Advocacy Connection Team-Now educational program for headache fellows and patients/caregivers: Assessment of educational objectives.

OBJECTIVE: To assess for improvement in comfort in participating in advocacy for migraine and headache disorders and knowledge needed for successful advocacy. BACKGROUND: The Advocacy Connection Team (ACT)-Now program is an educational program offered through Miles for Migraine, a non-profit advocacy organization. It is designed to teach headache fellows and patients advocacy skills. METHODS: In a cross-sectional pre-test-post-test design, the 2021 ACT-Now cohort of 98 participants were administered a set of 11 pre-course survey questions identifying their role (healthcare provider/headache fellow or patient/caregiver), baseline knowledge of migraine-related disability and stigma, and baseline engagement and comfort with advocating. The post-course survey questions were the same as the pre-course questions, with the addition of one question assessing knowledge of migraine-related disability, additional questions addressing comfort levels advocating with insurance and policymakers, as well as creating an advocacy plan. RESULTS: For the pre-course survey, 69 participants responded and for the post-course survey, 40 participants responded. Compared to the pre-course survey, participants were able to correctly identify epidemiological data about migraine following the ACT-Now course (pre-course 46% correct, post-course 58% correct, p = 0.263). There was also an increase in the comfort level of participants in advocacy activities, including the creation of an advocacy action plan (pre-course 23% were "very comfortable" advocating, post-course 63%, p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: These results demonstrate that ACT-Now is effective at improving advocacy skills in a mixed cohort of patients and headache fellows, giving them the skills to create advocacy plans and engage with other patients and physicians, payers, and policymakers to create a more understanding, equitable and compassionate world for persons with migraine and other headache diseases.

Neuromodulation in migraine.

The International Neuromodulation Society defines therapeutic neuromodulation as the alteration of nerve activity through targeted delivery of a stimulus, such as electrical stimulation or chemical agents, to specific neurological sites in the body. Neuromodulation for the treatment of migraine is an evolving field offering further insight into the pathophysiology of migraine as well as advanced therapeutics. Central and peripheral neuronal targets have been explored in the efforts to reduce the frequency and severity of attacks. Invasive and noninvasive techniques have been developed, targeting either the central or peripheral nervous system. Noninvasive central neuromodulation techniques have the benefit of a low side effect profile in addition to higher level of evidence for use thanks to sham-controlled trials; however, these modalities are less clinically available for use. Noninvasive transcutaneous neuromodulation techniques that target the peripheral nervous system have provided devices that are available over the counter or by prescription. Several of these devices are effective for abortive and preventive treatment of migraine. Invasive techniques such as cranial nerve stimulation with implanted stimulator devices or spinal cord stimulation may be used for more aggressive management in patients refractory to other treatments. Overall, neuromodulation techniques can be particularly beneficial for medically complex or refractory patients, those that prefer nonmedication options, and those that have experienced adverse effects from medications.

Migraine and Gastroparesis.

PURPOSEOF REVIEW: Migraine is a chronic and disabling disease affecting a significant proportion of the world's population. There is evidence that gastroparesis, a gastrointestinal (GI) dysmotility disorder in which transit of gastric contents is delayed, can occur in the setting of migraine. This article aims to review recent literature on overlap in the pathophysiology and clinical manifestations of migraine and gastroparesis and highlight management considerations when these disorders coexist. RECENT FINDINGS: There has been increasing recognition of the importance of the connection between the GI tract and the brain, and mounting evidence for the overlap in the pathophysiology of migraine and gastroparesis specifically. There exists a complex interplay between the central, autonomic, and enteric nervous systems. Studies show that gastroparesis may be present during and between acute migraine attacks necessitating modification of management to optimize outcomes. Gastric dysmotility in the setting of migraine can impact absorption of oral migraine medications and alternate formulations should be considered for some patients. Noninvasive vagus nerve stimulation has been FDA cleared for migraine treatment and is also being studied in gastroparesis. Dysfunction of the autonomic nervous system is a significant feature in the pathophysiology of gut motility and migraine, making treatments that modulate the vagus nerve attractive for future research.

Dehydration and Headache.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: We define dehydration and its relationship to pain physiology including both primary and secondary headache disorders. RECENT FINDINGS: Intravenous fluids administered for acute migraine attacks in an emergency department setting have not been shown to improve pain outcomes. However, increased intravascular volume before diagnostic lumbar puncture may reduce the frequency of post-lumbar puncture headache from iatrogenic spinal fluid leak. Maintenance of euhydration can help treat orthostatic and "coat-hanger" headache due to autonomic disorders. Similarly, prevention of fluid losses can mitigate secondary headaches provoked by dehydration such as cerebral venous thrombosis or pituitary apoplexy. Dehydration alone may cause headache, but oftentimes exacerbates underlying medical conditions such as primary headache disorders or other conditions dependent on fluid balance.

