A Risk-Difference Meta-Analysis for the Prophylactic Treatments of Chronic Migraine.

Chronic migraine (CM) imposes significant personal, societal, and financial burdens, historically lacking specific prophylactic treatments. Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) targeting calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) represent a novel, mechanism-based, and migraine-specific prophylactic approach. Four mAbs, namely, erenumab, fremanezumab, galcanezumab, and eptinezumab, have been marketed, although head-to-head trials with standard anti-migraine treatments are absent. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of anti-CGRP mAbs with standard anti-migraine treatments using a cross-trial indirect model of the absolute risk difference (ARD) of a 50% responder rate, in order to express the final results in terms of the number needed to treat (NNT) and number needed to harm (NNH). Phase 3 and 2b randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for CM prophylaxis were searched in the MEDLINE and CENTRAL databases with specific inclusion and exclusion criteria. The ARD between groups for the percentage of trial participants who reported a 50% reduction in monthly migraine days and the differences in the number of adverse events (AEs), serious adverse events (SAEs), and participants who withdrew from each RCT were calculated, and subsequently, the NNT and NNH were calculated for each one of the outcome measures. In total, eight RCTs were considered eligible. A similar efficacy and safety have been demonstrated among CGRP mAbs and all standard CM treatments. The results of the ARD for the total number of studies concerning efficacy, total adverse events, serious adverse events, and dropout from the RCTs ranged from -0.688 (95% confidence interval (CI): -0.821-(-0.513)) to -0.018 (95% CI: -0.044-(0.007)), from 0.032 (95% CI: -0.041, 0.104) to -0.380 (95% CI: -0.589, -0.126), from -0.025 (95% CI: -0.046, -0.006) to 0.014 (95% CI: -0.015, 0.42), from 0.048 (95% CI: -0.112, 0.014) to 0.232 (95% CI: -0.016, 0.458) correspondingly. All anti-CGRP mAbs showed a roughly equal statistically significant ARD and similar NNTs, ranging from 5 to 8, while the ARD of onbotulinum toxin A (oBTA) was not significant with an NNT 56. The two studies of topiramate showed contradictory results, the one significant while the other not, with NNTs 2 and 22, respectively. All four anti-CGRP mAbs showed an invariably high efficacy among their studies, in terms of the ARD and its derivative measure of NNT, in contrast to oBTA, while in topiramate, the results are contradictory between the two studies.

Onabotulinumtoxina in the Prevention of Migraine in Pediatric Population: A Systematic Review.

Migraine is a leading cause of disability worldwide, yet it remains underrecognized and undertreated, especially in the pediatric and adolescent population. Chronic migraine occurs approximately in 1% of children and adolescents requiring preventive treatment. Topiramate is the only FDA-approved preventative treatment for children older than 12 years of age, but there is conflicting evidence regarding its efficacy. OnabotulinumtoxinA is a known and approved treatment for the management of chronic migraine in people older than 18 years. Several studies examine its role in the pediatric population with positive results; however, the clear-cut benefit is still unclear. OnabotulinumtoxinA seems not only to improve disability scores (PedMIDAS) but also to improve the quality, characteristics, and frequency of migraines in the said population. This systematic review aims to summarize the evidence on the efficacy, dosing, administration, long-term outcomes, and safety of onabotulinumtoxinA in pediatric and adolescent migraine. Eighteen studies met the eligibility criteria and were included in this review. The mean monthly migraine days (MMDs), decreased from of 21.2 days per month to 10.7 after treatment. The reported treatment-related adverse effects were mild and primarily injection site related and ranged from 0% to 47.0%. Thus, this review provides compelling evidence suggesting that OnabotulinumtoxinA may represent a safe and effective preventive treatment option for pediatric migraine.

