Reliability and validity of the Turkish version of the Health Care Satisfaction Questionnaire in patients with spinal pain.

BACKGROUND: The concept of satisfaction is an important concept because of the information it provides about both the quality of health services and the patients' utilization of the health services they receive. The aim of this study was to test the validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the Health Care Satisfaction Questionnaire (HCSQ). METHODS: The study sample consisted of 148 patients who received exercise therapy for spinal pain. Psychometric evaluations were analyzed using the Turkish version of the HCSQ (confirmatory factor analysis, convergent validity, test-retest reliability). Convergent validity was determined by examining the relationship between the scale and the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), Patient Satisfaction Scale for Physiotherapy Outpatient Clinics (PSSPOC) , and the Patient Satisfaction Scale in Physiotherapy (PSSP). RESULTS: The HCSQ showed excellent internal consistency (Cronbach's a = 0.96) and excellent test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.944). The HCSQ showed high correlation with NRS, PSSPOC , and PSSP. CONCLUSION: The HCSQ is a valid and reliable tool for assessing satisfaction with health care services in the Turkish population with spinal pain.

Investigation of masticatory muscle thickness and mechanosensitivity of cervical and masticatory muscles in myofascial temporomandibular disorder patients with bruxism: A cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVE: Bruxism is a common problem associated with temporomandibular disorders (TMD). The aim of this study was to compare a patient group with Myofascial TMD and bruxism and a healthy control group in terms of masseter and temporal muscle thickness (clenching and resting), mechanosensitivity of neck and jaw muscles, craniofacial pain, and disability and emotional stress status. METHODS: The study included 31 patients with myofascial TMD and bruxism (19 females, 12 males) with a mean age of 29.96 ± 8.12 years (range, 18-45 years), and a control group of 31 healthy subjects (19 females, 12 males) with a mean age of 27.58 ± 9.39 years years (range, 18-45 years). Masseter and temporal muscle thicknesses were evaluated with a mobile ultrasound device both at rest and when clenching the jaw. The mechanosensitivity values between the upper trapezius, obliquus capitis inferior, masseter and temporal muscles were measured with a digital algometer device. Craniofacial pain and disability level were evaluated with the Craniofacial Pain and Disability Index (CFPDI), and emotional stress levels with the Perceived Stress Scale-14 (PSS-14). RESULTS: No difference was determined between the two groups in respect of the clenching and resting ratios of muscle thickness in any muscle (p > 0.05). The mechanosensitivity values in all muscles were lower in the myofascial TMD group than in the healthy group (p < 0.05). The CFPDI and PSS-14 scores were higher in the myofascial TMD group (p < 0.05). There was a moderate positive correlation between CFPDI, PSS-14 and Bruxism Frequency Score (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: The difference in mechanosensitivity and CFPDI values between the myofascial TMD patients with bruxism and the healthy control group indicates that the problem in this patient group has effects in the craniocervical and cervical regions. In addition, the correlation between CFPDI, PSS-14 and Bruxism Frequency Score in myofascial TMD patients suggests that this problem may be affected by the interaction of different parameters.

Cross-cultural adaptation, reliability and validity of the Turkish version of the Henry Ford Hospital Headache Disability Inventory (HDI/T) in patients with cervicogenic headache.

PURPOSE: Cultural adaptation to Henry Ford Hospital Headache Disability Inventory (HDI) and investigating the validity and reliability of this inventory. METHODS: International standards were followed in conducting the cultural adaption of Henry Ford Hospital Headache Disability Inventory Turkish version (HDI-T). Test-Retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient, ICC) and internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha) were included in the psychometric assessments; Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) were used to assess the structural validity; and construct validity was performed by examining relationship the HDI-T between the Headache Impact Test-6 (HIT- 6), Neck Disability Index (NDI), Perceived Stress Scale-14 (PSS-14), and Nottingham Health Profile (NHP). RESULTS: HDI-T showed excellent test-retest reliability (ICC =0.901), excellent internal consistency (Cronbach's a = 0.935), and low to high correlation with Headache Impact Test-6 (HIT-6), Neck Disability Index (NDI), Perceived Stress Scale-14 (PSS-14) and Nottingham Health Profile (NHP). Following EFA, two factors (emotional and functional) were extracted, accounting for 50.734% of the total variation. The dimensional structure of the HDI-T obtained in the EFA was confirmed by CFA. CONCLUSION: The HDI-T is a reliable and valid instrument to determine the symptoms and disability in the Turkish population with cervicogenic headaches.Implications for RehabilitationHenry Ford Hospital Headache Disability Inventory Turkish version (HDI-T) is an outcome measure with high validity and reliability to obtain objective data in the determination of disability due to cervicogenic headache.HDI-T is recommended for all rehabilitation professionals to evaluate both the disability levels before rehabilitation and the changes during the rehabilitation process in patients with cervicogenic headaches in the Turkish population.Physiotherapists, orthopedists and neurosurgeons can also use HDI-T to objectively evaluate the secondary effects of their treatment for neck problems.