Narrative review of neuroimaging in migraine with aura.

OBJECTIVE: To improve the understanding of the role and utility of various neuroimaging modalities (clinical and research) for the evaluation of migraine aura (MA) and hemiplegic migraine during the ictal and interictal phases. BACKGROUND: MA is defined by reversible neurologic symptoms and is considered a manifestation of a primary condition. As such, most patients with MA do not require imaging. However, if there are atypical features, change in symptom pattern, or it is a first-time presentation, neuroimaging may be used to evaluate for secondary conditions. Neuroimaging includes many modalities, and it is important to consider what information is being captured by these modalities (i.e., structural vs. functional). Imaging abnormalities may be noted both during (ictal) and between (interictal) MA attacks, and it is important for clinicians to be familiar with neuroimaging findings reported in migraine with aura (MWA) compared with other conditions. METHODS: With the assistance of a medical librarian, we performed a review of the literature pertaining to MWA and neuroimaging in PubMed. Search terms included were magnetic resonance imaging, positron-emission tomography, single photon-emission computed tomography, functional magnetic resonance imaging, and migraine with aura. We hand-searched these references to inform our subsequent literature review. RESULTS: Acute MA can be associated with several unique neuroimaging findings-reversible cortical diffusion restriction, cortical venous engorgement, and a "biphasic" transition from hypoperfusion to hyperperfusion. Imaging findings during MA tend to span more than one vascular territory. Between acute attacks, neuroimaging in people with MWA can resemble migraine without aura in terms of white matter abnormalities and "infarct-like lesions." Research imaging modalities such as volumetric analysis and functional imaging have demonstrated unique findings in migraine with aura. CONCLUSION: Although migraine is a clinical diagnosis, understanding of neuroimaging findings in MWA can help clinicians interpret imaging findings and improve patient care.

Real-world efficacy, tolerability, and safety of ubrogepant.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the real-world efficacy, tolerability, and safety of ubrogepant in a tertiary headache center. BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of ubrogepant for the acute treatment of migraine were established in phase 3 randomized controlled trials. However, there is no real-world data of patient experience with ubrogepant in a population in which the majority of patients have chronic migraine, multiple prior unsuccessful treatments, complex medical comorbidities, and concurrent use of other migraine-specific medications. METHOD: This was a post-market cohort study conducted at Mayo Clinic Arizona. All patients prescribed ubrogepant were tracked and contacted 1-3 months after the prescription to answer a list of standardized questions. Demographic information and additional headache history were obtained from chart review. RESULTS: We obtained eligible questionnaire responses from 106 patients. Chronic migraine accounted for 92/106 (86.8%) of the population. Complete headache freedom (from mild/moderate/severe to no pain) and headache relief (from moderate/severe to mild/no pain or mild to no pain) for ≥75% of all treated attacks at 2 hours after taking ubrogepant were achieved in 20/105 (19.0%) and 50/105 (47.6%) patients, respectively. A total of 33/106 (31.1%) patients reported being "very satisfied" with ubrogepant. Adverse events were reported in 42/106 (39.6%) patients, including fatigue in 29/106 (27.4%), dry mouth in 8/106 (7.5%), nausea/vomiting in 7/106 (6.6%), constipation in 5/106 (4.7%), dizziness in 3/106 (2.8%), and other adverse events in 7/106 (6.6%). Predictive factors for being a "good responder" to ubrogepant, defined as headache relief for ≥75% of all treated attacks at 2 hours after taking ubrogepant, included migraine with aura, episodic migraine, <5 prior unsuccessful preventive or acute treatment trials. Additionally, prior treatment responses to a CGRP monoclonal antibody and onabotulinumtoxinA injections are predictive of treatment responses and patient satisfaction to ubrogepant. For the 62/106 (58.5%) patients concurrently using a CGRP monoclonal antibody, there was no difference in the "good responder" rate or adverse event rate compared to those who were not on a CGRP monoclonal antibody, though the rate of moderate, as opposed to mild adverse events was higher, 11/62 (47.8%) versus 3/44 (17.6%), p = 0.048. Additionally, 16 patients had a history of significant cardiovascular or cerebrovascular diseases. No severe adverse events were reported in any patient. CONCLUSION: Our study confirms and extends the efficacy profile and tolerability of ubrogepant in a real-world tertiary headache clinic and identifies factors that may predict efficacy. Adverse event rates were higher than reported in clinical trials. Further studies are needed to confirm these findings and to evaluate the long-term efficacy and safety of ubrogepant.