Instrumental Occlusal Analysis in Migraine Patients: A Quantitative Cross Sectional Study.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to investigate possible differences of functional occlusal variables between a group of migraine patients (MG) and a control group (CG). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Each group included 50 individuals. Instrumental functional analysis and digital occlusal analysis were performed. Variables examined were condylar displacement from a reference position to maximum intercuspation; angular difference between the steepness of the articular eminence and the contra-lateral canine guidance; and angular difference between the steepness of the articular eminence and the ipsilateral central incisor guidance and occlusal plane inclination. Self-reported grinding and occlusal index were also investigated. RESULTS: There were statistically significant differences in the extent of retral condylar displacement assessed both clinically [MG: 0.49 mm (SD 0.67 mm), CG: 0.29 mm (SD 0.27 mm), p = 0.012] and digital-mechanically [MG: 1.53 mm (SD 0.95 mm), CG: 0.9 mm (SD 0.66 mm), p = 0.001], the angular difference between the steepness of the articular eminence and the contra-lateral canine guidance [MG: 13.11° (SD 8.33°), CG: 9.47° (SD 7.08°), p = 0.021 and MG: 12.94° (SD 8.71°), CG: 9.44° (SD 8.70°), p = 0.017], and the occlusal plane inclination [MG: 11.16° (SD 4.66°), CG: 9.09° (SD 4.37°), p = 0.024]. Self-reported grinding (MG: 39/50, CG: 12/50, p < 0.001) and occlusal index [MG: 1.92 (SD 0.46), CG: 0.21 (SD 0.66), p < 0.001] were also significantly higher in migraineurs. CONCLUSIONS: Articular and occlusal structures could play a role in migraine and thus should be considered in an interdisciplinary approach.

Validity and reliability of the Greek Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire (MSQ Version 2.1-GR).

BACKGROUND: To assess the validity and reliability of the Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire 2.1 (MSQv.2.1) in a group of Greek migraineurs. DESIGN-SAMPLE-METHODS: The Greek version of MSQv.2.1 (MSQv.2.1-GR), a self-report measure with 14 items in 3 domains (Role Restrictive (RR), Role Preventive (RP) and Emotional Function (EF)), was administered during a cross-sectional study to 141 Greek adult migraineurs and 135 controls without migraine or any other primary headache disorder, along with Migraine Disability Assessment Scale (MIDAS) and Short Form Health Survey (SF-12) to assess validity. MSQv.2.1-GR was re-administered in a group of participants with migraine two weeks afterwards to assess reliability. Content and construct validity was assessed using Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC), Spearman rho, McDonald's omega, Cronbach's alpha. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to test the latent structure of the MSQv.2.1-GR in migraineurs. RESULTS: A total of 276 adults participated in the study. Internal consistency of the three MSQv.2.1-GR scales RR, RP and EF yielded a range of McDonald's omega from 0.832 to 0.923 (Cronbach's alpha from 0.814 to 0.923). CFA confirmed the proposed three-factor MSQv.2.1-GR latent structure with acceptable goodness of fit indices and factor loadings. Correlations were established between MSQv2.1-GR component and MIDAS scores, showing moderate and statistically significant relationships (from - 0.519 to -0.562, all p < 0.001) for RR, RP and EF. Correlations between MSQv2.1-GR and SF-12 component scores were identified, with values from 0.1 to 0.4, indicating low to moderate associations. ICC was calculated at 0.997, indicating a high level of reliability between the measures. Notably, all MSQv2.1-GR scores (RR, RP, EF) were significantly higher in the controls compared to migraineurs (p < 0.001 for all scales). These findings suggest that MSQv2.1-GR is internally consistent, shows significant correlations with relevant measures, and is effective in discriminating controls from migraineurs. CONCLUSION: MSQv2.1-GR is a valid and reliable tool to determine the effect migraine has on the quality of life of Greek-speaking migraineurs.

Migraine is a major global health issue, ranking at the top leading causes of disability worldwide. The Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire 2.1 (MSQ v.2.10 is an effective instrument for measuring the influence of headaches on a patient's quality of life but it is not available for the Greek migraineurs. We therefore made this study to investigate the reliability and validity of MSQv.2.1 in Greek. The Greek version (MSQv2.1-GR) was administered on a total of 142 migraineurs and 136 non-migraineurs. In addition, other instruments such as MIDAS and SF-12 were applied to determine its validity. We concluded that MSQv2.1-GR is a valid measure. There was great reliability between the items because they were measuring the same thing. It had a good correlation with other tests that evaluate migraine-related disability and quality of life. It also differentiated migraineurs from non-migraineurs in terms of quality of life. Therefore, MSQv2.1-GR proves to be an appropriate measure for examining the consequences of migraine on the health-related quality of life among Greek individuals. This tool will be helpful for clinicians in Greece as well as for research purposes such as cross-cultural studies on effects of migraine on quality of life.

Depression and Anxiety Symptoms in Headache Disorders: An Observational, Cross-Sectional Study.

