Factors Associated with Patient Adherence to Biofeedback Therapy Referral for Migraine: An Observational Study.

Biofeedback has Grade A evidence for the treatment of migraine, yet few studies have examined the factors associated with patients' decisions to pursue biofeedback treatment recommendations. We sought to examine reasons for adherence or non-adherence to referral to biofeedback therapy as treatment for migraine. Patients with migraine who had been referred for biofeedback by a headache specialist/behavioral neurologist were interviewed in person or via Webex. Patients completed an enrollment questionnaire addressing demographics and questions related to their headache histories. At one month, patients were sent a follow-up questionnaire via REDCap and asked if they had pursued the recommendation for biofeedback therapy, their reasons for their decision, and their impressions about biofeedback for those who pursued it. Nearly two-thirds (65%; 33/51) of patients responded at one month. Of these, fewer than half (45%, 15/33) had contacted biofeedback providers, and only 18% (6/33) completed a biofeedback session. Common themes emerged for patients who did not pursue biofeedback, including feeling that they did not have time, concern for financial obstacles (e.g., treatment cost and/or insurance coverage), and having difficulty scheduling an appointment due to limited provider availability. When asked about their preference between type of biofeedback provider (e.g., a physical therapist or psychologist), qualitative responses were mixed; many patients indicated no preference as long as they took insurance and/or were experienced, while others indicated a specific preference for a physical therapist or psychologist due to familiarity, or prior experiences with that kind of provider. Patients with migraine referred for biofeedback therapy face numerous obstacles to pursuing treatment.

A Comparison of Patients' and Neurologists' Assessments of their Teleneurology Encounter: A Cross-Sectional Analysis.

Background and Objectives: To better understand patients' and neurologists' assessments of their experiences regarding effectiveness of teleneurology encounters. Methods: Following an audio-video telehealth visit, neurologists asked patients to participate in a survey-based research study about the encounter, and then, the neurologists also recorded their own evaluations. Data were analyzed using standard quantitative and qualitative techniques for dichotomous and ordered-category survey responses in this cross-sectional analysis. Results: The study included unique encounters between 187 patients and 11 general neurologists. The mean patient age was 49 ± 17.5 years. Two thirds of the patients (66.8%, 125/187) were female. One third (33.2%; 62) were patients new to the NYU Langone Health neurology practices. The most common patient chief complaints were headache (69/187, 36.9%), focal and generalized numbness or tingling (21, 11.2%), memory difficulty (15, 8%), spine-related symptoms (12, 6.4%), and vertigo (11, 5.9%). Most patients (94.7%, 177/187) reported that the teleneurology encounter satisfied their needs. Patients and their neurologists agreed that the experience was effective in 91% (162/178) of encounters, regardless of whether the visit was for a new or established patient visit. Discussion: More than 90% of new and established patients and their neurologists agreed that teleneurology encounters were effective despite some limitations of the examination, the occasional need for patient assistance, and technical difficulties. Our results provide further evidence to justify and to expand the clinical use of teleneurology.

Resistant and refractory migraine: clinical presentation, pathophysiology, and management.

Migraine is a leading cause of disability worldwide. A minority of individuals with migraine develop resistant or refractory conditions characterised by ≥ 8 monthly days of debilitating headaches and inadequate response, intolerance, or contraindication to ≥3 or all preventive drug classes, respectively. Resistant and refractory migraine are emerging clinical definitions stemming from better knowledge of the pathophysiology of migraine and from the advent of migraine-specific preventive treatments. Resistant migraine mostly results from drug failures, while refractory migraine has complex and still unknown mechanisms that impair the efficacy of preventive treatments. Individuals with resistant migraine can be treated with migraine-specific preventive drugs. The management of refractory migraine is challenging and often unsuccessful, being based on combinations of different drugs and non-pharmacological treatment. Future research should aim to identify individuals at risk of developing treatment failures, prevent the condition, investigate the mechanisms of refractoriness to treatments, and find effective treatment strategies.