Advocacy in Headache Medicine: Tips at the Bedside, the Institutional Level, and Beyond.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: We describe the pervasiveness of headache diseases across the globe and the need for healthcare advocacy, define healthcare advocacy, and identify how providers can incorporate healthcare advocacy into clinical practice and beyond. RECENT FINDINGS: Nearly 3 billion people across the globe experience migraine or tension-type headache, yet headache diseases receive a fraction of the funding that is allocated to other diseases. Despite its prevalence, those with headache diseases, especially migraine, experience external and internal stigma. As physicians, our job extends past the direct needs of the patient and must also focus on the systemic problems affecting our patients such as accessibility to healthcare providers and treatment options, as well as addressing stigma. We can empower our patients with education, community, and supportive, non-stigmatizing language used to describe headache diseases. Headache diseases are prevalent throughout the world and contribute to a substantial amount of disability. Disability is further compounded by stigma. Advocacy starts with empowering patients and peers with knowledge. It extends into the workplace to create accommodations and in the community to raise awareness and lobby for access to specialists, treatment options, and research funding.

Treatment-Refractory Headache in the Setting of COVID-19 Pneumonia: Migraine or Meningoencephalitis? Case Report.

The coronavirus responsible for the COVID-19 pandemic, SARS-2-CoV, most commonly involves the respiratory tract; however, more severe cases have been found to have multi-organ involvement, including the central nervous system. Headache has been documented as a presenting symptom of COVID-19, which may prompt neurology consultation. To date, few cases of COVID-19 meningitis have been confirmed, but it must remain in the differential diagnosis for patients with headache and fever. A 58-year-old female with multiple sclerosis on fingolimod, chronic migraine well-controlled on fremanezumab, and cerebrovascular disease presented with fevers and respiratory symptoms, as well as acute treatment-refractory headache with associated neck stiffness and transient behavioral abnormalities. Although not confirmed with cerebrospinal fluid testing, we suspect this patient had COVID-19 meningoencephalitis, highlighting the need to consider secondary headaches in patients with coronavirus infection, even in the setting of chronic migraine. We offer anecdotal treatment recommendations for acutely refractory secondary headache and guidance for the consulting neurologist during the COVID-19 pandemic.

COVID-19 and Headache Medicine: A Narrative Review of Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drug (NSAID) and Corticosteroid Use.

OBJECTIVE: To summarize the current literature on non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug and corticosteroid use during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, recognizing that these are commonly used treatments in the field of headache medicine. BACKGROUND: The use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and corticosteroids in patients during the COVID-19 pandemic has been a controversial topic within the medical community and international and national health organizations. Lay press and social media outlets have circulated opinions on this topic despite the fact that the evidence for or against the use of these medications is sparse. In the field of headache medicine, these medications are used commonly and both patients and clinicians may have questions or hesitations pertaining to their use during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: A detailed search of the scientific and popular literature was performed. RESULTS: There is limited literature pertaining to the safety of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and corticosteroids during the COVID-19 pandemic. To date, there are no clear scientific data that preclude the use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in the general population who may acquire COVID-19 or in those acutely infected with the virus. Several health organizations have concluded that treatment with corticosteroids during active infection should be avoided due to concerns of prolonged viral shedding in the respiratory tract and the lack of survival benefit based on the data from past coronaviruses and influenza virus; specific exceptions exist including treatment for underlying asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, septic shock, and acute respiratory distress syndrome. CONCLUSION: Scientific information regarding the COVID-19 pandemic is constantly evolving, and limited or contradictory information can lead to confusion for both patients and clinicians. It is recommended that prior to prescribing non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and steroids for the treatment of headache, clinicians have open discussions with their patients about the potential risks and benefits of using these medications during the COVID-19 pandemic. This manuscript summarizes the currently available evidence and understanding about these risks and benefits to help clinicians navigate such discussions.

Is King-Devick Testing, Compared With Other Sideline Screening Tests, Superior for the Assessment of Sports-related Concussion?: A Critically Appraised Topic.

