Left- vs right-sided migraine: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Migraine is a historically unilateral head pain condition, the cause of which is not currently known. A growing body of literature suggests individuals who experience migraine with left-sided headache ("left-sided migraine") may be distinguished from those who experience migraine with right-sided headache ("right-sided migraine"). OBJECTIVE: In this scoping review, we explore migraine unilaterality by summarizing what is currently known about left- and right-sided migraine. METHODS: Two senior medical librarians worked with the lead authors to construct and refine a set of search terms to identify studies of subjects with left- or right-sided migraine published between 1988, which is the year of publication of the first edition of the International Classification of Headache Disorders (ICHD), and December 8, 2021 (the date the searches were conducted). The following databases were searched: Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. Abstracts were loaded into Covidence review software, deduplicated, then screened by two authors to determine study eligibility. Eligible studies were those involving subjects diagnosed with migraine (according to ICHD criteria) in which the authors either: a) compared left- to right-sided migraine; or b) described (with analysis) a characteristic that differentiated the two. Data were extracted by the lead author, including ICHD version, the definition of unilateral migraine used by the authors, sample size, whether the findings were collected during or between attacks, and their key findings. The key findings were grouped into the following themes: handedness, symptoms, psychiatric assessments, cognitive testing, autonomic function, and imaging. RESULTS: After deduplication, the search yielded 5428 abstracts for screening. Of these, 179 met eligibility criteria and underwent full text review. 26 articles were included in the final analysis. All of the studies were observational. One study was performed during attack, nineteen between attacks, and six both during and between attacks. Left- and right-sided migraine were found to differ across multiple domains. In several cases, reciprocal findings were reported in left- and right-migraine. For example, both left- and right-sided migraine were associated with ipsilateral handedness, tinnitus, onset of first Parkinson's symptoms, changes in blood flow across the face, white matter hyperintensities on MRI, activation of the dorsal pons, hippocampal sclerosis, and thalamic NAA/Cho and NAA/Cr concentrations. In other cases, however, the findings were specific to one migraine laterality. For example, left-sided migraine was associated with worse quality of life, anxiety, bipolar disorder, PTSD, lower sympathetic activity, and higher parasympathetic activity. Whereas right-sided migraine was associated with poorer performance on multiple cognitive tests, a greater degree of anisocoria, changes in skin temperature, higher diastolic blood pressure, changes in blood flow through the middle cerebral and basilar arteries, and changes on EEG. CONCLUSION: Left- and right-sided migraine differed across a wide range of domains, raising the possibility that the pathophysiology of left- and right-migraine may not be identical.

Telehealth as a new care delivery model: The headache provider experience.

OBJECTIVE: To assess telehealth practice for headache visits in the United States. BACKGROUND: The rapid roll out of telehealth during the COVID-19 pandemic impacted headache specialists. METHODS: American Headache Society (AHS) members were emailed an anonymous survey (9/9/20-10/12/20) to complete if they had logged ≥2 months or 50+ headache visits via telehealth. RESULTS: Out of 1348 members, 225 (16.7%) responded. Most were female (59.8%; 113/189). Median age was 47 (interquartile range [IQR] 37-57) (N = 154). The majority were MD/DOs (83.7%; 159/190) or NP/PAs (14.7%; 28/190), and most (65.1%; 123/189) were in academia. Years in practice were 0-3: 28; 4-10: 58; 11-20: 42; 20+: 61. Median number of telehealth visits was 120 (IQR 77.5-250) in the prior 3 months. Respondents were "comfortable/very comfortable" treating via telehealth (a) new patient with a chief complaint of headache (median, IQR 4 [3-5]); (b) follow-up for migraine (median, IQR 5 [5-5]); (c) follow-up for secondary headache (median, IQR 4 [3-4]). About half (51.1%; 97/190) offer urgent telehealth. Beyond being unable to perform procedures, top barriers were conducting parts of the neurologic exam (157/189), absence of vital signs (117/189), and socioeconomic/technologic barriers (91/189). Top positive attributes were patient convenience (185/190), reducing patient travel stress (172/190), patient cost reduction (151/190), flexibility with personal matters (128/190), patient comfort at home (114/190), and patient medications nearby (103/190). Only 21.3% (33/155) of providers said telehealth visit length differed from in-person visits, and 55.3% (105/190) believe that the no-show rate improved. On a 1-5 Likert scale, providers were "interested"/"very interested" in digitally prescribing headache apps (median 4, IQR 3-5) and "interested"/"very interested" in remotely monitoring patient symptoms (median 4, IQR 3-5). CONCLUSIONS: Respondents were comfortable treating patients with migraine via telehealth. They note positive attributes for patients and how access may be improved. Technology innovations (remote vital signs, digitally prescribing headache apps) and remote symptom monitoring are areas of interest and warrant future research.

Ten Eleven Things Not to Say to Healthcare Professionals During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic.

On March 11, 2020, the infection caused by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) virus was declared a pandemic. Throughout this pandemic, healthcare professionals (HCPs) have experienced difficulties stemming from poor communications, resource scarcity, lack of transparency, disbelief, and threats to the safety of their loved ones, their patients, and themselves. As part of these hardships, negative statements have been heard repeatedly. This paper describes 11 scenarios of unhelpful and dysfunctional messages heard by the authors and their colleagues during the COVID-19 pandemic, reported to us by a combination of peers, administrative leadership, and the public. We explain why not to use such messaging, and we suggest more helpful and compassionate expressions based upon recommendations published by scientific organizations and well-established psychological principles. The first 10 scenarios discussed include (1) lack of understanding regarding the extent of the pandemic; (2) shaming over not seeing patients in person; (3) lack of clear and consistent communication from leadership on pandemic-related practice changes; (4) opinions that personal protective equipment (PPE) use by HCPs causes fear or is unnecessary; (5) forcing in-person care without appropriate PPE; (6) the risk of exposure to asymptomatic individuals as it relates to opening clinics; (7) media gag orders; (8) pay and benefit reductions; (9) spreading of misinformation about the COVID-19 pandemic; and (10) workload expectations. The 11th scenario addresses HCPs' psychological and physical reactions to this challenging and prolonged stressful situation. We close by discussing the need for support and compassion at this difficult and unpredictable time and by offering suggestions to foster resilience and feelings of self-efficacy among HCPs.