Treatment Options for Posttraumatic Headache: A Current Review of the Literature.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: We evaluate evidence-based treatments for posttraumatic headache (PTH), a secondary headache disorder resulting from traumatic brain injury (TBI), comprising nearly 4% of all symptomatic headache disorders. Utilizing recent publications, we aim to inform clinicians of current treatment methods. RECENT FINDINGS: There is limited research on PTH treatment. A randomized controlled trial (RCT) of metoclopramide with diphenhydramine for acute PTH found that the treatment group (N = 81) experienced more significant pain improvement than placebo by 1.4 points. For persistent PTH, an open-label study of erenumab (N = 89) found that 28% of participants reported ≥ 50% reduction in moderate-to-severe headache days, but an RCT of fremanezumab showed a non-significant reduction in moderate-to-severe headache days. A randomized crossover study of 40 patients with persistent PTH found that onabotulinum toxin-A decreased cumulative number of headaches/week by 43.3% in the treatment group and increased by 35.1% among placebos. In a study of military veterans with severe posttraumatic stress disorder and persistent/delayed onset PTH (N = 193), patients who received Cognitive Behavioral Therapy reported significant improvements in headache-related disability compared to usual care (aggregate mean HIT-6, -3.4). A transcranial magnetic stimulation (N = 24) study found that 58% of participants with mild TBI-related headache experienced a 50% reduction in headache frequency. New studies indicate promise in improving clinically important outcomes of PTH. However, more research is necessary to determine the optimal treatment and whether combining pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatment versus a single modality is more effective.

A critical systematic review assessing undergraduate neurology pipeline programs.

Background: Although current programs exist to encourage undergraduate interest in neuroscience and neurology, few students go on to pursue a career in neurology. Thus, there is a need for more neurologists in the US. To assess undergraduate pipeline programs and their goals of garnering interest and knowledge of neurology, we systematically reviewed available literature on existing undergraduate neurology pipeline programs. Methods: A medical librarian conducted an electronic database search of PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Education Source, and ERIC based on a search strategy developed with a team of undergraduates and a neurologist. Of the 2,852 articles screened, 33 met the systematic review criteria and were evaluated based on the type and goal of the pipeline program, its delivery, and efficacy. Results: The 33 programs were classified into subtypes of pipeline programs, with focuses ranging from student-led projects to early clinical research opportunities. All programs were found to be successful in attracting student interest in neurology, providing exposure to relevant opportunities, and classroom enrichment. Discussion: The existing literature shows that neurology pipeline programs successfully inspire interest in a career in neurology among undergraduate students. These programs are valuable supplements to undergraduate neuroscience curricula and instrumental in introducing students to various fields.

A critical systematic review of K-12 neurology/neuroscience pipeline programs.

Background: Early exposure to neuroscience is imperative to strengthening the neuroscience and neurology pipeline and may present an avenue for increasing the number of practicing neurologists and diversifying the neuroscience workforce. Our objective was to systematically review existing K-12 neuroscience education and outreach programs to understand what educational programs have been developed and implemented. Methods: We conducted an electronic database search of PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Education Source, and ERIC. All eligible articles were systematically reviewed to examine the type of program developed, target age group, implementation, and efficacy. Results: Our search produced 2,574 results, from which 23 articles were deemed eligible. The breakdown by age group was as follows: 5 elementary school, 8 middle school, 8 high school, and 2 general K-12 range of students. Six articles described programs intended for URM students. All programs were found to be successful in exposing students to neuroscience and inspiring interest in pursuing a career in the field of neurology. Discussion: Further efforts are necessary to analyze the long-term effectiveness of K-12 neuroscience education and outreach programs in overcoming the shortage of neurologists and explore the impact of mentorship for various age groups among K-12.Systematic review registrationhttps://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/2G8CN.

