Triptan non-response in a London tertiary headache centre: What can we learn? A retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: Triptans revolutionized the acute treatment of migraine; however, varied responses to triptans, as a result of poor efficacy and tolerability, are reported. A standardized definition of triptan non-response was recently proposed by the European Headache Federation (EHF). There is currently limited data available on the prevalence of triptan non-response. METHODS: We used clinic letters over a two-year duration to evaluate the triptan response and triptan efficacy or tolerability failure, or both, in a London-based tertiary headache service. RESULTS: In total, 419 adult migraine patients (females: 83.8%, age: 46 ± 18 years, chronic migraine: 88.5%) were included in a service evaluation. In line with the EHF definitions, "triptan non-response" was seen in 63.8% of patients (264/414), whereas 37.7% of patients (156/414) had failed at least two triptans (EHF "triptan resistant") and 4.6% of patients (19/414) had failed at least three triptans, including a subcutaneous formulation (EHF "triptan refractory"). Notably, 21.3% of patients (88/414) had failed at least three triptans inclusive and exclusive of subcutaneous triptan use. Advancing age (p < 0.001) and the presence of medication overuse (p = 0.006) increased the probability of triptan response, whereas an increased number of failed preventives (p < 0.001) and the use of calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies (p = 0.022) increased the probability of triptan non-response. The largest proportion of patients responded to eletriptan (49.5%), followed by nasal zolmitriptan (44.4%) and rizatriptan (35.7%). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings highlight an alarming prevalence of triptan non-response among adult migraineurs receiving treatment in a London-based tertiary headache service. It is imperative for clinicians to explore methods to optimize acute medication efficacy, whether this comprises changing to a triptan with a superior response rate, advocating for early intervention or considering alternative acute medication classes, such as gepants or ditans.

Real-world approaches to outpatient treatment of status migrainosus: A survey study.

OBJECTIVES: Identify how the American Headache Society (AHS) membership manages status migrainosus (SM) among outpatients. BACKGROUND: SM is defined as a debilitating migraine attack lasting more than 72 h. There is no standard of care for SM, including whether a 72-h duration is required before the attack can be treated as SM. METHODS: The Refractory Headache Special Interest Group from AHS developed a four-question survey distributed to AHS members enquiring (1) whether they treat severe refractory migraine attacks the same as SM regardless of duration, (2) what their first step in SM management is, (3) what the top three medications they use for SM are, and (4) whether they are United Council for Neurologic Subspecialties (UCNS) certified. The survey was conducted in January 2022. Descriptive statistical analyses were performed. RESULTS: Responses were received from 196 of 1859 (10.5%) AHS members; 64.3% were UCNS certified in headache management. Respondents treated 69.4% (136/196) of patients with a severe refractory migraine attack as SM before the 72-h period had elapsed. Most (76.0%, 149/196) chose "treat remotely using outpatient medications at home" as the first step, 11.2% (22/196) preferred procedures, 6.1% (12/196) favored an infusion center, 6.1% (12/196) sent patients to the emergency department (ED) or urgent care, and 0.5% (1/196) preferred direct hospital admission. The top five preferred medications were as follows: (1) corticosteroids (71.4%, 140/196), (2) nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) (50.1%, 99/196), (3) neuroleptics (46.9%, 92/196), (4) triptans (30.6%, 60/196), and (5) dihydroergotamine (DHE) (21.4%, 42/196). CONCLUSIONS: Healthcare professionals with expertise in headache medicine typically treated severe migraine attacks early and did not wait 72 h to fulfill the diagnostic criteria for SM. Outpatient management with one or more medications for home use was preferred by most respondents; few opted for ED referrals. Finally, corticosteroids, NSAIDs, neuroleptics, triptans, and DHE were the top five preferred treatments for home SM management.

