Safety and tolerability of atogepant for the preventive treatment of migraine: a post hoc analysis of pooled data from four clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Conventional, non-specific preventive migraine treatments often demonstrate low rates of treatment persistence due to poor efficacy or tolerability. Effective, well-tolerated preventive treatments are needed to reduce migraine symptoms, improve function, and enhance quality of life. Atogepant is a migraine-specific oral calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonist that is indicated for the preventive treatment of migraine in adults. This analysis evaluated the safety and tolerability profile of atogepant for the preventive treatment of migraine, including adverse events (AEs) of interest, such as constipation, nausea, hepatic safety, weight changes, and cardiac disorders. METHODS: This post hoc analysis was performed using data pooled from 2 (12-week) randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials (RCTs) and 2 (40- and 52-week) open-label long-term safety (LTS) trials of oral atogepant for episodic migraine (EM). RESULTS: The safety population included 1550 participants from the pooled RCTs (atogepant, n = 1142; placebo, n = 408) and 1424 participants from the pooled LTS trials (atogepant, n = 1228; standard care [SC], n = 196). In total, 643/1142 (56.3%) atogepant participants and 218/408 (53.4%) placebo participants experienced ≥ 1 treatment-emergent AEs (TEAEs) in the RCTs. In the LTS trials, 792/1228 (64.5%) of atogepant participants and 154/196 (78.6%) of SC participants experienced ≥ 1 TEAEs. The most commonly reported TEAEs (≥ 5%) in participants who received atogepant once daily were upper respiratory tract infection (5.3% in RCTs, 7.7% in LTS trials), constipation (6.1% in RCTs, 5.0% in LTS trials), nausea (6.6% in RCTs, 4.6% in LTS trials), and urinary tract infection (3.4% in RCTs, 5.2% in LTS trials). Additionally, weight loss appeared to be dose- and duration-dependent. Most TEAEs were considered unrelated to study drug and few led to discontinuation. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, atogepant is safe and well tolerated in pooled RCTs and LTS trials for the preventive treatment of EM in adults. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT02848326 (MD-01), NCT03777059 (ADVANCE), NCT03700320 (study 302), NCT03939312 (study 309).

Safety and tolerability results of atogepant for the preventive treatment of episodic migraine from a 40-week, open-label multicenter extension of the phase 3 ADVANCE trial.

BACKGROUND: Atogepant is a United States Food and Drug Administration-approved oral calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonist for the preventive treatment of episodic migraine. The study objective was to evaluate the long-term safety and tolerability of atogepant in participants who completed the phase 3 ADVANCE trial (NCT03777059). METHODS: This 40-week, open-label extension trial (NCT03939312) monitored safety in participants receiving oral atogepant 60 mg once daily, followed by a four-week safety follow-up period. RESULTS: Of the 685 participants taking at least one dose of atogepant, the treatment period was completed by 74.6% of participants with a mean (standard deviation) treatment duration of 233.6 (89.3) days. Treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 62.5% of participants, with upper respiratory tract infection (5.5%), urinary tract infection (5.3%), nasopharyngitis (4.8%), sinusitis (3.6%), constipation (3.4%), and nausea (3.4%) occurring at ≥3%. Serious adverse events were observed in 3.4% of participants (none were treatment-related), and there were no deaths. Adverse events leading to discontinuation occurring at >0.1% were nausea (0.4%) and abdominal pain, vomiting, weight decrease, dizziness, and migraine (0.3% each). CONCLUSION: These results are consistent with atogepant's known safety profile and support long-term use of atogepant 60 mg once daily dosing as safe and well tolerated.ClinicalTrials.gov Registration Number: NCT03939312.