BACKGROUND: Headache disorders have been associated with anxiety and depressive disorders. The aim of this study was to assess symptoms of anxiety and depression in a large sample of individuals with different headache disorders (HDs) in order to determine whether their frequency differs by headache type. METHODS: Consecutive individuals with headache attending a headache outpatient clinic were interviewed with the HAM-D and HAM-A, along with age, sex, and education matched non-headache individuals. RESULTS: Individuals numbering 2673 with headache (females 71.2%) and 464 non-headache individuals (females 70.9%) were interviewed (with participation rates of 98.3% and 91.0%, respectively). Migraine was diagnosed in 49.7%, tension-type headache in 38%, cluster headache 5.2%, and medication overuse (MO) in 21.8%. Participants with HD scored more in HAM-A (OR = 4.741, CI95%: 3.855-5.831, p < 0.001) and HAM-D scales (OR = 2.319, CI95%: 1.892-2.842, p < 0.001) than non-headache individuals. Participants with chronic HDs (≥15 days with headache for ≥3 consecutive months; 52.5%) scored higher for both HAM-A (OR = 1.944, CI95%: 1.640-2.303, p < 0.001) and HAM-D (OR = 1.625, CI95%: 1.359-1.944, p < 0.001) than those with episodic HDs (33.1%), as did participants with MO vs. participants without MO (OR = 3.418, CI95%: 2.655-4.399, p < 0.001 for HAM-A, OR = 3.043, CI95%: 2.322-3.986, p < 0.001 for HAM-D). Female and low-educated participants scored higher on both scales. CONCLUSION: Because symptoms of anxiety and depression are substantial in people with HD, the treating physicians should look out for such symptoms and manage them appropriately.

Headache disorders in multiple sclerosis: Is there an association? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To look for any potential association of headache disorders with multiple sclerosis (MS). BACKGROUND: The prevalence of headache disorders has been found to be increased in people with MS (pwMS), however, an association has not been established. Existing studies have provided conflicting results mostly because of methodological differences. METHODS: PubMed, Embase and Scopus were searched to identify eligible studies. Studies were included if they were cross-sectional, case-control or cohort. Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to assess the risk of bias of the included studies. Case-control, cross sectional or cohort studies that used the International Classification of Headache Disorders (ICHD)-2 or-3 criteria for headache diagnosis and Mc Donald or Poser criteria for MS diagnosis were included. Data were extracted using standardized data collection form. Meta-analysis was conducted by calculating the overall prevalence of headache disorders in pwMS as well as the association of headache disorders with MS. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS), a tool for assessing the quality of non-randomized studies, was used to assess the quality of the included studies. RESULTS: Twenty-three studies were included yielding a total of 5,440 MS patients and 28,0958 controls. The majority of them scored a NOS score between 5 and 6 (max 9), which indicates that they did not rank high in terms of quality, because most studies were cross-sectional and uncontrolled, and only one was prospective, controlled, and longitudinal, but with small population size. Pooled prevalence for all headache disorders, migraine and tension-type headache (TTH) in pwMS was 58 % (95 % CI 0.54-0.61), 30 % (95 % CI 0.25-0.34) and 19 % (95 % CI 0.15-0.23) respectively. A significant association between migraine and MS was found (OR = 2.02, 95 % CI = 1.14-3.57). CONCLUSION: PwMS are twice as likely to experience migraine as controls, but the results need to be translated with caution since most of the studies included in the meta-analysis were of low or moderate quality. Larger prospective cohort, controlled, longitudinal studies are needed to confirm whether there is indeed an association between MS and migraine.

Evidence-based symptomatic treatment of migraine.

Symptomatic treatment of migraine includes patient education, mainly to avoid medication overuse and known trigger factors, as well as pharmaceutical and nonpharmaceutical interventions. Disease-specific and mechanism-based agents include ergotamine and dihydroergotamine targeting the adrenergic, dopaminergic, and serotoninergic systems followed by triptans, specific agonists for 5-HT1B/1D/1F receptors, the latest being more favorable in terms of safety and documentation of efficacy. Recently, antagonists of calcitonin gene-related peptide (gepants) and selective agonists of the 5-HT1F receptor (ditans) have been added, with promising efficacy and safety. Triptans stay as the first option treatment when attacks are moderate to severe, followed by nonspecific agents, including aspirin and paracetamol/acetaminophen and nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs, ibuprofen and naproxen share the best documentation) for mild-to-moderate migraine attacks. Combinations with caffeine are effective as well, but barbiturates and opioids alone or in combinations should be avoided. Simple analgesics and NSAIDs attenuate cephalic pain via prostaglandin mediated mechanisms and may induce peptic, renal and hepatic adverse effects. Neuromodulation techniques include single-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation (s-TMS), external trigeminal nerve stimulation (e-TNS), remote electrical neuromodulation (REN) and noninvasive vagus nerve stimulation (nVNS). All share good documentation and safety profile and are worthy of alternative treatment options along with physical therapy when medicines are contradicted or not well tolerated or unwanted by the patients.