Managing Cluster Headache in Patients with Medical, Psychiatric, and Surgical Comorbidities.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: What should a provider know about medications and other treatments in patients with cluster headache who have medical, psychiatric, and surgical comorbidities? What conversations should providers have with patients about living with and managing cluster headache? RECENT FINDINGS: While the number of treatments used in cluster headache is relatively small, numerous considerations were identified related to managing patients with comorbidities. Many of these touch on cardiac, cardiovascular, and cerebrovascular health, but full histories are needed to guide safe and effective treatment. Both older and newer treatments may be contraindicated in certain patients with cluster headache or should be considered carefully. In addition to incorporating medical, psychiatric, and surgical histories in the management plan, collaboration with other providers may be beneficial. Providers should also inquire about patient practices and discuss participation in clinical trials that might be a good fit for the individual.

Efficacy of Lasmiditan as a Secondary Treatment for Migraine Attacks after Unsuccessful Treatment with a Triptan.

The combined use of lasmiditan and triptan is unexplored in medical literature. This study aimed to investigate whether the intake of lasmiditan following triptan improves migraine pain. Following triptan intake, if headache relief was less than 50% at 1 h, patients took 50 mg of lasmiditan within 2 h of migraine onset. Patients recorded headache intensity and adverse events (AEs) caused by lasmiditan at 1, 2, and 4 h after the intake of an additional 50 mg of lasmiditan. A significant reduction in pain scale was observed post 50 mg lasmiditan intake (p < 0.001, t-test). Pain relief was reported for 32 migraine attacks (80%) at 1 h after additional lasmiditan intake. Although AEs were observed in 63% of the patients who took an additional lasmiditan, most were mild and resolved 1 h after lasmiditan intake. Our study revealed the significant headache relief provided by an additional lasmiditan for patients who did not achieve satisfactory results following initial triptan intake for treating migraine. The AEs associated with this treatment strategy were mild and lasted for a short time. This study suggested that the combination of triptan and lasmiditan is promising for the treatment of migraine and should be studied in a randomized placebo-controlled trial.

[Migraine treatment consensus document of the Spanish Society of Neurology (SEN), Spanish Society of Family and Community Medicine (SEMFYC), Society of Primary Care Medicine (SEMERGEN) and Spanish Association of Migraine and Headache (AEMICE) on migraine treatment]. / Documento de consenso de la Sociedad Española de Neurología (SEN), Sociedad Española de Medicina de Familia y Comunitaria (SEMFYC), Sociedad de Medicina de Atención Primaria (SEMERGEN) y Asociación Española de Migraña y Cefalea (AEMICE) sobre el tratamiento de la migraña.

Migraine is a disease with a high prevalence and incidence, in addition to being highly disabling, causing a great impact on the patient's quality of life at a personal, family and work level, but also social, given its high expense due to its direct (care) and indirect (presenteeism and work absenteeism) costs. The multiple and recent developments in its pathophysiological knowledge and in its therapy require updating and, therefore, in this article the Spanish scientific societies most involved in its study and treatment (SEN, SEMFYC and SEMERGEN), together with the Association Spanish Association for Patients with Migraine and other Headaches (AEMICE), we have developed these updated care recommendations. We reviewed the treatment of migraine attacks, which consisted mainly of the use of NSAIDs and triptans, to which ditans and gepants have been added. We also discuss preventive treatment consisting of oral preventive drugs, botulinum toxin, and treatments that block the action of calcitonin-related peptide (CGRP). Finally, we emphasize that pharmacological treatments must be complementary to carrying out general measures consisting of identifying and managing/deletion the precipitating factors of the attacks and the chronicizing factors, controlling the comorbidities of migraine and eliminating analgesic overuse.

Triptans in the Acute Migraine Management of Children and Adolescents: An Update.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To summarize recent findings regarding triptan use in the acute treatment of pediatric migraine. RECENT FINDINGS: Prevalence of pediatric migraine is rising. The American Headache Society and American Academy of Neurology updated guidelines to provide evidence-based recommendations for the treatment of acute migraine in youth. In the setting of a dearth of new randomized controlled trials (RCTs), we review current guidelines, triptan use in the emergency department, and an era of secondary analyses. Measuring the efficacy of triptans in pediatric migraine has been challenged by high placebo response rates. Secondary analyses, combining data from multiple RCTs, support that triptans are safe and effective in the treatment of migraine. Triptans are a vital tool and the only FDA-approved migraine-specific treatment available in pediatrics. There is a need for further studies and funding support in pediatric headache medicine.