Eptinezumab improved patient-reported outcomes in patients with migraine and medication-overuse headache: Subgroup analysis of the randomized PROMISE-2 trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of eptinezumab on patient-reported outcomes in patients with chronic migraine (CM) and medication-overuse headache (MOH). BACKGROUND: MOH is a secondary headache disorder commonly occurring in patients with CM and associated with functional and psychological impairments. Medication overuse and monthly headache and migraine days were reduced with eptinezumab compared with placebo as published previously; however, these outcomes do not fully capture the burden of migraine and treatment effect. METHODS: PROMISE-2 was a phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in adults with CM. Patients were randomized (1:1:1) to receive eptinezumab 100 mg, eptinezumab 300 mg, or placebo (up to 2 doses, 12 weeks apart). Patients completed the following patient-reported outcomes: 6-item Headache Impact Test (HIT-6), Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC), patient-identified most bothersome symptom (PI-MBS), and 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36). RESULTS: A total of 431 CM patients (139, 147, and 145 patients in the eptinezumab 100 mg, eptinezumab 300 mg, and placebo groups, respectively) had MOH diagnosed at screening (40.2% of the total PROMISE-2 population [n = 1072]). In CM with MOH patients, both doses of eptinezumab were associated with clinically meaningful improvements in mean HIT-6 total scores by week 4 and remained improved throughout the 24-week study. Responder rates for individual HIT-6 items were greater with eptinezumab than with placebo at all time points. At week 12, almost twice as many eptinezumab-treated patients indicated the PGIC was "much" or "very much" improved (58.5% [79/135, 100 mg] and 67.4% [95/147, 300 mg] vs. 35.8% [48/134, placebo]). Patients in the eptinezumab groups showed numerically greater improvements over placebo in the PI-MBS and SF-36 scores. CONCLUSIONS: This subgroup analysis in patients with CM/MOH at baseline suggests that eptinezumab treatment is associated with early, sustained, and clinically meaningful improvements in patient-reported outcomes.

Non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation for prevention of migraine: The multicenter, randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled PREMIUM II trial.

AIM: Evaluate the efficacy and safety of non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation for migraine prevention. METHODS: After completing a 4-week diary run-in period, adults who had migraine with or without aura were randomly assigned to receive active non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation or sham therapy during a 12-week double-blind period. RESULTS: Of 336 enrolled participants, 113 (active, n = 56; sham, n = 57) completed ≥70 days of the double-blind period and were ≥66% adherent with treatment, comprising the prespecified modified intention-to-treat population. The COVID-19 pandemic led to early trial termination, and the population was ∼60% smaller than the statistical target for full power. Mean reduction in monthly migraine days (primary endpoint) was 3.12 for the active group and 2.29 days for the sham group (difference, -0.83; p = 0.2329). Responder rate (i.e. the percentage of participants with a ≥50% reduction in migraine days) was greater in the active group (44.87%) than the sham group (26.81%; p = 0.0481). Prespecified subgroup analysis suggested that participants with aura responded preferentially. No serious device-related adverse events were reported. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest clinical utility of non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation for migraine prevention, particularly for patients who have migraine with aura, and reinforce the well-established safety and tolerability profile of this therapy.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03716505).

Quantity changes in acute headache medication use among patients with chronic migraine treated with eptinezumab: subanalysis of the PROMISE-2 study.