Unmet Needs in the Acute Treatment of Migraine.

Migraine represents the most common neurologic disorder, ranking second among the world's causes of disability [expressed as years lived with disability (YLDs)]. Patients often do not receive the best therapy because of safety issues, tolerance, and prescription accessibility. General practitioners are not always educated about the disease, and specialists are few and often difficult to reach. Therapies are limited and have many side effects that can impede the prescription. Prophylactic therapy is recommended in case of four or more headaches a month, eight or more headache days a month, debilitating headaches, and medication-overuse headaches. The available therapeutic options are in constant development. The classic one consists of non-specific drugs: ß-blockers, tricyclics, antiepileptics, and botulinum toxin. Monoclonal antibodies targeting the calcitonin gene receptor (CGRP) peptide or its receptor are the only ones specifically designed to treat migraine. Their efficiency and convenient safety profile have been demonstrated in a number of trials versus both placebo and classic therapies. The treatment of acute migraine attack consists of medications designed to affect the painful symptoms. For over 30 years, the cornerstones of treatment in clinical practice have continued to be represented by triptans and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), with the well-know related adverse effects. Opioids are used inappropriately and overprescribed. Polytherapy is strongly not recommended but is still a common practice because treatment is not optimized and thus not efficient. Great promise comes from gepants, also targeting CGRP, and ditans, 5-HT1F receptor agonists. They seem to outweigh the risk of medication overuse headache because of their efficacy and rapid onset and have no cardiovascular contraindications. Nonetheless, these points remain to be confirmed. Although therapies have been implemented in the last years, significant unmet treatment needs remain a reality in patients' lives. This commentary aims to identify the most important unmet needs in the acute treatment of migraine, analyzing the current status of available therapies and their limits. We also analyzed some of the prophylactic therapies available, especially focusing on anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies, to better understand the importance of setting a therapeutic strategy that includes the two modes, both acute and prophylactic, to reach the best result. We hope that having an overview of the shortcomings will help to provide constructive ideas for improvement.

Health equity, care access and quality in headache - part 2.

BACKGROUND: Headache disorders are a global public health concern affecting diverse populations. This review examines headache service organizations in low-, middle-, and high-income countries. It addresses global challenges in pharmacological headache treatment, with a focus on safety, tolerability, reproductive and child health, and outlines disparities in accessing innovative treatments worldwide. MAIN BODY: Organized headache services are essential due to the wide prevalence and varying severity of headache disorders. The tiered headache service model is globally recognized, although its implementation varies based on financial and workforce considerations. Headache burden affects well-being, causing disability, economic challenges, and work limitations, irrespective of location or income. All nations still require improved diagnosis and treatment, and the majority of countries face obstacles including limited access, awareness, economic barriers, and inadequate health policies. Provided adequate internet availability, telemedicine could help improve health equity by expanding access to headache care, since it can offer patients access to services without lengthy waiting times or extensive travel and can provide healthcare unavailable in underserved areas due to staff shortages. Numerous health disparities restrict global access to many headache medications, especially impacting individuals historically excluded from randomized controlled trials, such as those with cardiovascular and cerebrovascular conditions, as well as pregnant women. Furthermore, despite advancements in researching migraine treatments for young patients, the options for treatment remain limited. Access to headache treatment relies on factors like medication availability, approval, financial coverage, and healthcare provider expertise. Inadequate public awareness leads to neglect by policymakers and undertreatment by patients and healthcare providers. Global access discrepancies are exacerbated by the introduction of novel disease-specific medications, particularly impacting Asian, African, and Latin American nations excluded from clinical trials. While North America and Europe experience broad availability of migraine treatments, the majority of countries worldwide lack access to these therapies. CONCLUSIONS: Healthcare disparities, treatment access, and medication availability are concerning issues in headache medicine. Variations in national healthcare systems impact headache management, and costly innovative drugs are widening these gaps. Healthcare practitioners and experts should acknowledge these challenges and work towards minimizing access barriers for equitable global headache care in the future.