Migraine treatment: quo vadis? Real-world data study (2015-2022) in Spain.

BACKGROUND: Migraine is a leading cause of disability, estimated to affect one-in-ten people in Spain. This study aimed to describe the management of migraine in Spain and identify improvement areas. METHODS: Non-interventional, retrospective, cross-sectional cohort study conducted using an electronic medical records database covering visits to public healthcare providers for 3% of the Spanish population. Patients with a migraine diagnosis (ICD-9 346) between 01/2015 and 04/2022 were included, as well as their demographic and clinical characteristics, prescribed migraine treatments and the specialty of the prescribing physicians. RESULTS: The database included 61,204 patients diagnosed with migraine. A migraine treatment had been prescribed to 50.6% of patients over the last 24 months (only acute to 69.5%, both acute and preventive to 24.2%, and only preventive to 6.3%). The most frequently prescribed treatments were NSAIDs (56.3%), triptans (44.1%) and analgesics (28.9%). Antidepressants were the most common preventive treatment (prescribed to 17.9% of all treated patients and 58.7% of those treated with a preventive medication), and anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies the least prescribed (1.7%; 5.7%). In 13.4% of cases, preventive medications were the first treatment: alone in 5.8% of cases and together with an acute medication in 7.6%. A fifth of patients who were initially prescribed with only acute treatment were later prescribed a preventive medication (20.7%). On average, it took 29.4 months for this change to occur. Two-thirds of patients started their preventive treatment in primary care (64.2%). The percentage of patients treated by a neurologist increased with the number of received preventive medications. However, 28.8% of patients who had already been prescribed five or more distinct preventive treatments were not treated by a neurologist. Migraine patients had between 1.2- and 2.2-times higher prevalence of comorbidities than the general population, age-gender adjusted. CONCLUSIONS: Our study emphasizes the need for improved management of migraine in Spain to reduce the risk of chronification and improve patient outcomes. More training and coordination across healthcare professionals is necessary to recognize and address risk factors for migraine progression, including multiple associated comorbidities and several lines of treatment, and to provide personalized treatment plans that address the complex nature of the condition.

Triptan use in elderly over 65 years and the risk of hospitalization for serious vascular events.

BACKGROUND: Several studies have focused on the use of triptan and the risk of acute vascular events but the existence of such association is still debated and has never been quantified in patients over 65 years. To assess whether triptan use among older is associated with an increased risk of hospitalization for acute vascular events. METHODS: A propensity score-matched cohort study was designed using the French national health insurance database linked to hospital stays. Patients aged ≥ 65 years, newly treated by triptans between 2011 and 2014, were included… The primary event was hospitalization for an acute ischemic vascular event within de 90 days following triptan initiation. Association with triptan exposure was investigated through cox regression model, considering exposure at inclusion, and with exposure as a time-varying variable A case-crossover (CCO) and a self-controlled case series (SCCS) analyses were also conducted to address potential residual confounding. RESULTS: The cohort included 24, 774 triptan users and 99 096 propensity matched controls (mean (SD) age: 71 years (5.9), 74% of women). Within 90 days after cohort entry, 163 events were observed in the triptan group, and 523 in the control group (0.66% vs. 0.53%, adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) exposed/not exposed 1.25 95%CI [1.05-1.49]; aHR time-varying 8.74 [5.21-14.66]). The association was significant (CCO) for all events (adjusted odds ratio (aOR1.63 [1.22-2.19]) with a more consistent association with cerebral events (aOR 2.14 [1.26-3.63]). The relative incidence (RI) for all events was 2.13 [1.76-2.58] in the SCCS, for cardiac (RI: 1.67 [1.23-2.27]) and for cerebral events (RI: 3.20, [2.30-4.45]). CONCLUSION: The incidence of acute vascular events was low among triptan users. We found that triptan use among older may be associated with a low increased risk for acute vascular events, which may be more marked for cerebral events such as stroke, than for cardiac events.