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

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

Episodic Migraine and Psychiatric Comorbidity: A Narrative Review of the Literature.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: We evaluate the evolving evidence of psychiatric comorbidities associated with episodic migraine. Utilizing recent research publications, we aim to assess traditional treatment option considerations and discuss recent and evolving non-pharmacologic treatment progress for episodic migraine and related psychiatric conditions. RECENT FINDINGS: Recent findings indicate that episodic migraine is strongly linked to comorbid depression, anxiety, posttraumatic stress disorder, and sleep disorders. Not only do patients with episodic migraine have higher rates of psychiatric comorbidity, but a higher number of headache days reported is also strongly linked to an increased risk of developing a psychiatric disorder, indicating there may be a link between frequency and psychiatric comorbidity and that patients with high-frequency episodic migraine should be assessed for psychiatric comorbidity. Few migraine preventive medications have examined the effect of the medication on both migraine and psychiatric comorbidity though we discuss what has been reported in the literature. Non-pharmacologic-based treatments including behavioral therapies and mind-body interventions previously developed for psychiatric conditions, e.g., mindfulness-based CBT (MBCT), acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT), and mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) therapy, have promising results for patients diagnosed with episodic migraine and may therefore be useful in treating migraine and comorbid psychiatric conditions. Psychiatric comorbidity may affect the efficacy of the treatment of episodic migraine. Thus, we must assess for psychiatric comorbidities to inform better treatment plans for patients. Providing patients with episodic migraine with alternate modalities of treatment may help to improve patient-centered care and increase patients' sense of self-efficacy.

Headache clinicians' perspectives on the remote monitoring of patients' electronic diary data: A qualitative study.

OBJECTIVE: We assessed headache clinicians' viewpoints on potential remote access to patients' digital headache diary data and the practicalities of data utilization. BACKGROUND: With the ubiquitous nature of electronic medical records and the existence of remote monitoring (RM) for many medical conditions, there is now the potential for remote symptom monitoring for patients with headache disorders. While patients are asked to utilize headache diaries, clinicians may or may not have access to the data before patient visits, and their perspectives regarding this emerging technology are currently unknown. METHODS: After recruiting participants from the National Institutes of Health Pain Consortium Network, the American Headache Society Special Interest Section listservs, and Twitter and Facebook social media platforms, we conducted 20 semi-structured qualitative interviews of headache providers across the United States from various types of institutions and asked them their perspectives on remote access to patient headache diary data. We transcribed the interviews, which were then coded by two independent coders. Themes and sub-themes were developed using inductive content analysis. RESULTS: All clinicians felt the RM data needed to be integrated into the electronic medical record. Six themes emerged from the interviews: (i) Clinician perspectives on how RM could be beneficial but at other times could create obstacles/challenges, (ii) operationally, data integration could benefit headache care, (iii) there should be initial logistical considerations for bringing RM into clinical care, (iv) education may need to be provided to both patients and clinicians, (v) there are likely research benefits associated with RM, and (vi) additional suggestions for considering potential integration of RM into practice. CONCLUSIONS: While headache clinicians had mixed opinions on the benefits/challenges that RM presents to patient care, patient satisfaction, and visit time, new ideas emerged that may help advance the field.

Neurologists' Evaluations of Experience and Effectiveness of Teleneurology Encounters.

Background and Objectives: To better understand neurologists' assessments of the experiences and effectiveness of teleneurology encounters. Methods: After completing an audio-video telehealth visit with verbally consenting patients, neurologists recorded their evaluations of the encounter. Data were analyzed using standard quantitative and qualitative techniques. Results: The study included unique encounters between 187 patients and 11 neurologists. The mean patient age was 49 ± 17.5 years. Two thirds of patients (66.8%, 125/187) were female. One third of patients (33.2%; 62) were new patients. The most common patient complaints were headache (69/187, 36.9%), focal and generalized numbness or tingling (21, 11.2%), memory difficulty (15, 8%), spine-related symptoms (12, 6.4%), and vertigo (11, 5.9%). Neurologists reported that they completed a virtual examination that provided enough information for medical decision-making in 94.9% of encounters (169/178, 9 missing responses). Fourteen of 25 examination elements important for medical decision-making could be performed sufficiently during virtual encounters. Examination assistance was needed for 16.4% (30/183) of patients, who were, on average, 17.3 years older than those who did not require assistance (62.9 years vs. 45.6 years, p = 0.0002). In 19.1% (34/178) of encounters, neurologists learned clinically relevant information from seeing patients in their homes. Neurologists' assessments of the effectiveness of encounters were not related to the presence (97.2%, 35/36 effective) or absence (95%, 134/141 effective) of technical difficulties (p = 0.5729) in 177 encounters (10 missing responses). Discussion: Neurologists reported that nearly 95% of teleneurology encounters were effective despite limitations of the virtual examination, occasional need for patient assistance, and technical difficulties.