BACKGROUND: Patients with chronic migraine (CM) treated with eptinezumab in the PROMISE-2 trial achieved greater reductions in migraine and headache frequency, impact, and acute headache medication (AHM) use than did patients who received placebo. This post hoc analysis examines relationships between headache frequency reductions and changes in AHM use in patients in PROMISE-2. METHODS: PROMISE-2 was a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial conducted in adults with CM. Patients were randomized to eptinezumab 100 mg, 300 mg, or placebo, administered intravenously once every 12 weeks for up to two doses. Patients recorded headache/AHM information daily and for each event in an electronic diary; data from all days with daily reports were included. Shifts in headache frequency and AHM use were assessed in the three populations: total CM population, patients with CM and medication-overuse headache (MOH), and patients with CM and MOH who were ≥ 50% responders during treatment (response over weeks 1-24). RESULTS: A total of 1072 adults with CM received treatment (eptinezumab, n = 706; placebo, n = 366). Mean baseline headache frequency was 20.5 days; mean baseline AHM days was 13.4; 431 patients had MOH, of which 225 (52.2%) experienced ≥50% response over weeks 1-24. Relative to baseline, the proportion of days with both headache and AHM use decreased 25.1% (eptinezumab) versus 17.0% (placebo) in the total population (N = 1072), 29.2% versus 18.4% in the MOH subpopulation (n = 431), and 38.3% versus 31.5% in the CM with MOH population with ≥50% response subgroup (n = 225) during weeks 1-24. The proportion of days with headache and triptan use decreased 9.1% (eptinezumab) versus 5.8% (placebo), 11.8% versus 7.2%, and 14.5% versus 12.6%, respectively. Reductions in other AHM types were smaller. CONCLUSIONS: In this post hoc analysis, eptinezumab use in patients with CM was associated with greater decreases in days with headache with AHM overall and with triptans in particular. The magnitude of effect was greater in the subgroup of CM patients with MOH and ≥ 50% response. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02974153 . Eptinezumab reduces headache frequency and acute medication use in patients with chronic migraine.

Efficacy, tolerability, and safety of eptinezumab in patients with a dual diagnosis of chronic migraine and medication-overuse headache: Subgroup analysis of PROMISE-2.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of eptinezumab 100 and 300 mg compared with placebo in patients with the dual diagnosis of chronic migraine (CM) and medication-overuse headache (MOH). BACKGROUND: Eptinezumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody targeting calcitonin gene-related peptide, may be effective for treating patients with a dual diagnosis of CM and MOH. METHODS: PROMISE-2 (NCT02974153) was a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study that comprised a screening visit, a 28-day pretreatment period, and a 32-week study duration. Patients in this exploratory analysis of a prespecified subgroup had confirmed diagnoses of both CM and MOH at screening. Patients were randomly assigned to receive intravenous eptinezumab 100, 300 mg, or placebo every 12 weeks. Efficacy outcomes included mean changes from baseline in monthly migraine days (MMDs) during weeks 1-12, migraine responder rates at week 12, and percentages of patients below International Classification of Headache Disorders thresholds for CM and MOH over weeks 1-24. RESULTS: There were 431 patients who were diagnosed with CM and MOH as specified in the protocol and received eptinezumab 100 mg (n = 139), 300 mg (n = 147), or placebo (n = 145). During the baseline period, these patients experienced an average of 16.7 migraine days across treatment arms. Over weeks 1-12, eptinezumab-treated patients experienced greater reductions from baseline in MMDs than placebo patients (100 mg, change from baseline = -8.4, difference from placebo [95% confidence interval (CI)] = -3.0 [-4.56, -1.52], p < 0.0001 vs. placebo; 300 mg, change from baseline = -8.6, difference from placebo [95% CI] = -3.2 [-4.66, -1.78], p < 0.0001 vs. placebo; placebo, -5.4). Compared with placebo, more eptinezumab-treated patients were ≥50% migraine responders (100 mg, 84/139 [60.4%]; 300 mg, 91/147 [61.9%]; placebo, 50/145 [34.5%]) or ≥75% responders (100 mg, 38/139 [27.3%]; 300 mg, 44/147 [29.9%]; placebo, 21/145 [14.5%]) over weeks 1-12. Therapeutic benefits with eptinezumab were observed from day 1 after dosing, and improvements were sustained with an additional dose. For the full 24-week treatment period, 71/139 (51.1%), 80/147 (54.4%), and 47/145 (32.4%) of 100, 300 mg, and placebo-treated patients, respectively, were below CM thresholds, and of the patients who provided sufficient acute medication data, 47/93 (50.5%), 53/107 (49.5%), and 26/96 (27.1%), respectively, were below medication-overuse thresholds. CONCLUSIONS: In patients diagnosed with both CM and MOH, eptinezumab treatment resulted in greater reductions in MMDs, higher responder rates, and fewer patients meeting CM and MOH criteria, thus demonstrating the efficacy and clinical utility of eptinezumab in this patient population.