The Effect of OnabotulinumtoxinA on Headache Intensity and Number of Monthly Headache Days in Individuals with Chronic Migraine with Different Levels of Neck Disability.

One of the treatment methods used in chronic migraine is OnabotulinumtoxinA. The effects of OnabotulinumtoxinA on headache intensity (HI) and number of monthly headache days (NMHD) in chronic migraine (CM) patients classified according to neck disability levels are unknown. Our aim was to investigate the effect of OnabotulinumtoxinA on the HI and the NMHD in individuals with CM with different levels of neck disability. One hundred sixteen patients were enrolled in the study. The OnabotulinumtoxinA protocol was administered as per Follow-the-Pain PREEMPT. The Neck Disability Index was used to evaluate neck disability. Primary outcome measures were headache intensity, assessed with the Visual Analogue Scale, and the number of monthly headache days recorded from patients' diaries. Secondary outcome measures were migraine disability, assessed with the Migraine Disability Assessment Test, and quality-of-life, assessed with the Headache Impact Test-6. All assessments were made at baseline and end of the treatment. The OnabotulinumtoxinA treatment showed a greater improvement effect in the number of monthly headache days (p = 0.000) and migraine disability (p = 0.000) parameters in the severe and complete disability groups. CM patients with complete and severe neck disability received the most benefit in reducing the NMHD at 3 months after OnabotulinumtoxinA treatment, but the HI decreased at a similar level in all neck disability groups.

The Efficacy of Physical Therapy and Rehabilitation Approaches in Chronic Migraine: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Pharmacological treatment is the primary approach in chronic migraine (CM), although non-drug interventions such as physical therapy are used as adjunct treatments. We aimed to review the efficacy of physical therapy and rehabilitation approaches for CM and their impact on quality of life (QoL) and disability. METHODS: This systematic review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in adults with CM. The primary outcomes were changes in intensity, frequency, duration of headache, disability, and QoL. Methodological quality was assessed using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale. Data synthesis and quantitative analysis were conducted on relevant studies. RESULTS: Seven RCTs were included in the narrative review, and five of them were eligible for quantitative analysis. Aerobic exercise (AE), osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT), occipital transcutaneous electrical stimulation (OTES), acupressure, hydrotherapy, instrument-assisted soft tissue mobilization (IASTM), facial proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation (FPNF), and connective tissue massage (CTM) were used in CM. AE combined with pharmacological therapy reduced the frequency, duration, and intensity of headache. OMT combined with medication improved QoL and reduced disability, intensity of pain, and migraine days per month. Hydrotherapy combined with medication also resulted in improvements in the intensity of headache, frequency, and overall QoL. IASTM and OTES reduced the intensity of headache, alleviated neck pain, and improved QoL, although there were conflicting findings following OTES alone on disability and intensity of headache. Both FPNF and CTM reduced the intensity of headache. Acupressure as an adjunct to medication did not show additional benefits on the intensity of headache and QoL. Quantitative analysis of the data showed that manual physical therapy combined with medication reduced the intensity of headache (p = 0.0796), and manual or AE combined with medication reduced the headache days per month (p = 0.047). CONCLUSIONS: A limited number of RCTs investigating the efficacy of physical therapy and rehabilitation approaches show promise in improving headache symptoms, reducing disability, and enhancing QoL in CM. Meta-analysis of the data also supported favorable outcomes for both intensity and headache days per month. Further research is needed to better understand the efficacy, optimal duration, and safety of physical therapy and rehabilitation approaches for CM, and to explore alternative interventions.

Emerging experimental drugs in clinical trials for migraine: observations and key talking points.

