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.

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.

Induction of cluster headache after opening of adenosine triphosphate-sensitive potassium channels: a randomized clinical trial.

ABSTRACT: Activation of adenosine triphosphate-sensitive potassium (K ATP ) channels has been implicated in triggering migraine attacks. However, whether the opening of these channels provoke cluster headache attacks remains undetermined. The hallmark of cluster headache is a distinct cyclical pattern of recurrent, severe headache episodes, succeeded by intervals of remission where no symptoms are present. In our study, we enrolled 41 participants: 10 with episodic cluster headaches during a bout, 15 in the attack-free remission period, and 17 diagnosed with chronic cluster headaches. Over 2 distinct experimental days, participants underwent a continuous 20-minute infusion of levcromakalim, a K ATP channel opener, or a placebo (isotonic saline), followed by a 90-minute observational period. The primary outcome was comparing the incidence of cluster headache attacks within the postinfusion observation period between the levcromakalim and placebo groups. Six of 10 participants (60%) with episodic cluster headaches in bout experienced attacks after levcromakalim infusion, vs just 1 of 10 (10%) with placebo ( P = 0.037). Among those in the remission phase, 1 of 15 participants (7%) reported attacks after levcromakalim, whereas none did postplacebo ( P = 0.50). In addition, 5 of 17 participants (29%) with chronic cluster headache had attacks after levcromakalim, in contrast to none after placebo ( P = 0.037). These findings demonstrate that K ATP channel activation can induce cluster headache attacks in participants with episodic cluster headaches in bout and chronic cluster headache, but not in those in the remission period. Our results underscore the potential utility of K ATP channel inhibitors as therapeutic agents for cluster headaches.

European Headache Federation (EHF) critical reappraisal and meta-analysis of oral drugs in migraine prevention - part 3: topiramate.

OBJECTIVE: Topiramate is a repurposed first-line treatment for migraine prophylaxis. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to critically re-appraise the existing evidence supporting the efficacy and tolerability of topiramate. METHODS: A systematic search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, and ClinicalTrials.gov was performed for trials of pharmacological treatment in migraine prophylaxis as of August 13, 2022, following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews (PRISMA). Randomized controlled trials in adult patients that used topiramate for the prophylactic treatment of migraine, with placebo as active comparator, were included. Two reviewers independently screened the retrieved studies and extracted all data. Outcomes of interest were the 50% responder rates, the reduction in monthly migraine days, and adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation. Results were pooled and meta-analyzed, with sensitivity analysis based on the risk of bias of the studies, the monthly migraine days at baseline, and the previous use of other prophylactic treatments. Certainty evidence was judged according to the GRADE framework. RESULTS: Eight out of 10,826 studies fulfilled the inclusion/exclusion criteria, accounting for 2,610 randomized patients. Six studies included patients with episodic migraine and two with chronic migraine. Topiramate dose ranged from 50 to 200 mg/day, and all studies included a placebo arm. There was a high certainty that topiramate: 1) increased the proportion of patients who achieved a 50% responder rate in monthly migraine days, compared to placebo [relative risk: 1.61 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.29-2.01); absolute risk difference: 168 more per 1,000 (95% CI: 80 to 278 more)]; 2) was associated with 0.99 (95% CI: 1.41-0.58) fewer migraine days than placebo; 3) and had a higher proportion of patients with adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation [absolute risk difference 80 patients more per 1,000 (95% CI: 20 to 140 more patients)]. CONCLUSIONS: There is high-quality evidence of the efficacy of topiramate in the prophylaxis of migraine, albeit its use poses a risk of adverse events that may lead to treatment discontinuation, with a negative effect on patient satisfaction and adherence to care.

European Headache Federation (EHF) critical re-appraisal and meta-analysis of oral drugs in migraine prevention-part 2: flunarizine.

