European Headache Federation (EHF) critical re-appraisal and meta-analysis of oral drugs in migraine prevention - part 4: propranolol.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this paper is to critically re-appraise the published trials assessing propranolol for migraine prophylaxis. METHODS: We report methods and results following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews (PRISMA), by searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, and ClinicalTrials.gov for randomized trials of pharmacologic treatments for migraine prophylaxis. We included randomized trials that compared propranolol with placebo for migraine prophylaxis in adults. The outcomes of interest were informed by the Core outcome set for preventive intervention trials in chronic and episodic migraine (COSMIG) and include the proportion of patients who experience a 50% or more reduction in monthly migraine days, the reduction of monthly migraine days, and the number of adverse events leading to discontinuation. We assessed risk of bias by using a modified Cochrane RoB (risk of bias) 2.0 tool and the certainty of evidence by using the GRADE approach. RESULTS: Our search yielded twenty trials (n = 1291 patients) eligible for data synthesis and analysis. The analysis revealed a moderate certainty evidence that propranolol leads to a reduction in monthly migraine days versus placebo (-1.27; 95% CI: -2.25 to -0.3). We found moderate certainty evidence that propranolol increases the proportion of patients who experience a 50% or more reduction in monthly migraine days, compared to placebo with a relative risk of 1.65 (95% CI 1.41 to 1.93); absolute risk difference: 179 more per 1,000 (95% CI 113 to 256). We found high certainty evidence that propranolol increases the proportion of patients who discontinue due to adverse events compared to placebo with a risk difference of 0.02 (95% CI 0.00 to 0.03); absolute risk difference: 20 more per 1,000 (95% CI 0 to 30). CONCLUSIONS: The present meta-analysis shows that propranolol has a prophylactic role in migraine, with an overall acceptable tolerability profile. Combining these results with its long-standing use and its global availability at a low cost confirms its role as a first line agent in the prophylaxis of migraine.

Brain age as a biomarker for pathological versus healthy ageing - a REMEMBER study.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to evaluate the potential clinical value of a new brain age prediction model as a single interpretable variable representing the condition of our brain. Among many clinical use cases, brain age could be a novel outcome measure to assess the preventive effect of life-style interventions. METHODS: The REMEMBER study population (N = 742) consisted of cognitively healthy (HC,N = 91), subjective cognitive decline (SCD,N = 65), mild cognitive impairment (MCI,N = 319) and AD dementia (ADD,N = 267) subjects. Automated brain volumetry of global, cortical, and subcortical brain structures computed by the CE-labeled and FDA-cleared software icobrain dm (dementia) was retrospectively extracted from T1-weighted MRI sequences that were acquired during clinical routine at participating memory clinics from the Belgian Dementia Council. The volumetric features, along with sex, were combined into a weighted sum using a linear model, and were used to predict 'brain age' and 'brain predicted age difference' (BPAD = brain age-chronological age) for every subject. RESULTS: MCI and ADD patients showed an increased brain age compared to their chronological age. Overall, brain age outperformed BPAD and chronological age in terms of classification accuracy across the AD spectrum. There was a weak-to-moderate correlation between total MMSE score and both brain age (r = -0.38,p < .001) and BPAD (r = -0.26,p < .001). Noticeable trends, but no significant correlations, were found between BPAD and incidence of conversion from MCI to ADD, nor between BPAD and conversion time from MCI to ADD. BPAD was increased in heavy alcohol drinkers compared to non-/sporadic (p = .014) and moderate (p = .040) drinkers. CONCLUSIONS: Brain age and associated BPAD have the potential to serve as indicators for, and to evaluate the impact of lifestyle modifications or interventions on, brain health.

Oxygen as an abortive therapy in cluster headache: a narrative review and clinical practice aspects.

Cluster headache (International Classification of Headache Disorders third edition, ICHD-3 3.1) is a primary headache disorder affecting around 0.12% of individuals. It is characterized by severe headache attacks causing significant negative impact on the lives of patients. While administration of 100% oxygen is considered to be the first-choice acute treatment, undertreatment also exists. Reasons for undertreatment may entail problems with the correct prescription of oxygen, reimbursement issues or the practical implementation of home oxygen therapy. The aim of this manuscript is to review the scientific evidence on oxygen therapy for cluster headache and provide a practical guidance for both physicians and patients to optimize its use in an acute setting. The current evidence of the administration of 100% oxygen as a safe and effective treatment for cluster headache is strong. Based on several clinical trials and surveys, the recommended flow rates range between 12 and 15 L/min via a non-rebreathing mask, for at least fifteen minutes. The frequency of cluster headache attacks and thus the need for acute treatment can be very high. Fortunately, the Belgian social security system provides a full and lifetime reimbursement of oxygen therapy for cluster headache if the diagnosis and the need for this therapy has been certified by a neurologist, neurosurgeon or neuropsychiatrist.