The use of virtual complementary and integrative therapies by neurology outpatients: An exploratory analysis of two cross-sectional studies assessing the use of technology as treatment in an academic neurology department in New York City.

Background: Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, about half of patients from populations that sought care in neurology tried complementary and integrative therapies (CITs). With the increased utilization of telehealth services, we sought to determine whether patients also increased their use of virtual CITs. Methods: We examined datasets from two separate cross-sectional surveys that included cohorts of patients with neurological disorders. One was a dataset from a study that examined patient and provider experiences with teleneurology visits; the other was a study that assessed patients with a history of COVID-19 infection who presented for neurologic evaluation. We assessed and reported the use of virtual (and non-virtual) CITs using descriptive statistics, and determined whether there were clinical characteristics that predicted the use of CITs using logistic regression analyses. Findings: Patients who postponed medical treatment for non-COVID-19-related problems during the pandemic were more likely to seek CITs. Virtual exercise, virtual psychotherapy, and relaxation/meditation smartphone applications were the most frequent types of virtual CITs chosen by patients. In both studies, age was a key demographic factor associated with mobile/virtual CIT usage. Interpretations: Our investigation demonstrates that virtual CIT-related technologies were utilized in the treatment of neurologic conditions during the pandemic, particularly by those patients who deferred non-COVID-related care.

Assessment of Smartphone Apps for Common Neurologic Conditions (Headache, Insomnia, and Pain): Cross-sectional Study.

BACKGROUND: There are thousands of apps for individuals struggling with headache, insomnia, and pain, but it is difficult to establish which of these apps are best suited for patients' specific needs. If clinicians were to have access to a platform that would allow them to make an informed decision on the efficacy and feasibility of smartphone apps for patient care, they would feel confident in prescribing specific apps. OBJECTIVE: We sought to evaluate the quality of apps for some of the top common, disabling neurologic conditions (headache, insomnia, and pain) based on principles derived from the American Psychiatric Association's (APA) app evaluation model. METHODS: We used the Mobile Health Index and Navigation database and expanded upon the database's current supported conditions by adding 177 new app entries. Each app was rated for consistency with the APA's app evaluation model, which includes 105 objective questions based on the following 5 major classes of consideration: (1) accessibility, (2) privacy and security, (3) clinical foundation, (4) engagement style, and (5) interoperability. These characteristics were evaluated to gain a broader understanding of the significant features of each app category in comparison against a control group. RESULTS: Approximately 90% (187/201) of all apps evaluated were free to download, but only 50% (63/201) of headache- and pain-related apps were truly free. Most (87/106, 81%) sleep apps were not truly free to use. The apps had similar limitations with limited privacy, accessibility, and crisis management resources. For example, only 17% (35/201) of the apps were available in Spanish. The apps offered mostly self-help tools with little tailoring; symptom tracking was the most common feature in headache- (32/48, 67%) and pain-related apps (21/47, 45%), whereas mindfulness was the most common feature in sleep-related apps (73/106, 69%). CONCLUSIONS: Although there are many apps for headache, pain, and insomnia, all 3 types of apps have room for improvement around accessibility and privacy. Pain and headache apps share many common features, whereas insomnia apps offer mostly mindfulness-based resources. Given the many available apps to pick from, clinicians and patients should seek apps that offer the highest-quality features, such as complete privacy, remedial features, and the ability to download the app at no cost. These results suggest that there are many opportunities for the improvement of apps centered on headache, insomnia, and pain.

The role of urgent care centers in headache management: a quality improvement project.