OBJECTIVE: Novel disease-specific and mechanism-based treatments sharing good evidence of efficacy for migraine have been recently marketed. However, reimbursement by insurers depends on treatment failure with classic anti-migraine drugs. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we aimed to identify and rate the evidence for efficacy of flunarizine, a repurposed, first- or second-line treatment for migraine prophylaxis. METHODS: A systematic search in MEDLINE, Cochrane CENTRAL, and ClinicalTrials.gov was performed for trials of pharmacological treatment in migraine prophylaxis, following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews (PRISMA). Eligible trials for meta-analysis were randomized, placebo-controlled studies comparing flunarizine with placebo. Outcomes of interest according to the Outcome Set for preventive intervention trials in chronic and episodic migraine (COSMIG) were the proportion of patients reaching a 50% or more reduction in monthly migraine days, the change in monthly migraine days (MMDs), and Adverse Events (AEs) leading to discontinuation. RESULTS: Five trials were eligible for narrative description and three for data synthesis and analysis. No studies reported the predefined outcomes, but one study assessed the 50% reduction in monthly migraine attacks with flunarizine as compared to placebo showing a benefit from flunarizine with a low or probably low risk of bias. We found that flunarizine may increase the proportion of patients who discontinue due to adverse events compared to placebo (risk difference: 0.02; 95% CI -0.03 to 0.06). CONCLUSIONS: Published flunarizine trials predate the recommended endpoints for evaluating migraine prophylaxis drugs, hence the lack of an adequate assessment for these endpoints. Further, modern-day, large-scale studies would be valuable in re-evaluating the efficacy of flunarizine for the treatment of migraines, offering additional insights into its potential benefits.

The comparative effectiveness of migraine preventive drugs: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: While there are several trials that support the efficacy of various drugs for migraine prophylaxis against placebo, there is limited evidence addressing the comparative safety and efficacy of these drugs. We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis to facilitate comparison between drugs for migraine prophylaxis. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and clinicaltrials.gov from inception to August 13, 2022, for randomized trials of pharmacological treatments for migraine prophylaxis in adults. Reviewers worked independently and in duplicate to screen references, extract data, and assess risk of bias. We performed a frequentist random-effects network meta-analysis and rated the certainty (quality) of evidence as either high, moderate, low, or very low using the GRADE approach. RESULTS: We identified 74 eligible trials, reporting on 32,990 patients. We found high certainty evidence that monoclonal antibodies acting on the calcitonin gene related peptide or its receptor (CGRP(r)mAbs), gepants, and topiramate increase the proportion of patients who experience a 50% or more reduction in monthly migraine days, compared to placebo. We found moderate certainty evidence that beta-blockers, valproate, and amitriptyline increase the proportion of patients who experience a 50% or more reduction in monthly migraine days, and low certainty evidence that gabapentin may not be different from placebo. We found high certainty evidence that, compared to placebo, valproate and amitriptyline lead to substantial adverse events leading to discontinuation, moderate certainty evidence that topiramate, beta-blockers, and gabapentin increase adverse events leading to discontinuation, and moderate to high certainty evidence that (CGRP(r)mAbs) and gepants do not increase adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: (CGRP(r)mAbs) have the best safety and efficacy profile of all drugs for migraine prophylaxis, followed closely by gepants.

European Headache Federation (EHF) critical re-appraisal and meta-analysis of oral drugs in migraine prevention-part 1: amitriptyline.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this paper is to critically re-appraise the published trials assessing amitriptyline for migraine prophylaxis. METHODS: We report our 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 amitriptyline with placebo for migraine prophylaxis in adults. Our outcomes of interest were informed by the 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 migraine days per month, migraine days per month, and adverse events leading to discontinuation. We assessed risk of bias by using a modified Cochrane RoB 2.0 tool and the certainty of evidence by using the GRADE approach. RESULTS: Our search yielded 10.826 unique records, of which three trials (n = 622) were eligible for data synthesis and analysis. We found moderate certainty evidence that amitriptyline increases the proportion of patients who experience a 50% or more reduction in monthly migraine days, compared to placebo (relative risk: 1.60 (95% CI 1.17 to 2.19); absolute risk difference: 165 more per 1,000 (95% CI 47 more to 327 more). We found moderate certainty evidence that amitriptyline increases the proportion of patients who discontinue due to adverse events compared to placebo (risk difference: 0.05 (95% CI 0.01 to 0.10); absolute risk difference: 50 more per 1,000 (95% CI 10 more to 100 more). CONCLUSIONS: Our meta-analysis showed that amitriptyline may have a prophylactic role in migraine patients, however these results are far from robust. This warrants further large-scale research to evaluate the role of amitriptyline in migraine prevention.