Preventive migraine treatment with eptinezumab reduced acute headache medication and headache frequency to below diagnostic thresholds in patients with chronic migraine and medication-overuse headache.

OBJECTIVE: This post hoc analysis in patients medically diagnosed with chronic migraine (CM) and medication-overuse headache (MOH) evaluated reductions in the use of acute headache medication (AHM) and sustained changes in the diagnostic status of CM and MOH following eptinezumab treatment in the PROMISE-2 study. BACKGROUND: Eptinezumab, a monoclonal antibody that inhibits calcitonin gene-related peptide, is approved in the United States for the preventive treatment of migraine. A previous analysis showed that eptinezumab reduced monthly migraine days and was well tolerated in the subgroup of PROMISE-2 patients diagnosed with both CM and MOH. METHODS: The phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled PROMISE-2 study (NCT02974153) randomized adults with CM to eptinezumab 100 mg, 300 mg, or placebo (administered intravenously every 12 weeks for up to two doses). MOH was prospectively diagnosed at screening by trained physicians based on 3 months of medication history and International Classification of Headache Disorders-3ß criteria. This post hoc analysis evaluated changes in total and class-specific days of AHM usage, the percentage of patients using AHM at or above MOH diagnostic thresholds, and the percentage of patients experiencing monthly headache and migraine day frequency below diagnostic thresholds for MOH and/or CM. RESULTS: In PROMISE-2, 431/1072 (40.2%) patients with CM were diagnosed with MOH (eptinezumab 100 mg, n = 139; 300 mg, n = 147; placebo, n = 145) and were included in this analysis. Total monthly AHM use decreased from 20.6 days/month at baseline to 10.6 days/month over 24 weeks of treatment (49% decrease) with eptinezumab 100 mg, from 20.7 to 10.5 days/month (49% decrease) with eptinezumab 300 mg, and from 19.8 to 14.0 days/month (29% decrease) with placebo. Numerically greater decreases from baseline with eptinezumab were also observed for individual drug classes. In each study month, the percentages of patients who were below MOH thresholds were numerically higher for both eptinezumab doses compared with placebo, as were the percentages of patients experiencing headache and migraine frequency below CM thresholds. Of patients with available data across the entire treatment period, 29.0% (58/200) of patients treated with eptinezumab stopped meeting and remained below diagnostic thresholds for both CM and MOH during Weeks 1-24, as well as 6.3% (6/96) of patients who received placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Across 24 weeks of treatment, eptinezumab reduced AHM use in patients diagnosed with CM and MOH. More than one-fourth (29%) of patients treated with eptinezumab did not meet the diagnostic thresholds for either CM or MOH for the entire treatment period.

Treatment benefit among migraine patients taking fremanezumab: results from a post hoc responder analysis of two placebo-controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Monoclonal antibodies targeting the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) pathway, including the fully humanized monoclonal antibody (IgG2Δa) fremanezumab, have demonstrated safety and efficacy for migraine prevention. Clinical trials include responders and nonresponders; efficacy outcomes describe mean values across both groups and thus provide little insight into the clinical benefit in responders. Clinicians and their patients want to understand the extent of clinical improvement in patients who respond. This post hoc analysis of fremanezumab treatment attempts to answer this question: what is the benefit in subjects who responded to treatment during the two, phase 3 HALO clinical trials? METHODS: We included subjects with episodic migraine (EM) or chronic migraine (CM) who received fremanezumab quarterly (675 mg/placebo/placebo) or monthly (EM: 225 mg/225 mg/225 mg; CM: 675 mg/225 mg/225 mg) during the 12-week randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled HALO EM and HALO CM clinical trials. EM and CM responders were defined as participants with a reduction of ≥ 2 or ≥ 4 monthly migraine days, respectively. Treatment benefits evaluated included reductions in monthly migraine days, acute headache medication use, and headache-related disability, and changes in health-related quality of life (HRQoL). RESULTS: Overall, 857 participants from the HALO trials were identified as responders (EM: 429 [73.8%]; CM: 428 [56.7%]). Reductions in the monthly average number of migraine days were greater among EM (quarterly: 5.4 days; monthly: 5.5 days) and CM (quarterly: 8.7 days; monthly: 9.1 days) responders compared with the overall population. The proportion of participants achieving ≥ 50% reduction in the average monthly number of migraine days was also greater in responders (EM: quarterly, 59.8%; monthly, 63.7%; CM: quarterly, 52.8%; monthly, 59.0%) than in the overall population. Greater reductions in the average number of days of acute headache medication use, greater reductions in headache-related disability scores, and larger improvements in HRQoL were observed among EM and CM responders compared with the overall populations. CONCLUSIONS: Fremanezumab responders achieved clinically meaningful improvements in all outcomes. The magnitude of improvements with fremanezumab across efficacy outcomes was far greater in responders than in the overall trial population, providing insight into expected treatment benefits in participants who respond to fremanezumab in clinical practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT02629861 (HALO EM) and NCT02621931 (HALO CM).