INTRODUCTION: There have been significant advances in the treatment of migraine. In response to the clinical success of monoclonal antibodies targeting calcitonin gene-related peptide, there is interest in the clinical trial outcomes of alternative emerging drugs that act on novel targets associated with migraine pathophysiology. As approximately 50% of patients do not respond to CGRP therapies, there is significant value in future drug innovation. Emerging drugs in clinical trials for the treatment of migraine aim to fill this need. AREAS COVERED: The emerging drugs that will be discussed in this review include zavegepant, lasmiditan, delta opioid receptor agonists, neuronal nitric oxide synthase inhibitors, monoclonal antibodies targeting pituitary adenylate cyclase-activating polypeptide (PACAP) and its receptor, dual orexin receptor antagonists, metabotropic glutamate receptor 5 antagonists, and inducers of ketosis. EXPERT OPINION: When considering the preclinical and clinical research related to the emerging drug classes discussed in this review, most therapies are derived from highly supported targets of migraine pathogenesis. Although the individual drugs discussed in this review may be of dubious clinical value, the importance of the therapeutic targets on which they act cannot be understated. Future research is necessary to appropriately target the pathways elucidated by preclinical studies.

Debate: differences and similarities between tension-type headache and migraine.

Tension-type headache (TTH) and migraine are two common primary headaches distinguished by clinical characteristics according to the 3rd edition of the International Classification of Headache Disorders. Migraine is identified by specific features such as being more prevalent in females, being aggravated by physical activity, certain genetic factors, having photophobia, phonophobia, nausea, vomiting, or aura, and responding to specific drugs. Nonetheless, TTH and migraine share some common characteristics, such as onset occurring in the 20 s, and being triggered by psychological factors like stress, moderate pain severity, and mild nausea in chronic TTH. Both conditions involve the trigeminovascular system in their pathophysiology. However, distinguishing between TTH and migraine in clinical practice, research, and epidemiological studies can be challenging, as there is a lack of specific diagnostic tests and biomarkers. Moreover, both conditions may coexist, further complicating the diagnostic process. This review aims to explore the similarities and differences in the pathophysiology, epidemiology, burden and disability, comorbidities, and responses to pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments of TTH and migraine. The review also discusses future research directions to address the diagnostic challenges and improve the understanding and management of these conditions.

Future targets for migraine treatment beyond CGRP.

BACKGROUND: Migraine is a disabling and chronic neurovascular headache disorder. Trigeminal vascular activation and release of calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) play a pivotal role in the pathogenesis of migraine. This knowledge has led to the development of CGRP(-receptor) therapies. Yet, a substantial proportion of patients do not respond to these treatments. Therefore, alternative targets for future therapies are warranted. The current narrative review provides a comprehensive overview of the pathophysiological role of these possible non-CGRP targets in migraine. FINDINGS: We covered targets of the metabotropic receptors (pituitary adenylate cyclase-activating polypeptide (PACAP), vasoactive intestinal peptide (VIP), amylin, and adrenomedullin), intracellular targets (nitric oxide (NO), phosphodiesterase-3 (PDE3) and -5 (PDE5)), and ion channels (potassium, calcium, transient receptor potential (TRP), and acid-sensing ion channels (ASIC)). The majority of non-CGRP targets were able to induce migraine-like attacks, except for (i) calcium channels, as it is not yet possible to directly target channels to elucidate their precise involvement in migraine; (ii) TRP channels, activation of which can induce non-migraine headache; and (iii) ASICs, as their potential in inducing migraine attacks has not been investigated thus far. Drugs that target its receptors exist for PACAP, NO, and the potassium, TRP, and ASIC channels. No selective drugs exist for the other targets, however, some existing (migraine) treatments appear to indirectly antagonize responses to amylin, adrenomedullin, and calcium channels. Drugs against PACAP, NO, potassium channels, TRP channels, and only a PAC1 antibody have been tested for migraine treatment, albeit with ambiguous results. CONCLUSION: While current research on these non-CGRP drug targets has not yet led to the development of efficacious therapies, human provocation studies using these targets have provided valuable insight into underlying mechanisms of migraine headaches and auras. Further studies are needed on these alternative therapies in non-responders of CGRP(-receptor) targeted therapies with the ultimate aim to pave the way towards a headache-free future for all migraine patients.

Prolactin and oxytocin: potential targets for migraine treatment.