BACKGROUND: Concussion affects almost 4 million individuals annually. There are many sideline screening tools available to assist in the detection of sports-related concussion. The King-Devick (K-D) test in association with Mayo Clinic utilizes rapid number naming to test saccadic eye movements in order to screen for concussion. An ideal screening tool for concussion would correctly identify all athletes with active concussion. The accuracy of K-D testing compared with other sideline screening tools is undetermined. OBJECTIVE: To critically assess current evidence regarding the utility of K-D testing as a sideline screening tool for acute concussion and compare K-D testing to other sideline concussion assessments. METHODS: The objective was addressed through the development of a critically appraised topic that included a clinical scenario, structured question, literature search strategy, critical appraisal, assessment of results, evidence summary, commentary, and bottom-line conclusions. Participants included consultant and resident neurologists, a medical librarian, clinical epidemiologists, and content experts in the field of concussion neurology and neuro-ophthalmology. RESULTS: A recent meta-analysis was selected for critical appraisal. Cohorts analyzing athletes with sports-related concussion were selected, and utilized K-D testing as the main baseline and sideline assessment of concussion. K-D testing was found to have a high sensitivity and specificity for detecting concussion when there was worsening from baseline. CONCLUSION: K-D testing has high sensitivity and specificity for detecting sideline concussion. Compared with other sideline screening tools that do not include vision testing, it has greater accuracy. Screening for concussion is optimized when multiple testing modalities are used in conjunction.

The Hypertensive Headache: a Review.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The purpose of this review is to provide an overview and update on the common causes of headache attributed to arterial hypertension with a focus on secondary headache disorders. We will also highlight uncommon and recent findings in this area of research. RECENT FINDINGS: There is some controversy in the relationship between chronic hypertension and headache, particularly migraine; recent research suggests that there may be a link, but it is likely complex and multifactorial. Many recent studies and case reports demonstrate that the pathophysiology underlying the onset of headache as it relates to abrupt rises in blood pressure seems to lie at the cellular level and mechanically becomes an issue with disruption of the blood-brain barrier. Although not a formally defined headache entity, carotid revascularization syndrome demonstrates this phenomenon and also has a recent set of proposed criteria that include headache and elevated blood pressure. This paper reviews the various etiologies of hypertensive headaches, mostly in regard to headache as a secondary symptom of elevated blood pressure. We will also discuss trends of hypertensive headache in pregnancy. Finally, we will touch on controversy that exists in relation to chronic hypertension and its causal relationship to headache as well as the relationship between hypertension and migraine.

Does High Cerebral Microbleed Burden Increase the Risk of Intracerebral Hemorrhage After Intravenous Tissue Plasminogen Activator for Acute Ischemic Stroke?

BACKGROUND: The risk of developing intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) after the administration of intravenous tissue plasminogen activator for acute ischemic stroke is well established in the general population. However, the risk associated with stroke thrombolysis in patients with a history of cerebral microbleeds (CMBs) is undetermined. OBJECTIVE: The main objective of this study was to critically assess current evidence with regard to the risk of development of ICH after the administration of intravenous tissue plasminogen activator for acute ischemic stroke in patients with CMBs. METHODS: The objective was addressed through the development of a critically appraised topic that included a clinical scenario, structured question, literature search strategy, critical appraisal, assessment of results, evidence summary, commentary, and bottom-line conclusions. Participants included consultant and resident neurologists, a medical librarian, clinical epidemiologists, and content experts in the field of vascular and hospital neurology. RESULTS: A recent individual patient data meta-analysis was selected for critical appraisal. Cohorts were analyzed with pretreatment magnetic resonance imaging to determine CMB burden and were followed-up to assess subsequent symptomatic ICH, hemorrhagic transformation, parenchymal hemorrhage (PH), and remote PH (PHr) following intravenous thrombolysis. Risk of symptomatic ICH, PH, and PHr was increased in the presence of CMBs, with PHr having the strongest association with increasing CMB burden. Only patients with >10 CMBs were found to have associations with poor outcome at 3 to 6 months, whereas there was no association with 3 to 6 months' mortality. CONCLUSIONS: CMBs are associated with an increased risk of postthrombolysis ICH; however, the clinical implications have yet to be determined.

SUNCT and SUNA: an Update and Review.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The purpose of this review is to provide an update on the clinical features, diagnosis, pathogenesis, epidemiology, and treatment of the rare primary headache disorders short-lasting unilateral neuralgiform headache attacks with conjunctival injection and tearing (SUNCT) and short-lasting unilateral neuralgiform headache attacks with autonomic symptoms (SUNA). Together these entities are known as short-lasting unilateral neuralgiform headache attacks (SUNHA). RECENT FINDINGS: Recent case reports of secondary SUNCT and SUNA due to medullary infarcts support the theory that the trigeminohypothalamic pathway is involved in the pathophysiology of SUNHA. While medical therapy for SUNHA has not significantly changed, surgical therapy for refractory SUNCT and SUNA has made advancements with a recent case series demonstrating the efficacy of deep brain stimulation. We will discuss the pathophysiology of both the pain and the autonomic symptoms experienced in SUNCT and SUNA attacks as well the medical, procedural, and surgical options for treatment with emphasis on recent advances. Specific secondary causes reported in the recent literature will be discussed in brief.