Headaches and facial pain attributed to SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The aim was to provide insights to the characteristics of headache in the context of COVID-19 on behalf of the Headache Scientific Panel and the Neuro-COVID-19 Task Force of the European Academy of Neurology (EAN) and the European Headache Federation (EHF). METHODS: Following the Delphi method the Task Force identified six relevant questions and then conducted a systematic literature review to provide evidence-based answers and suggest specific diagnostic criteria. RESULTS: No data for facial pain were identified in the literature search. (1) Headache incidence during acute COVID-19 varies considerably, with higher prevalence rates in prospective compared to retrospective studies (28.9%-74.6% vs. 6.5%-34.0%). (2) Acute COVID-19 headache is usually bilateral or holocranial and often moderate to severe with throbbing pain quality lasting 2-14 days after first signs of COVID-19; photo-phonophobia, nausea, anosmia and ageusia are common associated features; persistent headache shares similar clinical characteristics. (3) Acute COVID-19 headache is presumably caused by immune-mediated mechanisms that activate the trigeminovascular system. (4) Headache occurs in 13.3%-76.9% following SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and occurs more often amongst women with a pre-existing primary headache; the risk of developing headache is higher with the adenoviral-vector-type vaccines than with other preparations. (5) Headache related to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination is mostly bilateral, and throbbing, pressing, jolting or stabbing. (6) No studies have been conducted investigating the underlying mechanism of headache attributed to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. CONCLUSION: The results of this joint EAN/EHF initiative provide a framework for a better understanding of headache in the context of SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination.

The World Health Organization Intersectoral Global Action Plan on Epilepsy and Other Neurological Disorders and the headache revolution: from headache burden to a global action plan for headache disorders.

The World Health Organization (WHO) Intersectoral Global Action Plan on Epilepsy and Other Neurological Disorders was developed by WHO to address the worldwide challenges and gaps in provision of care and services for people with epilepsy and other neurological disorders and to ensure a comprehensive, coordinated response across sectors to the burden of neurologic diseases and to promote brain health across life-course. Headache disorders constitute the second most burdensome of all neurological diseases after stroke, but the first if young and midlife adults are taken into account. Despite the availability of a range of treatments, disability associated with headache disorders, and with migraine, remains very high. In addition, there are inequalities between high-income and low and middle income countries in access to medical care. In line with several brain health initiatives following the WHOiGAP resolution, herein we tailor the main pillars of the action plan to headache disorders: (1) raising policy prioritization and strengthen governance; (2) providing effective, timely and responsive diagnosis, treatment and care; (3) implementing strategies for promotion and prevention; (4) fostering research and innovation and strengthen information systems. Specific targets for future policy actions are proposed. The Global Action Plan triggered a revolution in neurology, not only by increasing public awareness of brain disorders and brain health but also by boosting the number of neurologists in training, raising research funding and making neurology a public health priority for policy makers. Reducing the burden of headache disorders will not only improve the quality of life and wellbeing of people with headache but also reduce the burden of neurological disorders increasing global brain health and, thus, global population health.

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.

Nocebo-associated treatment discontinuation with subcutaneous anti-osteoporotic drugs. A systematic review and meta-analysis of placebo-arm dropouts in randomized-controlled trials.