Visual snow: A systematic review and a case series.

BACKGROUND: Visual Snow Syndrome is a recently recognized neurological condition presenting, continuous, tiny dots across the entire visual field, accompanied by nyctalopia, photophobia and palinopsia that persist for months. It may be part of migraine aura spectrum, yet its definition is still questionable. Diagnostic criteria for Visual Snow Syndrome are included in the supplemental material of ICHD-3. We aimed to summarize recent data to improve the understanding of Visual Snow Syndrome. METHODS: After presenting four new cases, we conducted a PRISMA systematic search in PubMed/MEDLINE and Embase databases using the keyword "visual snow" with specific inclusion and exclusion criteria. RESULTS: From the 855 articles identified 30 were included for the qualitative analysis. These reports covered five aspects related to Visual Snow Syndrome: epidemiology, clinical features, comorbidities, pathophysiology, and treatment. We found limited data concerning Visual Snow Syndrome's epidemiology (one study). Clinical presentation (22 articles) and the comorbidities (migraine with aura and tinnitus most often, five reports) are described in detail. The pathophysiology of Visual Snow Syndrome is only approached with hypotheses, but several neuroimaging studies have been identified (seven articles). Treatment is based on single case reports only. CONCLUSION: Data for Visual Snow Syndrome are few and not strong enough to support Visual Snow Syndrome as a medical identity. Further investigation is needed.

European Headache Federation guideline on the use of monoclonal antibodies targeting the calcitonin gene related peptide pathway for migraine prevention - 2022 update.

BACKGROUND: A previous European Headache Federation (EHF) guideline addressed the use of monoclonal antibodies targeting the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) pathway to prevent migraine. Since then, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and real-world evidence have expanded the evidence and knowledge for those treatments. Therefore, the EHF panel decided to provide an updated guideline on the use of those treatments. METHODS: The guideline was developed following the Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. The working group identified relevant questions, performed a systematic review and an analysis of the literature, assessed the quality of the available evidence, and wrote recommendations. Where the GRADE approach was not applicable, expert opinion was provided. RESULTS: We found moderate to high quality of evidence to recommend eptinezumab, erenumab, fremanezumab, and galcanezumab in individuals with episodic and chronic migraine. For several important clinical questions, we found not enough evidence to provide evidence-based recommendations and guidance relied on experts' opinion. Nevertheless, we provided updated suggestions regarding the long-term management of those treatments and their place with respect to the other migraine preventatives. CONCLUSION: Monoclonal antibodies targeting the CGRP pathway are recommended for migraine prevention as they are effective and safe also in the long-term.

Monoclonal Antibodies Targeting CGRP: From Clinical Studies to Real-World Evidence-What Do We Know So Far?

Now more than ever is the time of monoclonal antibody use in neurology. In headaches, disease-specific and mechanism-based treatments existed only for symptomatic management of migraines (i.e., triptans), while the standard prophylactic anti-migraine treatments consist of non-specific and repurposed drugs that share limited safety profiles and high risk for interactions with other medications, resulting in rundown adherence rates. Recent advances in headache science have increased our understanding of the role of calcitonin gene relate peptide (CGRP) and pituitary adenylate cyclase-activating polypeptide (PACAP) pathways in cephalic pain neurotransmission and peripheral or central sensitization, leading to the development of monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) or small molecules targeting these neuropeptides or their receptors. Large scale randomized clinical trials confirmed that inhibition of the CGRP system attenuates migraine, while the PACAP mediated nociception is still under scientific and clinical investigation. In this review, we provide the latest clinical evidence for the use of anti-CGRP in migraine prevention with emphasis on efficacy and safety outcomes from Phase III and real-world studies.