BACKGROUND: Patients with headache often seek urgent medical care to treat pain and associated symptoms that do not respond to therapeutic options at home. Urgent Cares (UCs) may be suitable for the evaluation and treatment of such patients but there is little data on how headache is evaluated in UC settings and what types of treatments are available. We conducted a study to evaluate the types of care available for patients with headache presenting to UCs. DESIGN: Cross-Sectional. METHODS: Headache specialists across the United States contacted UCs to collect data on a questionnaire. Questions asked about UC staffing (e.g. number and backgrounds of staff, hours of operation), average length of UC visits for headache, treatments and tests available for patients presenting with headache, and disposition including to the ED. RESULTS: Data from 10 UC programs comprised of 61 individual UC sites revealed: The vast majority (8/10; 80%) had diagnostic testing onsite for headache evaluation. A small majority (6/10; 60%) had the American Headache Society recommended intravenous medications for acute migraine available. Half (5/10) had a headache protocol in place. The majority (6/10; 60%) had no follow up policy after UC discharge. CONCLUSIONS: UCs have the potential to provide expedited care for patients presenting for evaluation and treatment of headache. However, considerable variability exists amongst UCs in their abilities to manage headaches. This study reveals many opportunities for future research including the development of protocols and professional partnerships to help guide the evaluation, triage, and treatment of patients with headache in UC settings.

Understanding How to Strengthen the Neurology Pipeline With Insights From Undergraduate Neuroscience Students.

Despite increased neuroscience interest at the undergraduate level, a significant shortage of neurologists in the United States exists. To better understand how to generate more interest in neurology, specifically at the undergraduate level, we conducted an anonymous cross-sectional online survey comprising 1,085 undergraduates in either neuroscience courses or majoring/minoring in neuroscience from across the United States to better understand their clinical neurology experiences and perspectives. The survey quantitatively and qualitatively assessed students' clinical neurology exposure inside and outside of the classroom, research experiences, and career goals. Students were from a broad spectrum of undergraduate institutions (public research university [40.8%], liberal arts college [29.7%], and private research university [29.0%]). Most students (89.9%) were looking to pursue graduate studies; 56.9% reported wanting to be a physician, and 17.8% expressed interest in obtaining an MD/PhD. Of importance, students reported first exposure to neuroscience at age 16 years but felt that they could be exposed to neuroscience as early as 13 years. Half (50.5%) decided to major in neuroscience before college, and a quarter (25.6%) decided to major in their first year of college. Despite high interest in clinical neurology exposure, less than one-third of students had spoken with or shadowed a neurologist, and only 13.6% had interacted with clinical neurology populations. Only 20.8% of students felt volunteer and internship opportunities were sufficiently available. Qualitative results include student perspectives from those who did and did not work with a neurologist, describing how they were or were not able to obtain such opportunities. We discuss translating the survey findings into actionable results with opportunities to target the undergraduate neuroscience interest to improve the neurology pipeline. We describe existing programs that could be integrated into everyday neurology practices and new approaches to learning and training to help leverage the significant undergraduate neuroscience interest. We also raise questions for further research, including exploring (1) how students learn of neurologic conditions/expand their knowledge about additional neurologic conditions, (2) whether qualitative investigation of the experiences of neuroscience undergraduates at specific institutions might provide an additional insight, and (3) systems to maintain interest in neuroscience/neurology as students enter medical school.

Association Between Migraine Comorbidity and Psychiatric Symptoms Among People With Newly Diagnosed Focal Epilepsy.

OBJECTIVE: Little is known about psychiatric symptoms among patients with migraine and newly diagnosed focal epilepsy. The investigators compared symptoms of depression, anxiety, and suicidality among people with newly diagnosed focal epilepsy with migraine versus without migraine. METHODS: The Human Epilepsy Project is a prospective multicenter study of patients with newly diagnosed focal epilepsy. Depression (measured with the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale), anxiety (measured with the 7-item Generalized Anxiety Disorder scale), and suicidality scores (measured with the Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale [C-SSRS]) were compared between participants with versus without migraine. Data analysis was performed with the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for normality assessment, the Mann-Whitney U test, chi-square test, and linear regression. RESULTS: Of 349 patients with new-onset focal epilepsy, 74 (21.2%) had migraine. There were no differences between the patients without migraine versus those with migraine in terms of age, race, and level of education. There were more women in the group with migraine than in the group without migraine (75.7% vs. 55.6%, p=0.0018). The patients with epilepsy and comorbid migraine had more depressive symptoms than the patients with epilepsy without migraine (35.2% vs. 22.7%, p=0.031). Patients with epilepsy with comorbid migraine had more anxiety symptoms than patients with epilepsy without migraine, but this relation was mediated by age in logistic regression, with younger age being associated with anxiety. Comorbid migraine was not associated with C-SSRS ideation or behavior. CONCLUSIONS: Among a sample of patients with newly diagnosed focal epilepsy, 21.2% had migraine. Migraine comorbidity was associated with higher incidence of depressive symptoms. Future studies should be performed to better assess these relationships and possible treatment implications.