Neuroimaging for Migraine: The American Headache Society Systematic Review and Evidence-Based Guideline.

OBJECTIVE: To provide updated evidence-based recommendations about when to obtain neuroimaging in patients with migraine. METHODS: Articles were included in the systematic review if they studied adults 18 and over who were seeking outpatient treatment for any type of migraine and who underwent neuroimaging (MRI or CT). Medline, Web of Science, and Cochrane Clinical Trials were searched from 1973 to August 31, 2018. Reviewers identified studies, extracted data, and assessed the quality of the evidence in duplicate. We assessed study quality using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. RESULTS: The initial search yielded 2269 publications. Twenty three articles met inclusion criteria and were included in the final review. The majority of studies were retrospective cohort or cross-sectional studies. There were 4 prospective observational studies. Ten studies evaluated the utility of CT only, 9 MRI only, and 4 evaluated both. Common abnormalities included chronic ischemia or atrophy with CT and MRI scanning, and non-specific white matter lesions with MRI. Clinically meaningful abnormalities requiring intervention were relatively rare. Clinically significant neuroimaging abnormalities in patients with headaches consistent with migraine without atypical features or red flags appeared no more common than in the general population. RECOMMENDATIONS: There is no necessity to do neuroimaging in patients with headaches consistent with migraine who have a normal neurologic examination, and there are no atypical features or red flags present. Grade A Neuroimaging may be considered for presumed migraine for the following reasons: unusual, prolonged, or persistent aura; increasing frequency, severity, or change in clinical features, first or worst migraine, migraine with brainstem aura, migraine with confusion, migraine with motor manifestations (hemiplegic migraine), late-life migraine accompaniments, aura without headache, side-locked headache, and posttraumatic headache. Most of these are consensus based with little or no literature support. Grade C.

A multicenter, prospective, single arm, open label, observational study of sTMS for migraine prevention (ESPOUSE Study).