Safety and tolerability evaluation of erenumab for the preventive treatment of migraine.

Introduction: Erenumab, a monoclonal antibody targeting the receptor of calcitonin gene related peptide (CGRP), is the first disease-specific and mechanism-based treatment approved for the prevention of migraine. Although the safety and tolerability data from randomized trials are clear, the physiological effects of CGRP rise reasonable concerns. We aimed to evaluate the current evidence for safety and tolerability related to erenumab use in migraine. Areas covered: This review outlines the severe adverse events (AEs), common AEs, AEs leading to treatment discontinuation and AEs of special interest, reported in all phase 2, phase 3, open label, and observational studies with erenumab in migraine. Individual safety reports were also included in the systematic review of evidence. Expert opinion: No safety and tolerability flags were detected in this review. The most common AE are local skin reactions and constipation. No severe AEs, or frequent AEs leading to treatment discontinuation were detected. Treatment is well tolerated. The only AE of interest that may play a role in decision making and treatment monitoring is constipation. These findings are in line with previous safety reports, further highlighting the substantial tolerability and safety profile of the modern anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies for the prevention of migraine.

Anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies for migraine prevention: A systematic review and likelihood to help or harm analysis.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Monoclonal antibodies targeting the calcitonin gene-related peptide pathway (anti-CGRP mAbs) have shown promising efficacy in randomised clinical trials for the prevention of episodic and chronic migraine, but no head-to-head comparisons with established treatments are available. We aimed to examine absolute differences in benefit-risk ratios between anti-CGRP mAbs, topiramate and propranolol for the prevention of episodic migraine and between anti-CGRP mAbs, topiramate and onabotulinumtoxinA for the prevention of chronic migraine using a likelihood to help versus harm analysis. METHODS: The number of patients needed to be treated for a patient to achieve ≥ 50% reduction in migraine days (NNTB50%) was used as an effect size metric of efficacy. The number of patients needed to be treated for a patient to experience an adverse event that led to treatment discontinuation (NNTHD-AE) was used as a measure of risk. Likelihood to help versus harm values - which are the ratios of NNTH:NNTB - were calculated using data from phase 3 randomised clinical trials. RESULTS: All agents tested were more likely to be beneficial than harmful (likelihood to help versus harm > 1) with the exception of topiramate at 200 mg per day for the prevention of episodic migraine. Anti-CGRP mAbs in all tested doses had higher LHH values than propranolol or topiramate for episodic migraine and onabotulinumtoxinA or topiramate for chronic migraine prevention. Fremanezumab had the highest LHH ratio in episodic migraine and galcanezumab in chronic migraine. CONCLUSION: This analysis showed that anti-CGRP mAbs exhibit a more favourable benefit-risk ratio than established treatments for episodic and chronic migraine. Head-to-head studies are needed to confirm these results.

Refractory burning mouth syndrome: clinical and paraclinical evaluation, comorbiities, treatment and outcome.

BACKGROUND: Burning Mouth Syndrome (BMS) is a chronic pain condition characterized by persistent intraoral burning without related objective findings and unknown etiology that affects elderly females mostly. There is no satisfactory treatment for BMS. We aimed to observe the long-term efficacy of high velanfaxine doses combined with systemic and topical administered clonazepam in a particular subgroup of BMS patients who do not respond to current clinical management. RESULTS: Eight (66.1 ± 6.2 years old females) out of 14 BMS patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were treated with venlafaxine (300 mg/d) and clonazepam (5 mg/d) for 35.4 ± 12.1 (mean ± SD) months. The average duration of the symptoms at baseline was 4.3 ± 1.4 years and the overall mean daily pain intensity score was 8.6 ± 1.3 (VAS); pain was in tongue and within the oral mucosa, accompanying by oral and facial dysesthesia. In five patients tasting was abnormal. All patients had positive history of concomitant primary headache. The average score of Hamilton Rating scale for Anxiety and Depression was 21 ± 4.2, and 26.1 ± 2.9, respectively. Previous ineffective treatments include anticonvulsants and anti-depressants. All patients responded (more than 50% decrease in VAS) after three months treatment (mean VAS 3.2 ± 2.2) with no remarkable adverse events. CONCLUSION: BMS deserves bottomless psychiatric evaluation and management when current available treatments fail. Treatment with venlafaxine combined with topical and systemic clonazepam may be effective in refractory BMS cases but further investigation in a large-scale controlled study is needed to confirm these results.