Strategies for Behavioral Research in Neurology: Lessons Learned During the COVID-19 Pandemic and Applications for the Future.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Behavioral therapies are proven treatments for many neurologic conditions. However, the COVID-19 pandemic has posed significant challenges for conducting behavioral research. This article aims to (1) highlight the challenges of running behavioral clinical trials during the pandemic, (2) suggest approaches to maximize generalizability of pandemic-era studies, and (3) offer strategies for successful behavioral trials beyond the pandemic. RECENT FINDINGS: Thousands of clinical trials have been impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, from undergoing protocol revisions to suspension altogether. Furthermore, for ongoing trials, recruitment of diverse populations has suffered, thereby exacerbating existing inequities in clinical research. Patient adherence and retention have been affected by a myriad of pandemic-era restraints, and medical, psychiatric, and other complications from the pandemic have the potential to have long-term effects on pandemic-era study results. In the development of post-pandemic study protocols, attention should be given to designing studies that incorporate successful aspects of pre-pandemic and pandemic-era strategies to (1) broaden recruitment using new techniques, (2) improve access for diverse populations, (3) expand protocols to include virtual and in-person participation, and (4) increase patient adherence and retention.

Response to Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy Differs Between Chronic and Episodic Migraine.

OBJECTIVE: Evaluate whether the benefits of Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy for Migraine (MBCT-M) on headache disability differs among people with episodic and chronic migraine (CM). METHODS: This is a planned secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial. After a 30-day baseline, participants were stratified by episodic (6-14 d/mo) and CM (15-30 d/mo) and randomized to 8 weekly individual sessions of MBCT-M or wait list/treatment as usual (WL/TAU). Primary outcomes (Headache Disability Inventory; Severe Migraine Disability Assessment Scale [scores ≥ 21]) were assessed at months 0, 1, 2, and 4. Mixed models for repeated measures tested moderation with fixed effects of treatment, time, CM, and all interactions. Planned subgroup analyses evaluated treatment*time in episodic and CM. RESULTS: Of 60 participants (MBCT-M N = 31, WL/TAU N = 29), 52% had CM. CM moderated the effect of MBCT-M on Severe Migraine Disability Assessment Scale, F(3, 205) = 3.68, p = 0.013; MBCT-M vs WL/TAU reduced the proportion of people reporting severe disability to a greater extent among people with episodic migraine (-40.0% vs -14.3%) than CM (-16.4% vs +8.7%). Subgroup analysis revealed MBCT-M (vs WL/TAU) significantly reduced Headache Disability Inventory for episodic (p = 0.011) but not CM (p = 0.268). CONCLUSIONS: MBCT-M is a promising treatment for reducing headache-related disability, with greater benefits in episodic than CM. TRIAL REGISTRATION INFORMATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02443519. CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE: This study provides Class III evidence that MBCT-M reduces headache disability to a greater extent in people with episodic than CM.

Wearables for Neurologic Conditions: Considerations for Our Patients and Research Limitations.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: In 2019, over 50 million Americans were expected to use wearables at least monthly. The technologies have varied capabilities, with many designed to monitor health conditions. We present a narrative review to raise awareness of wearable technologies that may be relevant to the field of neurology. We also discuss the implications of these wearables for our patients and briefly discuss issues related to researching new wearable technologies. RECENT FINDINGS: There are a variety of wearables for neurologic conditions, e.g., stroke (for potential arrhythmia capture), epilepsy, Parkinson disease, and sleep. Research is being performed to capture the risk of neuropsychiatric relapse. However, data are limited and adherence to these wearables is often poorly studied. SUMMARY: The care of neurology patients may ultimately be improved with the use of wearable technologies. More research needs to examine efficacy and implementation strategies.