Migraine is a severe neurovascular disorder of which the pathophysiology is not yet fully understood. Besides the role of inflammatory mediators that interact with the trigeminovascular system, cyclic fluctuations in sex steroid hormones are involved in the sex dimorphism of migraine attacks. In addition, the pituitary-derived hormone prolactin and the hypothalamic neuropeptide oxytocin have been reported to play a modulating role in migraine and contribute to its sex-dependent differences. The current narrative review explores the relationship between these two hormones and the pathophysiology of migraine. We describe the physiological role of prolactin and oxytocin, its relationship to migraine and pain, and potential therapies targeting these hormones or their receptors.In summary, oxytocin and prolactin are involved in nociception in opposite ways. Both operate at peripheral and central levels, however, prolactin has a pronociceptive effect, while oxytocin appears to have an antinociceptive effect. Therefore, migraine treatment targeting prolactin should aim to block its effects using prolactin receptor antagonists or monoclonal antibodies specifically acting at migraine-pain related structures. This action should be local in order to avoid a decrease in prolactin levels throughout the body and associated adverse effects. In contrast, treatment targeting oxytocin should enhance its signalling and antinociceptive effects, for example using intranasal administration of oxytocin, or possibly other oxytocin receptor agonists. Interestingly, the prolactin receptor and oxytocin receptor are co-localized with estrogen receptors as well as calcitonin gene-related peptide and its receptor, providing a positive perspective on the possibilities for an adequate pharmacological treatment of these nociceptive pathways. Nevertheless, many questions remain to be answered. More particularly, there is insufficient data on the role of sex hormones in men and the correct dosing according to sex differences, hormonal changes and comorbidities. The above remains a major challenge for future development.

Effects of spinal stabilization exercises delivered using telerehabilitation on outcomes in patients with chronic neck pain: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: When spinal stabilization exercises (SSE) are performed regularly, may provide benefits on outcome measures in chronic nonspecific neck pain (CNNP) patients. The pandemic has made it difficult for CNNP patients to access regular physiotherapy-exercise services. This study aims to compare telerehabilitation (TR) with face-to-face rehabilitation in CNNP. METHODS: Neck Functional Capacity Evaluation Test (NFCET) results were the primary outcomes. Pain intensity (PI), disability, awareness, neck muscles architecture, andexercise satisfaction were the secondary outcomes. Patients were randomized into the TR group (TRG) (n = 15) and the control group (CG) (n = 16). Patients performed SSE 3 days a week, for 8 weeks. The TRG was instructed remotely while the CG was instructed in the clinic. RESULTS: After 8 weeks in both groups, NFCET values and neck awareness increased (p < 0.05), PI and disability decreased (p < 0.05).      Muscle architecture improved in both groups (p < 0.05), except for the Right Sternocleidomastoideus in both groups and the Right Upper-Trapezius in TRG (p > 0.05). There was no difference between the groups for all variables and exercise satisfaction(p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: SSE for CNNP, whether supervised by therapists in the clinic or by telerehabilitation, was equally effective. THE CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: NCT04691024.

New Migraine Drugs for Older Adults.

Migraine is one of the most widespread and burdensome diseases, affecting one in every seven individuals in the world, for an estimated global prevalence of 14%. Until recently, therapeutic choices for older migraineurs have been limited by safety concerns and such patients have typically been excluded from clinical trials. However, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of new migraine drugs have begun to include participants aged over 65 years, offering clinicians relevant safety and efficacy data to be able to treat older patients with the newest drug classes, including monoclonal antibodies for CGRP (r), CGRP antagonists, and drugs targeting the serotonin 5-HT1F receptor. RCT inclusion criteria nonetheless select the most appropriate older patients, usually excluding polymorbid participants. In a real-life setting, older patients may have several comorbidities, and this reduces the clinical applicability of the new drugs to these patients. Two main points should be addressed to solve this barrier: the inclusion of a sufficient number of migraineurs aged over 65 years in RCTs and the publication of appropriate guidelines for a tailored treatment that considers the existence of multimorbid pathologies in this population of individuals.

The sense of stopping migraine prophylaxis.