Trends and prescribing patterns of antimigraine medicines in nine major cities in China from 2018 to 2022: a retrospective prescription analysis.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to investigate the trends and prescribing patterns of antimigraine medicines in China. METHODS: The prescription data of outpatients diagnosed with migraine between 2018 and 2022 were extracted from the Hospital Prescription Analysis Cooperative Project of China. The demographic characteristics of migraine patients, prescription trends, and corresponding expenditures on antimigraine medicines were analyzed. We also investigated prescribing patterns of combination therapy and medicine overuse. RESULTS: A total of 32,246 outpatients who were diagnosed with migraine at 103 hospitals were included in this study. There were no significant trend changes in total outpatient visits, migraine prescriptions, or corresponding expenditures during the study period. Of the patients who were prescribed therapeutic medicines, 70.23% received analgesics, and 26.41% received migraine-specific agents. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs; 28.03%), caffeine-containing agents (22.15%), and opioids (16.00%) were the most commonly prescribed analgesics, with corresponding cost proportions of 11.35%, 4.08%, and 19.61%, respectively. Oral triptans (26.12%) were the most commonly prescribed migraine-specific agents and accounted for 62.21% of the total therapeutic expenditures. The proportion of patients receiving analgesic prescriptions increased from 65.25% in 2018 to 75.68% in 2022, and the proportion of patients receiving concomitant triptans decreased from 29.54% in 2018 to 21.55% in 2022 (both P <  0.001). The most frequently prescribed preventive medication classes were calcium channel blockers (CCBs; 51.59%), followed by antidepressants (20.59%) and anticonvulsants (15.82%), which accounted for 21.90%, 34.18%, and 24.15%, respectively, of the total preventive expenditures. Flunarizine (51.41%) was the most commonly prescribed preventive drug. Flupentixol/melitracen (7.53%) was the most commonly prescribed antidepressant. The most commonly prescribed anticonvulsant was topiramate (9.33%), which increased from 6.26% to 12.75% (both P <  0.001). A total of 3.88% of the patients received combined therapy for acute migraine treatment, and 18.63% received combined therapy for prevention. The prescriptions for 69.21% of opioids, 38.53% of caffeine-containing agents, 26.61% of NSAIDs, 13.97% of acetaminophen, and 6.03% of triptans were considered written medicine overuse. CONCLUSIONS: Migraine treatment gradually converges toward evidence-based and guideline-recommended treatment. Attention should be given to opioid prescribing, weak evidence-based antidepressant use, and medication overuse in migraine treatment.

Cost-effectiveness of rimegepant oral lyophilisate compared to best supportive care for the acute treatment of migraine in the UK.

AIMS: Migraine is the most common disabling headache disorder and is characterized by recurrent throbbing head pain and symptoms of photophobia, phonophobia, nausea, and vomiting. Rimegepant 75 mg, an oral lyophilisate calcitonin gene-related peptide antagonist, is the first treatment approved for both the acute and preventative treatment of migraine, and the first acute therapy approved in over 20-years. The objective was to assess the cost-utility of rimegepant compared with best supportive care (BSC) in the UK, for the acute treatment of migraine in the adults with inadequate symptom relief after taking at least 2 triptans, or for whom triptans are contraindicated or not tolerated. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A de novo model was developed to estimate incremental costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), structured as a decision tree followed by Markov model. Patients received rimegepant or BSC for a migraine attack and were assessed for response (pain relief at 2-h). Responders and non-responders followed different pain trajectories over 48-h cycles. Non-responders discontinued treatment while responders continued treatment for subsequent attacks, with a proportion discontinuing over time. Data sources included a post-hoc pooled analysis of the phase 3 acute rimegepant trials (NCT03235479, NCT03237845, NCT03461757), and a long-term safety study (NCT03266588). The analysis was conducted from the perspective of the UK National Health Service and Personal Social Services over a 20-year time horizon. RESULTS: Rimegepant resulted in an incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) of £10,309 per QALY gained vs BSC, which is cost-effectiveness at a willingness to pay threshold of £30,000/QALY. Rimegepant generated +0.44 incremental QALYs and higher incremental lifetime costs (£4,492). Improved QALYs for rimegepant were a result of less time spent with severe and moderate headache pain. CONCLUSION: This study highlights the economic value of rimegepant which was found to be cost-effective for the acute treatment of migraine in adults unsuitable for triptans.