Objective To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of single pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation (sTMS) for the preventive treatment of migraine. Background sTMS was originally developed for the acute treatment of migraine with aura. Open label experience has suggested a preventive benefit. The objective of this trial was to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of sTMS for migraine prevention. Methods The eNeura SpringTMS Post-Market Observational U.S. Study of Migraine (ESPOUSE) Study was a multicenter, prospective, open label, observational study. From December 2014 to March 2016, patients with migraine (n = 263) were consented to complete a 1-month baseline headache diary followed by 3 months of treatment. The treatment protocol consisted of preventive (four pulses twice daily) and acute (three pulses repeated up to three times for each attack) treatment. Patients reported daily headache status, medication use, and device use with a monthly headache diary. The primary endpoint, mean reduction of headache days compared to baseline, was measured over the 28-day period during weeks 9 to 12. The primary endpoint was compared to a statistically-derived placebo estimate (performance goal). Secondary endpoints included: 50% responder rate, acute headache medication consumption, HIT-6, and mean reduction in total headache days from baseline of any intensity. Results Of a total of 263 consented subjects, 229 completed a baseline diary, and 220 were found to be eligible based on the number of headache days. The device was assigned to 217 subjects (Safety Data Set) and 132 were included in the intention to treat Full Analysis Set. For the primary endpoint, there was a -2.75 ± 0.40 mean reduction of headache days from baseline (9.06 days) compared to the performance goal (-0.63 days) ( p < 0.0001). The 50% responder rate of 46% (95% CI 37%, 56%) was also significantly higher ( p < 0.0001) than the performance goal (20%). There was a reduction of -2.93 (5.24) days of acute medication use, headache impact measured by HIT-6, -3.1 (6.4) ( p < 0.0001), and total headache days of any intensity -3.16 days (5.21) compared to the performance goal (-0.63 days) ( p < 0.0001). The most common adverse events were lightheadedness (3.7%), tingling (3.2%), and tinnitus (3.2%). There were no serious adverse events. Conclusions This open label study suggests that sTMS may be an effective, well-tolerated treatment option for migraine prevention. Trial registration number NCT02357381.

Triggers, Protectors, and Predictors in Episodic Migraine.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: A wide variety of triggers prompt attacks in episodic migraine. Although experimental triggers such as glyceryl trinitrate reliably produce migraine, natural triggers are much less predictable and vary in importance between individuals. This review describes the most common triggers in episodic migraine and provides strategies for managing them in clinical practice. RECENT FINDINGS: Multiple migraine attack triggers have been established based on patient surveys, diary studies, and clinical trials. Stress, menstrual cycle changes, weather changes, sleep disturbances, alcohol, and other foods are among the most common factors mentioned. Clinical studies have verified that fasting, premenstrual periods in women, "letdown" after stress, and most likely low barometric pressures are migraine triggers. Premonitory symptoms such as neck pain, fatigue, and sensitivity to lights, sounds, or odors may mimic triggers. Multiple studies clearly demonstrate triggers in episodic migraine, often related to change in homeostasis or environment. Many common migraine triggers are not easily modifiable, and avoiding triggers may not be realistic. Healthy lifestyle choices such as exercise, adequate sleep, stress management, and eating regularly may prevent triggers and transformation to chronic migraine over time.

Ketamine Infusions for Treatment Refractory Headache.

BACKGROUND: Management of chronic migraine (CM) or new daily persistent headache (NDPH) in those who require aggressive outpatient and inpatient treatment is challenging. Ketamine has been suggested as a new treatment for this intractable population. METHODS: This is a retrospective review of 77 patients who underwent administration of intravenous, subanesthetic ketamine for CM or NDPH. All patients had previously failed aggressive outpatient and inpatient treatments. Records were reviewed for patients treated between January 2006 and December 2014. RESULTS: The mean headache pain rating using a 0-10 pain scale was an average of 7.1 at admission and 3.8 on discharge (P < .0001). The majority (55/77, 71.4%) of patients were classified as acute responders defined as at least 2-point improvement in headache pain at discharge. Some (15/77, 27.3%) acute responders maintained this benefit at their follow-up office visit but sustained response did not achieve statistical significance. The mean length of infusion was 4.8 days. Most patients tolerated ketamine well. A number of adverse events were observed, but very few were serious. CONCLUSIONS: Subanesthetic ketamine infusions may be beneficial in individuals with CM or NDPH who have failed other aggressive treatments. Controlled trials may confirm this, and further studies may be useful in elucidating more robust benefit in a less refractory patient population.

How to Apply the AHS Evidence Assessment of the Acute Treatment of Migraine in Adults to your Patient with Migraine.