INTRODUCTION: Migraine prophylactic therapy has changed over recent years with the development and approval of monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) targeting the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) pathway. As new therapies emerged, leading headache societies have been providing guidelines on the initiation and escalation of such therapies. However, there is a lack of robust evidence looking at the duration of successful prophylaxis and the effects of therapy discontinuation. In this narrative review we explore both the biological and clinical rationale for prophylactic therapy discontinuation to provide a basis for clinical decision-making. METHODS: Three different literature search strategies were conducted for this narrative review. These include i) stopping rules in comorbidities of migraine in which overlapping preventives are prescribed, notably depression and epilepsy; ii) stopping rules of oral treatment and botox; iii) stopping rules of antibodies targeting the CGRP (receptor). Keywords were utilized in the following databases: Embase, Medline ALL, Web of Science Core collection, Cochran Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Google Scholar. DISCUSSION: Reasons to guide decision-making in stopping prophylactic migraine therapies include adverse events, efficacy failure, drug holiday following long-term administration, and patient-specific reasons. Certain guidelines contain both positive and negative stopping rules. Following withdrawal of migraine prophylaxis, migraine burden may return to pre-treatment level, remain unchanged, or lie somewhere in-between. The current suggestion to discontinue CGRP(-receptor) targeted mAbs after 6 to 12 months is based on expert opinion, as opposed to robust scientific evidence. Current guidelines advise the clinician to assess the success of CGRP(-receptor) targeted mAbs after three months. Based on excellent tolerability data and the absence of scientific data, we propose if no other reasons apply, to stop the use of mAbs when the number of migraine days decreases to four or fewer migraine days per month. There is a higher likelihood of developing side effects with oral migraine preventatives, and so we suggest stopping these drugs according to the national guidelines if they are well tolerated. CONCLUSION: Translational and basic studies are warranted to investigate the long-term effects of a preventive drug after its discontinuation, starting from what is known about the biology of migraine. In addition, observational studies and, eventually, clinical trials focusing on the effect of discontinuation of migraine prophylactic therapies, are essential to substantiate evidence-based recommendations on stopping rules for both oral preventives and CGRP(-receptor) targeted therapies in migraine.

Genetics of migraine: where are we now?

Migraine is a complex brain disorder explained by the interaction of genetic and environmental factors. In monogenic migraines, including familial hemiplegic migraine and migraine with aura associated with hereditary small-vessel disorders, the identified genes code for proteins expressed in neurons, glial cells, or vessels, all of which increase susceptibility to cortical spreading depression. The study of monogenic migraines has shown that the neurovascular unit plays a prominent role in migraine. Genome-wide association studies have identified numerous susceptibility variants that each result in only a small increase in overall migraine risk. The more than 180 known variants belong to several complex networks of "pro-migraine" molecular abnormalities, which are mainly neuronal or vascular. Genetics has also highlighted the importance of shared genetic factors between migraine and its major co-morbidities, including depression and high blood pressure. Further studies are still needed to map all of the susceptibility loci for migraine and then to understand how these genomic variants lead to migraine cell phenotypes.

Primary headache epidemiology in children and adolescents: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Headache is the most prevalent neurological manifestation in adults and one of the leading causes of disability worldwide. In children and adolescents, headaches are arguably responsible for a remarkable impact on physical and psychological issues, yet high-quality evidence is scarce. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We searched cross-sectional and cohort studies in Embase, Medline, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases from January 1988 to June 2022 to identify the prevalence of headaches in 8-18 years old individuals. The risk of bias was examined with the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) scale. A random-effects model was used to estimate the pooled prevalence of pediatric headache. Subgroup analyses based on headache subtypes were also conducted. RESULTS: Out of 5,486 papers retrieved electronically, we identified 48 studies that fulfilled our inclusion criteria. The pooled prevalence of primary headaches was 11% for migraine overall [95%CI: 9-14%], 8% for migraine without aura (MwoA) [95%CI: 5-12%], 3% for migraine with aura (MwA) [95%CI:2-4%] and 17% for tension-type headache (TTH) [95% CI: 12-23%]. The pooled prevalence of overall primary headache in children and adolescents was 62% [95% CI: 53-70%], with prevalence in females and males of 38% [95% CI: 16-66%] and 27% [95% CI: 11-53%] respectively. After the removal of studies ranked as low-quality according to the JBI scale, prevalence rates were not substantially different. Epidemiological data on less common primary headaches, such as trigeminal autonomic cephalalgias, were lacking. CONCLUSION: We found an overall remarkably high prevalence of primary headaches in children and adolescents, even if flawed by a high degree of heterogeneity. Further up-to-date studies are warranted to complete the picture of pediatric headache-related burden to enhance specific public interventions.

Unmet Needs in Preventive Treatment of Migraine.