New migraine drugs: A critical appraisal of the reason why the majority of migraine patients do not receive an adequate medication.

The last three decades have produced several novel and efficient medications to treat migraine attacks and reduce attack frequency. Additionally, promising approaches for the development of acute therapy and migraine prophylaxis continue to be pursued. At the same time as we witness the development of better and more efficient medications with continuously fewer side effects, we also realise that the high cost of such therapies means that only a minority of migraine patients who could benefit from these medications can afford them. Furthermore, information on cost-effectiveness is still lacking. Here, we compare availiable data, highlight open questions and suggest trials to close knowledge gaps. With good reason, our medicine is evidence-based. However, if this evidence is not collected, our decisions will continue to be based on marketing and assumptions. At the moment, we are not doing justice to our patients.

The 5-HT1B and 5-HT1D agonists in acute migraine therapy: Ergotamine, dihydroergotamine, and the triptans.

The advent of the triptans revolutionized acute migraine treatment. The older migraine-specific drugs, the ergot alkaloids (ergotamine and dihydroergotamine), also relieve migraine attacks through agonism at the 5-HT1B and 5-HT1D receptors, but the triptans have much greater specificity for these receptors. Unlike the ergot alkaloids, the triptans do not activate many other receptor types, and therefore are much better tolerated. This reduction in side effects greatly enhanced their clinical utility as it allowed a far greater proportion of patients to take a full therapeutic dose. As a result, the clinical use of ergotamine is minimal today, although dihydroergotamine still has a significant clinical role. There is extensive evidence that the seven triptans available today, sumatriptan, zolmitriptan, rizatriptan, eletriptan, naratriptan, almotriptan, and frovatriptan, are effective in the acute treatment of migraine. Available formulations include oral tablets, orally dissolving tablets, subcutaneous injections, nasal sprays, and in some countries, rectal suppositories. For optimal benefit, therapy needs to be individualized for a given patient both regarding the triptan chosen and the formulation. This chapter discusses the ergot alkaloids and the triptans, including mechanism of action, evidence for efficacy, clinical use, and adverse effects.

Comparative retention and effectiveness of migraine preventive treatments: A nationwide registry-based cohort study.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Little is known about the comparative effects of migraine preventive drugs. We aimed to estimate treatment retention and effectiveness of migraine preventive drugs in a nationwide registry-based cohort study in Norway between 2010 and 2020. METHODS: We assessed retention, defined as the number of uninterrupted treatment days, and effectiveness, defined as the reduction in filled triptan prescriptions during four 90-day periods after the first preventive prescription, compared to a 90-day baseline period. We compared retention and efficacy for different drugs against beta blockers. Comparative retention was estimated with hazard ratios (HRs), adjusted for covariates, using Cox regression, and effectiveness as odds ratios (ORs) using logistic regression, with propensity-weighted adjustment for covariates. RESULTS: We identified 104,072 migraine patients, 81,890 of whom were female (78.69%) and whose mean (standard deviation) age was 44.60 (15.61) years. Compared to beta blockers, botulinum toxin (HR 0.43, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.42-0.44) and calcitonin gene-related peptide pathway antibodies (CGRPabs; HR 0.63, 95% CI 0.59-0.66) were the least likely to be discontinued, while clonidine (HR 2.95, 95% CI 2.88-3.02) and topiramate (HR 1.34, 95% CI 1.31-1.37) were the most likely to be discontinued. Patients on simvastatin, CGRPabs, and amitriptyline were more likely to achieve a clinically significant reduction in triptan use during the first 90 days of treatment, with propensity score-adjusted ORs of 1.28 (95% CI 1.19-1.38), 1.23 (95% CI 0.79-1.90), and 1.13 (95% CI 1.08-1.17), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: We found a favorable effect of CGRPabs, amitriptyline, and simvastatin compared with beta blockers, while topiramate and clonidine were associated with poorer outcomes.