Headache infusion centers: A survey on treatments provided, infusion center operations, and barriers to developing new infusion centers.

BACKGROUND: Infusion therapy refers to the intravenous administration of medicines and fluids for the treatment of status migrainosus, severe persistent headaches, or chronic headache. Headache practices and centers offer this treatment for patients as an alternative to the emergency department (ED) setting. However, little information is available in the literature on understanding the operations of an infusion center. OBJECTIVE: We sought to survey the Inpatient Headache & Emergency Medicine specialty section and the Academic Program Directors listserv of the American Headache Society (AHS) to better understand current practices. METHODS: A survey was advertised and distributed to the listservs of both the Inpatient Headache & Emergency Medicine specialty section and the Academic Program Directors, which combined included both academic and private practices. In addition, the survey was available on laptops at related events at an annual AHS meeting in Scottsdale. RESULTS: Of the 127 members of the combined group of both listservs, 50 responded with an overall survey response rate of 39%. Ten out of fifty were from programs with more than one responder completing the survey, leaving 40 unique headache programs. Academic programs made up the majority of programs (85%, 34/40). The total of 40 participating programs is comparable with the 47 academic headache programs listed on the American Migraine Foundation website at the time of the survey. Of the academic programs surveyed, most were hospital based (n = 23) compared with a satellite location (n = 11). Of all programs surveyed, 68% (27/40) offered infusion therapy. Of those that did not have an infusion practice (n = 13), the most common reason cited was insufficient staffing (n = 8). Key highlights of the survey included the following: The majority of programs offering infusions obtain prior authorization before scheduling (70%, 19/27) and offer patient availability 5 days/week (78%, 21/27) typically only during business hours (81%, 22/27). Programs reported that they typically give three to four medications during each infusion session (72%, 18/25). Treatment paradigms varied between programs. Programs surveyed were concentrated in the Northeast and Midwest regions of the United States. CONCLUSION: The limited number of headache infusion centers overall may contribute to the limited ability of headache infusion centers to prevent ED migraine visits. Headache patients can have unpredictable headache onset, and most of the infusion practices surveyed appeared to adapt to this by offering infusions most days during a work week. However, this need for multiple days per week may also explain the most common reason for not having an infusion practice, which is insufficient staffing. Various treatment paradigms are implemented by different practitioners, and future studies will have to focus on investigation of best practice.

Survey of Pain Medicine Specialists' Familiarity with Migraine Management.

OBJECTIVE: Pain specialists treat patients with headache and interface with those who use opioids more so than neurologists and headache specialists. We assessed the headache medicine knowledge and needs of pain specialists. DESIGN/SETTING: Cross-sectional online survey. SUBJECTS: Members of the American Academy of Pain Medicine. METHODS: Survey was based on a prior survey of primary care providers' knowledge and needs and was iteratively updated by four headache specialists, two with pain medicine affiliations. RESULTS: Of the 105 respondents, 71.4% were physicians, 34.3% were women, and they averaged 20.0 ± 13.6 years in practice. The most common specialty was anesthesia (36.1%, n = 35/97) followed by neurology (14.4%, n = 14/97). About half of providers (55.7%, n = 34/61 and 53.3%, n = 32/60) were familiar with the American Academy of Neurology Guidelines for pharmacological migraine prevention and the Choosing Wisely Campaign recommendations for limiting neuroimaging and opioids. Less than half of all providers (39.7%, n = 23/58) were familiar with the American Headache Society guidelines for emergency management of migraine. Providers were aware of Level A evidence-based nonpharmacological therapies, with over three-fourths recognizing cognitive behavioral therapy (80.7%, n = 50/62) and biofeedback (75.8%, n = 47/62) as evidence-based interventions. About 80% of providers (n = 50/64) estimate making migraine diagnoses in ≤50% of their patients with headache. Providers consider starting preventive headache therapy at 7.1 ± 3.9 days/month and report referring 34.3%±34.2% of patients to behavioral interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Dissemination and implementation of headache guidelines is needed for pain medicine specialists. Providers may need help diagnosing migraine based on currently accepted guidelines and referring for evidence-based behavioral therapies.