OBJECTIVE: Nocebo is a concept of therapeutics referring to unpleasant symptoms attributed by a patient to a drug, due to negative anticipation. Patients receiving oral anti-osteoporotic drugs in randomized controlled trials (RCT) can experience adverse events leading to dropout, implying that nocebo contributes to treatment discontinuation for these drugs. In this study we aim to investigate the nocebo effect of subcutaneous anti-osteoporotic drugs with a higher compliance rate than orally administered drugs. STUDY DESIGN: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, SCOPUS, and Cochrane databases for double-blind trials investigating subcutaneous anti-osteoporotic drugs for osteoporosis (namely, denosumab, teriparatide, abaloparatide and romosozumab) published up to May 2023. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Dropouts due to reported adverse events in the placebo arms ("nocebo dropouts"). RESULTS: Data from 17 trials were extracted. Among 10,529 placebo-treated patients the pooled nocebo-dropout percentage was 3 % for denosumab (average: 0.03; 95 % CI: 0.01-0.05), 1 % for romosozumab (average: 0.01; 95 % CI: 0.00-0.03) and 6 % for teriparatide and abaloparatide (average: 0.06; 95 % CI: 0.05-0.07). Nocebo-dropouts were significantly higher in men than women (6 % vs. 3 %, respectively, p = 0.012), in older (mean age >68 years) than in younger patients (5 % vs. 1 %, respectively, p = 0.017) and in those with more severe osteoporosis (based on the percentage of participants with prior fragility-related fractures in the study cohort) compared with patients with no prior fracture history (4 % vs. 1 %, respectively, p = 0.046). CONCLUSION: Nocebo responses may contribute to treatment discontinuation with subcutaneous anti-osteoporotic drugs in clinical practice. Higher nocebo-related dropout rates in the higher-risk RCT population (older patients, males, those with prior fractures) show that nocebo mechanisms have the potential to hinder therapeutic efforts to specific populations who would benefit most. Prospero registration number CRD42020212843.

Placebo and nocebo in the treatment of migraine: How much does real world effectiveness depend on contextual effects?

PURPOSE: Treatments in medicine impact individuals beyond their intended effects, due to phenomena such as the placebo and nocebo effects. The placebo effect arises from the positive expectation of a treatment being beneficial, while the nocebo effect stems from the negative expectation of a treatment causing harm. Both in real-world practice and clinical trials, treatments can lead to outcomes unrelated to their intended mechanism of action, which we categorize as placebo and nocebo responses. These responses, combined with the inherent fluctuation in a condition's natural progression, regression to the mean, and random comorbidities, make up a significant part of the therapeutic experience. Particularly in pain management, placebo and nocebo effects play a substantial role. By addressing modifiable contextual factors such as patient expectations, lifestyle choices, and the therapeutic relationship, healthcare providers can enhance the effectiveness of migraine treatments, paving the way for a more comprehensive, individualized approach to patient care. We must also consider non-modifiable factors like personal experiences, beliefs, and information from social media and the internet. CONCLUSION: This review offers a summary of our current understanding of the placebo and nocebo effects in migraine management.

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.

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.

Rethinking headache as a global public health case model for reaching the SDG 3 HEALTH by 2030.

The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development sets out, through 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), a path for the prosperity of people and the planet. SDG 3 in particular aims to ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages and includes several targets to enhance health. This review presents a "headache-tailored" perspective on how to achieve SDG 3 by focusing on six specific actions: targeting chronic headaches; reducing the overuse of acute pain-relieving medications; promoting the education of healthcare professionals; granting access to medication in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC); implementing training and educational opportunities for healthcare professionals in low and middle income countries; building a global alliance against headache disorders. Addressing the burden of headache disorders directly impacts on populations' health, as well as on the possibility to improve the productivity of people aged below 50, women in particular. Our analysis pointed out several elements, and included: moving forward from frequency-based parameters to define headache severity; recognizing and managing comorbid diseases and risk factors; implementing a disease management multi-modal management model that incorporates pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments; early recognizing and managing the overuse of acute pain-relieving medications; promoting undergraduate, postgraduate, and continuing medical education of healthcare professionals with specific training on headache; and promoting a culture that favors the recognition of headaches as diseases with a neurobiological basis, where this is not yet recognized. Making headache care more sustainable is an achievable objective, which will require multi-stakeholder collaborations across all sectors of society, both health-related and not health-related. Robust investments will be needed; however, considering the high prevalence of headache disorders and the associated disability, these investments will surely improve multiple health outcomes and lift development and well-being globally.

Migraine in multiple sclerosis patients: potential links and treatment approach.

INTRODUCTION: Migraine has been reported to be twice as prevalent in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) compared to the non-MS population. However, prospective, controlled studies that could lead to robust conclusions are still lacking. AREAS COVERED: Treatment of migraine in patients with MS can be challenging. Comorbidities need to be assessed and managed early, and preventive treatment should be initiated when indicated. Caution is warranted regarding the selection of the preventive medication since certain agents can magnify MS symptoms and particularly cognitive symptoms. This paper aims to discuss the association of MS and migraine, shed light on distinguishing points and red flags, as well as offer practical advice on the selection of treatment according to patients' characteristics. EXPERT OPINION: A holistic approach including pharmacological and non-pharmacological modifications is required to treat migraine in patients with MS effectively. Anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies are a promising option due to limited drug-to-drug interactions; however, larger prospective studies are required to draw robust conclusions on the concomitant use of anti-CGRPs with MS disease modifying treatments. Early migraine preventive treatment might be needed to reduce the burden of disease in patients with MS.