The "Acute Treatment of Migraine in Adults: The American Headache Society Evidence Assessment of Migraine Pharmacotherapies" provides levels of evidence for medication efficacy for acute treatment of migraine. The goal of this companion paper is to provide guidance on how to choose between evidence-based treatment options, and, based on the clinical characteristics of the patient and their migraine attacks, to provide guidance on designing an individualized strategy for managing migraine attacks. The acute pharmacological treatments described in the American Headache Society evidence assessment can be divided into those initially taken by the patient during the headache phase of the migraine attack, those taken by the patient later in the attack when initial treatments fail, and those administered intravenously or intramuscularly in urgent care settings. Medications taken initially by patients in the headache phase include nonspecific analgesics such as acetaminophen and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), triptans, and dihydroergotamine (DHE). A stratified approach to treatment is advised, with the choice of medication based on the patient's treatment needs, taking into consideration the attack severity, presence of associated symptoms such as nausea and vomiting, and the degree of migraine-related disability. Individuals with migraine may find reassurance in having a "back-up plan" in the event of an initial acute treatment failure. For those individuals who had a partial response to the initial acute treatment, a second dose might be indicated. When the initial treatment does not provide meaningful and sustained benefits, a treatment from a different medication class is typically chosen. Depending upon the initial treatment used, this might include NSAIDs, triptans, or DHE. Opioids or acetaminophen in combination with codeine or tramadol can be considered as part of the "back-up plan," provided they are used infrequently. When all patient administered treatments have failed and moderate to severe migraine symptoms remain, some individuals seek treatment in urgent care settings. The intravenous administration of antiemetics with or without an intravenous or intramuscular NSAID or DHE, or an intramuscular opioid can be considered. Patients with migraine should be encouraged to treat migraine pain early, and avoid overuse of medications.

Non-Invasive Neuromodulation for Headache Disorders.

Migraine and other chronic headache disorders are common and if inadequately treated, can lead to significant disability. The effectiveness of medications can be limited by side effects, drug interactions, and comorbid diseases necessitating alternative methods. Technological developments in the past 5 years have made it possible to use non-invasive methods of neuromodulation to treat primary headache disorders. This field includes technologies such as supraorbital transcutaneous stimulation (STS), transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), and non-invasive vagal nerve stimulation (nVNS). Existing trials show these modalities are safe and well tolerated and can be combined with standard pharmacotherapy. We review the technologies, biological rationales, and trials involving non-invasive neuromodulation for the treatment of primary headache disorders.

The acute treatment of migraine in adults: the american headache society evidence assessment of migraine pharmacotherapies.

The study aims to provide an updated assessment of the evidence for individual pharmacological therapies for acute migraine treatment. Pharmacological therapy is frequently required for acutely treating migraine attacks. The American Academy of Neurology Guidelines published in 2000 summarized the available evidence relating to the efficacy of acute migraine medications. This review, conducted by the members of the Guidelines Section of the American Headache Society, is an updated assessment of evidence for the migraine acute medications. A standardized literature search was performed to identify articles related to acute migraine treatment that were published between 1998 and 2013. The American Academy of Neurology Guidelines Development procedures were followed. Two authors reviewed each abstract resulting from the search and determined whether the full manuscript qualified for review. Two reviewers studied each qualifying full manuscript for its level of evidence. Level A evidence requires at least 2 Class I studies, and Level B evidence requires 1 Class I or 2 Class II studies. The specific medications - triptans (almotriptan, eletriptan, frovatriptan, naratriptan, rizatriptan, sumatriptan [oral, nasal spray, injectable, transcutaneous patch], zolmitriptan [oral and nasal spray]) and dihydroergotamine (nasal spray, inhaler) are effective (Level A). Ergotamine and other forms of dihydroergotamine are probably effective (Level B). Effective nonspecific medications include acetaminophen, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (aspirin, diclofenac, ibuprofen, and naproxen), opioids (butorphanol nasal spray), sumatriptan/naproxen, and the combination of acetaminophen/aspirin/caffeine (Level A). Ketoprofen, intravenous and intramuscular ketorolac, flurbiprofen, intravenous magnesium (in migraine with aura), and the combination of isometheptene compounds, codeine/acetaminophen and tramadol/acetaminophen are probably effective (Level B). The antiemetics prochlorperazine, droperidol, chlorpromazine, and metoclopramide are probably effective (Level B). There is inadequate evidence for butalbital and butalbital combinations, phenazone, intravenous tramadol, methadone, butorphanol or meperidine injections, intranasal lidocaine, and corticosteroids, including dexamethasone (Level C). Octreotide is probably not effective (Level B). There is inadequate evidence to refute the efficacy of ketorolac nasal spray, intravenous acetaminophen, chlorpromazine injection, and intravenous granisetron (Level C). There are many acute migraine treatments for which evidence supports efficacy. Clinicians must consider medication efficacy, potential side effects, and potential medication-related adverse events when prescribing acute medications for migraine. Although opioids, such as butorphanol, codeine/acetaminophen, and tramadol/acetaminophen, are probably effective, they are not recommended for regular use.