Migraine represents the most common cause of work disability in young women and the second one in the general population. Preventive treatment can reduce the frequency of attacks and their intensity, consequently improving the quality of life. Despite this, global health systems have shown important gaps in addressing optimal management of preventive therapy. Despite numerous adverse effects of traditional medications for migraine prevention being well known, these medications continue to be considered the standard of care for prophylaxis of this disease in many contexts. On the other hand, the widespread use of calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor antagonists, which have marked a breakthrough in prophylactic therapy of migraine, has been limited because of their high cost. We also highlight important shortcomings in migraine management by general practitioners (GPs) and poor patient education on the disease with a consequent delay in referring selected patients to dedicated headache centres. Over the next few years, we expect the headache medicine community to mobilize to address these gaps in preventive treatment of migraine.

Does the Intensity of the Headache Differ According to the Level of Neck Disability in Chronic Migraine Patients?

Chronic migraine (CM) patients who report a high frequency and intensity of headaches also report neck pain (NP) and neck disability (ND) in neck activities that require stability. In this context, CM patients may report different headache intensities at different levels of ND. Our aim in this study is to investigate whether the intensity of headaches differs according to the level of ND in CM patients. Headache intensity and NP intensity were evaluated with the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), and ND was evaluated with the Neck Disability Index (NDI). A total of 142 patients who met the inclusion criteria were included in the study. The mean age was 53.24 ± 12.08 years. The median number of monthly headache days was 20. According to VAS, the median headache intensity was 10(4-10) cm and the median of NP intensity was 9(1-10) cm. The mean NDI was 28.45 ± 10.28. There was a difference in headache intensity between mild and severe disability levels (p = 0.007, Z = -3.289); headache intensity between mild and complete disability levels (p = 0.000, Z = -4.421); and headache intensity between moderate and complete disability levels (p = 0.004, Z = -2.212). Although the difference in headache intensity between ND levels is small, a median increase of 2 cm in headache intensity at mild ND levels may result in complete ND. A median increase of 1 cm in headache intensity at the moderate ND level may cause complete disability in the neck. According to our results, the intensity of headaches of CM patients differed according to the level of ND. We consider our results to be clinically important in this context.

Reaching the Nadir of Medication Overuse in Chronic Migraine.

The introduction of new drug classes for chronic migraine, such as monoclonal antibodies for calcitonin-gene-related peptide or its receptor (CGRPr), or antagonists of the same CGRP, have opened a new scenario in a selected population of individuals with migraine, and those presenting with chronic form of migraine in association with medication overuse. Medication overuse is now considered a complication of chronic migraine and, in fact, the treatment with CGRP(r)-MAbs of chronic migraine with medication overuse results in a clinical improvement of chronic migraine itself, accompanied by a parallel and obvious reduction in the intake of specific and non-specific acute migraine drugs. Education on the correct use of these drugs will be an essential tool to reduce the disability and costs of people suffering from CM complicated by MO, considering the long-term safety of the new therapies targeting the CGRP pathways. Only in this way can medication overuse risk can be reduced at its nadir in the scenario of chronicity of migraines.

OnabotulinumtoxinA Treatment in Chronic Migraine: Investigation of Its Effects on Disability, Headache and Neck Pain Intensity.

Neck disability and pain are frequently encountered problems in patients with chronic migraine (CM). The long-term stimuli of neurons in the trigeminocervical junction may explain this situation. OnabotulinumtoxinA (ONA) treatment is one of the proven treatments for CM; however, there is no study data on the efficacy of ONA treatment on neck disability and pain in CM patients. Therefore, we aimed to investigate the effect of ONA treatment on disability, neck pain and headache intensity in CM patients. One hundred thirty-four patients who met the inclusion criteria were included in the study. ONA treatment was administered at a dose of 195 U to 39 sites in total as per Follow-the-Pain PREEMPT protocol. The disability was evaluated with the Neck Disability Index and the Migraine Disability Assessment; pain intensity was evaluated with the Visual Analogue Scale; the monthly number of headache days were recorded; quality of life was evaluated with the Headache Impact Test. All assessments were recorded at baseline and 3 months after treatment. After the treatment, neck−migraine disabilities decreased from severe to mild for neck and moderate for migraine (p < 0.001). Neck pain and headache intensities decreased by almost half (p < 0.001). The median number of monthly headache days decreased from 20 days to 6 days (p < 0.000). The quality-of-life level decreased significantly from severe to substantial level (p < 0.001). According to our results, ONA treatment was effective in reducing neck-related problems in CM patients. Long-term follow-up results may provide researchers with more comprehensive results in terms of the treatment of chronic migraine−neck-related problems.