower extremity predominant stiff-person syndrome and limbic encephalitis with amphiphysin antibodies in breast cancer.

A 54-year-old woman presented with several weeks of psychiatric symptoms, partial-onset seizures, and painful spasms of the lower extremities. On examination, she exhibited severe stiffness and intermittent extensor spasms of the lower extremities. Magnetic resonance imaging of the brain showed T2 hyperintensity in the left temporal lobe with enhancement after gadolinium administration on T1-weighted images. Amphiphysin antibodies were present in the serum. Radiographic screening for malignancy disclosed a metastatic breast cancer. The case is a unique example of amphiphysin autoimmunity, illustrating the possibility of paraneoplastic stiff-person syndrome and limbic encephalitis coexisting in a patient with a "classical" presentation of stiff-person syndrome confined to the lower extremities.

Missed insulin meal boluses and elevated hemoglobin A1c levels in children receiving insulin pump therapy.

OBJECTIVE: To identify possible causes of suboptimal glycemic control (ascertained by hemoglobin A1c [HbA1c] level) in youths using insulin pump therapy. METHODS: Forty-eight youths who were receiving insulin pump therapy for > or =6 months, and who were using insulin pumps and blood glucose meters with data that could be downloaded at our facility, are included in this cross-sectional study. Possible causes of suboptimal glycemic control were evaluated by using 4 information sources: 1) insulin pump data downloads; 2) glucose meter data downloads; 3) patient/family questionnaire about insulin bolusing habits, eating habits, exercise, and blood glucose testing habits; and 4) a physician questionnaire. Physicians completed the questionnaire during the patient interview after reviewing the downloaded information and discussing these results with the patient/family. RESULTS: The mean (+/- standard deviation) age of participants was 15.3 (+/-3.0) years (range: 7-20 years), and the mean (+/- standard deviation) duration of type 1 diabetes and continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion was 8.2 (+/-4.0) and 1.9 (+/-1.0) years, respectively. Patients who missed <1 bolus per week had a mean (95% confidence interval) HbA1c level of 8.0% (7.7, 8.3), whereas those who missed > or =1 mealtime boluses per week had a mean HbA1c level (95% confidence interval) of 8.8% (8.6, 9.1). No significant relationships were found between HbA1c levels in males and females, the amount of exercise per week, or bolusing before insulin pump disconnection for exercise. Although not significant, a trend was found for those who missed <1 bolus per week to perform more blood glucose tests per day and for those who bolused before a meal rather than after to have lower HbA1c levels. Significant correlations were found between HbA1c levels and the number of missed mealtime boluses per week (r =.414) and mean blood glucose levels (r =.70). CONCLUSION: Missed mealtime insulin boluses seem to be the major cause of suboptimal glycemic control in youths with diabetes receiving continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion therapy.