Olfactory acuity in chronic migraine: a cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVE/BACKGROUND: This study aims to measure olfactory acuity in chronic migraine subjects, at baseline and on migraine days, and compare to age- and sex-matched controls. Olfactory impairment is common in neurological disorders. While smell hypersensitivity has been established with chronic migraine, olfactory acuity has not been well studied. METHODS: We recruited 50 subjects with chronic migraine from the Jefferson Headache Center and 50 age- and sex-matched controls. Using the University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test (UPSIT), a validated test of olfaction, olfactory acuity was measured at baseline and during a migraine for subjects, and compared to controls at baseline and at home 2 weeks later. All subjects were additionally screened for odor sensitivity and allodynia. RESULTS: The mean UPSIT score for migraine subjects was 34.5 on non-migraine days and 34.7 on migraine days (mean difference=-0.4, 95% confidence interval [CI; -1.3, 0.6] P=.45). Controls had a mean of 35.9 and 36.1 for each test day (mean difference = -0.1, 95% CI [-0.9, 0.7] P=.87). On average, migraineurs performed worse than their matched control counterparts in both test sittings (test 1: P=.047; test 2: P=.01). The great majority of subjects were allodynic (42/50) compared with only 9 of 50 controls, and the majority of subjects (41/50) found more than one listed odor to be bothersome, compared with only 10/50 controls. On non-migraine days, 18/48 chronic migraine subjects had abnormal olfaction and on migraine days 14/42 had abnormal olfaction, compared with only 9/50 controls who had abnormal olfaction on their first UPSIT. CONCLUSIONS: While chronic migraine patients do not appear to have a significant change in olfactory acuity between migrainous and non-migrainous periods, they do appear to be more likely to have abnormal olfactory acuity at baseline compared to age- and sex-matched controls.

Inpatient management of migraine.

Migraine is a frequently disabling disorder which may require inpatient treatment. Admission criteria for migraine include intractable migraine, nausea and/or vomiting, severe disability, and dependence on opioids or barbiturates. The inpatient treatment of migraine is based on observational studies and expert opinion rather than placebo-controlled trials. Well-established inpatient treatments for migraine include dihydroergotamine, neuroleptics/antiemetics, lidocaine, intravenous aspirin, and non-pharmacologic treatment such as cognitive-behavioral therapy. Short-acting treatments possibly associated with medication overuse, such as triptans, opioids, or barbiturate-containing compounds, are generally avoided. While the majority of persons with migraine are admitted on an emergency basis for only a few days, outcome studies and infusion protocols during elective admissions at tertiary headache centers suggest a longer length of stay may be needed for persons with intractable migraine.

High-altitude headache.

High-altitude headache is one of many neurological symptoms associated with the ascent to high altitudes. Cellular hypoxia due to decreased barometric pressure seems to be the common final pathway for headache as altitude increases. Susceptibility to high-altitude headache depends on genetic factors, history of migraine, and acclimatization, but symptoms of acute mountain sickness are universal at very high altitudes. This review summarizes the pathophysiology of acute mountain sickness and high-altitude headache as well as the evidence for treatment and prevention with different drugs and devices which may be useful for regular and novice mountaineers. This includes an examination of other headache disorders which may mimic high-altitude headache.