Patterns of anti-CGRP mAbs use and variation of triptan consumption following treatment initiation: A descriptive drug utilization study in the Tuscany region, Italy.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the pattern of anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies (anti-CGRP mAbs) utilization in the Tuscany region, Italy, and the variation of triptan consumption after treatment initiation. BACKGROUND: Given the recent commercialization of anti-CGRP mAbs as migraine preventive medications, real-world evidence on their patterns of utilization and their impact on migraine abortive medication use is still limited. METHODS: A retrospective, descriptive, cohort study on the real-world utilization of anti-CGRP mAbs was performed using the population-based regional administrative database of Tuscany. Patients with ≥1 anti-CGRP mAb dispensing (namely erenumab, galcanezumab, fremanezumab) between April 1, 2019, and September 30, 2021, were identified. The first dispensing was the cohort entry (CE). New users (NUs) were patients with no anti-CGRP mAb dispensing before CE. Kaplan-Meier (KM) curves were plotted to describe the cumulative probability of remaining with the initial anti-CGRP mAb during a 15-month follow-up period as a measure of treatment persistence. Among NUs with ≥2 triptan dispensings during the 6 months before CE (i.e., baseline), the mean monthly number of triptan dosage units dispensed was measured in five consecutive follow-up time windows (months 1-3, 4-6, 7-9, 10-12, 13-15) and the difference from the baseline was calculated. RESULTS: A total of 624 NUs (erenumab = 295, galcanezumab = 223, fremanezumab = 106) were identified, of whom 188 (78%) were women. Mean age was 49.2 years (standard deviation [SD] = 12.6). The survival to discontinuation at 6, 12, and 15 months was about 69%, 48%, and 6%, respectively. The survival to switch was about 6% at 15 months. The observed variation of triptan consumption at 3/6/9/12/15 months and the corresponding SD was -4.4 [8.2]/-5.2 [9.0]/-5.5 [9.2]/-5.4 [9.2]/-4.5 [10.0], respectively. CONCLUSION: Patient demographics reflect the place of these medications in therapy. Overall, findings seem to indicate a favorable tolerability and effectiveness profile. Further studies are warranted to better establish the long-term comparative effectiveness, safety, and cost effectiveness of anti-CGRP mAbs compared to other preventive medications.

Triptan non-response in specialized headache care: cross-sectional data from the DMKG Headache Registry.

BACKGROUND: Triptans are effective for many migraine patients, but some do not experience adequate efficacy and tolerability. The European Headache Federation (EHF) has proposed that patients with lack of efficacy and/or tolerability of ≥ 2 triptans ('triptan resistance') could be considered eligible for treatment with the novel medications from the ditan and gepant groups. There is little data on the frequency of 'triptan resistance'. METHODS: We used patient self-report data from the German Migraine and Headache Society (DMKG) Headache Registry to assess triptan response and triptan efficacy and/or tolerability failure. RESULTS: A total of 2284 adult migraine patients (females: 85.4%, age: 39.4 ± 12.8 years) were included. 42.5% (n = 970) had failed ≥ 1 triptan, 13.1% (n = 300) had failed ≥ 2 triptans (meeting the EHF definition of 'triptan resistance'), and 3.9% (n = 88) had failed ≥ 3 triptans. Compared to triptan responders (current use, no failure, n = 597), triptan non-responders had significantly more severe migraine (higher frequency (p < 0.001), intensity (p < 0.05), and disability (p < 0.001)), that further increased with the level of triptan failure. Responders rates were highest for nasal and oral zolmitriptan, oral eletriptan and subcutaneous sumatriptan. CONCLUSION: In the present setting (specialized headache care in Germany), 13.1% of the patients had failed ≥ 2 triptans. Triptan failure was associated with increased migraine severity and disability, emphasizing the importance of establishing an effective and tolerable acute migraine medication. Acute treatment optimization might include switching to one of the triptans with the highest responder rates and/or to a different acute medication class. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The DMKG Headache Registry is registered with the German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS 00021081).