Neck pain in episodic migraine: premonitory symptom or part of the attack?

BACKGROUND: Whether neck pain (NP) is a prodromal migraine symptom or belongs to the migraine attack feature remains controversial. METHODS: In order to prospectively record neck pain (NP) and non-headache symptoms and to evaluate the percentage of patients having NP as clear premonitory, non-headache symptom of their migraine, a specific self fulfilled questionnaire was designed to record NP and premonitory symptoms in a migraine cohort. All patients who reported NP anytime during the migraine phase were allocated to 3 groups: A = NP starts with the onset of headache; B = NP starts < 2 h before the onset of headache; C = NP starts 2-48 h before the onset of headache. RESULTS: Data were evaluated from 487 migraineurs with episodic migraine (73.1 % females; 77 % had migraine without aura). 338 patients (69.4 %) reported NP anytime during the migraine phase. 184 patients (group A; 54.4 %) noticed NP with the start of the headache phase; 118 patients (group B; 24.2 %) reported NP within 2 h before the headache phase; 36 patients (group C; 7.4 %) experienced NP 2-48 h before the headache phase. In group B we found a high proportion of typical migraine associated symptoms and NP progressed into the headache phase in 82.2 %. CONCLUSIONS: These data indicate that NP is a very common feature of migraine attacks and is more likely to be part of the migraine attack than a prodromal migraine symptom.

Q-No: a questionnaire to predict nocebo in outpatients seeking neurological consultation.

Nocebo affects significantly adherence and treatment outcome and varies considerably among neurological conditions. We aimed to evaluate a questionnaire to predict nocebo in outpatients seeking neurological consultation. A four-item (rating range 4-20) self-fulfilled questionnaire (Q-No) was given in outpatients seeking neurological consultation at the Athens Naval Hospital. A blind to Q-No scoring neurologist rated outpatients as nocebo or no-nocebo after follow-up of >6 months. 341 (71.5 % females) patients with mean age 46.9 (±13.8) years fulfilled the requested follow-up and Q-No. The mean total score was 13.2 (±3.7). The Crombach's alpha coefficient was 0.627. Neurologist suggested 80 patients (23.7 %) as nocebo and 258 as no-nocebo (mean Q-No score = 12.4 95 % CI [12.0-12.9] and 15.8, 95 % CI [15.1-16.6], respectively). Using a cut-off at score 15 the Q-No predicts nocebo with 71.7 % specificity, 67.5 % sensitivity and 42.5 % positive predictive value. Q-No may serve as a useful tool to predict nocebo in outpatients seeking neurological consultation.

Depression in headaches: chronification.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Recent evidence supports the suggestion that migraine is a chronic disorder with episodic attacks that increase in frequency in a subgroup of patients, transforming migraine into a refractory chronic condition with poor outcome and severe impact. Among the risk factors for migraine chronification depression figures notably. Early diagnosis and management of risk factors in migraineurs prevent migraine chronification and its consequences. The scope of this article is to review depression as a potential cofactor for migraine chronification. RECENT FINDINGS: Population-based studies revealed that migraineurs often have symptoms of depression, with strongest associations for migraine with aura. Patients with depression also have an increased risk for migraine, migraine with aura in particular. Twin studies showed similar findings. This bidirectional relationship suggests that migraine and depression may share common causative factors, possibly genetically determined, that might control migraine chronification. Migraine patients may develop depression as a result of the demoralizing experience of recurrent and disabling headaches and depressed patients may develop migraine because of increased pain sensitivity, in the basis of a common genetic background. SUMMARY: We suggest that clinicians consider depression as part of migraine management in order to optimize treatment and avoid migraine progression.