Headache Attributed to Reversible Cerebral Vasoconstriction Syndrome (RCVS).

Reversible cerebral vasoconstriction syndrome (RCVS) is a condition with variable outcomes presenting a new onset thunderclap headache accompanied by focal neurological symptoms or seizures. It can be idiopathic or arise secondarily to a variety of trigger factors. The condition is increasingly recognized in clinical practice, but many facets remain poorly understood. This article aims to clarify the headache characteristics in RCVS, the temporal association of angiographic findings, the potential association of the condition with SARS-CoV-2 infection, and the clinical presentation of RCVS in children and is based on a systematic PRISMA search for published analytical or large descriptive observational studies. Data from 60 studies that fulfilled specific criteria were reviewed. Most people with RCVS exhibit a typical thunderclap, explosive, or pulsatile/throbbing headache, or a similar acute and severe headache that takes longer than 1 min to peak. Atypical presentations or absence of headaches are also reported and may be an underrecognized phenotype. In many cases, headaches may persist after resolution of RCVS. Focal deficits or seizures are attributed to associated complications including transient ischemic attacks, posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome, ischemic stroke, cerebral edema, and intracranial hemorrhage. The peak of vasoconstriction occurs usually within two weeks after clinical onset, possibly following a pattern of centripetal propagation, and tends to resolve completely within 3 months, well after symptoms have subsided. There are a few reports of RCVS occurring in relation to SARS-CoV-2 infection, but potential underlying pathophysiologic mechanisms and etiological associations have not been confirmed. RCVS occurs in children most often in the context of an underlying disease. Overall, the available data in the literature are scattered, and large-scale prospective studies and international collaborations are needed to further characterize the clinical presentation of RCVS.

COVID-19 vaccination-related headache showed two different clusters in the long-term course: a prospective multicenter follow-up study (COVA-Head Study).

BACKGROUND: Although acute headache following COVID-19 vaccination is widely acknowledged, the long-term progression of these headaches remains poorly understood. Our objective was to identify various phenotypes of prolonged or worsened headaches associated with COVID-19 vaccination and document any changes in these phenotypes over an extended period. Additionally, we aimed to document the diverse headache presentations among patients with pre-existing primary headaches. METHODS: A multinational, prospective observational study was conducted to investigate prolonged or worsened headaches associated with COVID-19 vaccination. Questionnaires assessing COVID-19 vaccination-related headaches at three time points (initial visit, 3rd month follow-up, and 6th month follow-up) were developed for the study. Headache specialists/clinicians evaluated patients using these questionnaires in a prospective manner. Repeated K-means cluster analysis was performed to identify patient profiles with prolonged or worsened headaches related to COVID-19 vaccination. RESULTS: Among the 174 patients included in the study, there was a female-to-male ratio of 128 (73.6%) to 46 (26.4%). The mean age of the patient group was 45.2 ± 13.3 years, and 107 patients (61.5%) had a pre-existing history of primary headaches. Through the analysis, two major clusters were identified based on headache characteristics at each visit. During the first visit (n = 174), Cluster 1 primarily comprised patients with a history of primary headaches, frontal localization of pain, throbbing pain type, more severe headaches accompanied by symptoms such as nausea, phonophobia, photophobia, and osmophobia, and worsened by physical activity. In contrast, Cluster 2 consisted of patients with longer headache durations (over one month) and a stabbing/pressing quality of pain. Patients in Cluster 1 had a higher prevalence of migraine as the pre-existing primary headache disorder compared to Cluster 2 (90.48% vs. 68.18%, respectively; p = 0.005). CONCLUSION: The identification of two distinct phenotypes of prolonged or worsened headaches related to COVID-19 vaccination can provide valuable clinical insights. Having an awareness of the potential worsening of headaches following COVID-19 vaccination, particularly in patients with a primary headache disorder such as migraine, can help clinicians and headache experts anticipate and adjust their treatment strategies accordingly. This knowledge can aid in preplanning treatment modifications and optimize patient care.