Post-stroke Headache.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Stroke is a major health concern and a leading cause of long-term disability. Persistent post-stroke headache (PPSH) is a common complication of stroke yet little is known about its specific characteristics or optimal management. The purpose of this review is to discuss the epidemiology, presentation, and hypothesized pathophysiology of PPSH. Acute and preventive treatment options, as well as specific concerns regarding triptans and the newer CGRP antagonists, will be discussed in detail as well. RECENT FINDINGS: The 2018 International Classification of Headache Disorders, 3rd edition (ICHD-3) was the first headache diagnostic manual to include criteria for PPSH and defines this disorder as an acute headache that develops in close temporal relation to stroke and persists beyond 3 months. Recent literature estimates the prevalence of PPSH to be somewhere between 1 and 23% of patients post-stroke. Presentation is variable, but most often mimics tension-type headache. There are no evidence-based guidelines on the optimal treatment of PPSH. PPSH is a common but poorly understood complication of stroke. Given the significant disability burden that PPSH carries, the epidemiology and pathophysiology of PPSH, as well as the efficacy and safety of potential treatment options, warrant further investigation.

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.

Goshuyuto Reduced the Monthly Intake of Anti-headache Drugs and Improved Pain Status in Patients with 20-Year History of Medication Overuse Headache in an Outpatient Setting.

The management of medication overuse headache (MOH) is sometimes challenging, particularly for patients with a long disease duration. We observed that patients who used goshuyuto, a traditional Japanese medicine, exhibited a favorable clinical course. Two women who had a history of MOH for over 20 years were treated using 5.0-7.5 g/day goshuyuto in an outpatient setting. The treatment reduced their use of habitual drugs, including triptan (33-55%) and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (75-82%), as well as the headache impact test score-6 (16-23%) over 24 weeks. As goshuyuto has a protective effect on chronic headache and is reported not to lead to MOH, it is a good candidate for the treatment of patients with MOH in an outpatient setting, even for those with an over 20-year history of MOH.

Treatment pattern and response for cluster headache in Korea: A prospective multicenter observation study.

BACKGROUND: Only limited data are available regarding the treatment status and response to cluster headache in an Asian population. Therefore, this study aimed to provide a real-world treatment pattern of cluster headache and the response rate of each treatment in an Asian population. METHODS: Patients with cluster headache were recruited between September 2016 and January 2019 from 16 hospitals in Korea. At the baseline visit, we surveyed the patients about their previous experience of cluster headache treatment, and acute and/or preventive treatments were prescribed at the physician's discretion. Treatment response was prospectively evaluated using a structured case-report form at 2 ± 2 weeks after baseline visit and reassessed after three months. RESULTS: Among 295 recruited patients, 262 experiencing active bouts were included. Only one-third of patients reported a previous experience of evidence-based treatment. At the baseline visit, oral triptans (73.4%), verapamil (68.3%), and systemic steroids (55.6%) were the three most common treatments prescribed by the investigators. Most treatments were given as combination. For acute treatment, oral triptans and oxygen were effective in 90.1% and 86.8% of the patients, respectively; for preventive treatment, evidence-based treatments, i.e. monotherapy or different combinations of verapamil, lithium, systemic steroids, and suboccipital steroid injection, helped 75.0% to 91.8% of patients. CONCLUSION: Our data provide the first prospective analysis of treatment responses in an Asian population with cluster headache. The patients responded well to treatment despite the limited availability of treatment options, and this might be attributed at least in part by combination of medications. Most patients were previously undertreated, suggesting a need to raise awareness of cluster headache among primary physicians.