Can Long-Term Outcomes of Posttraumatic Headache be Predicted?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Headache is one of the most common symptoms of traumatic brain injury, and it is more common in patients with mild, rather than moderate or severe, traumatic brain injury. Posttraumatic headache can be the most persistent symptom of traumatic brain injury. In this article, we review the current understanding of posttraumatic headache, summarize the current knowledge of its pathophysiology and treatment, and review the research regarding predictors of long-term outcomes. RECENT FINDINGS: To date, posttraumatic headache has been treated based on the semiology of the primary headache disorder that it most resembles, but the pathophysiology is likely to be different, and the long-term prognosis differs as well. No models exist to predict long-term outcomes, and few studies have highlighted risk factors for the development of acute and persistent posttraumatic headaches. Further research is needed to elucidate the pathophysiology and identify specific treatments for posttraumatic headache to be able to predict long-term outcomes. In addition, the effect of managing comorbid traumatic brain injury symptoms on posttraumatic headache management should be further studied. Posttraumatic headache can be a persistent symptom of traumatic brain injury, especially mild traumatic brain injury. It has traditionally been treated based on the semiology of the primary headache disorder it most closely resembles, but further research is needed to elucidate the pathophysiology of posttraumatic headache and determine risk factors to better predict long-term outcomes.

Effectiveness and Safety of Chronic Migraine Preventive Treatments: A Systematic Literature Review.

INTRODUCTION: Numerous medications are used for the preventive treatment of chronic migraine (CM), including oral treatments, onabotulinumtoxinA (onabotA; BOTOX), and calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibodies (mAbs). Despite substantial clinical trial evidence, less is published about the real-world experience of these treatments based on data routinely collected from a variety of sources. This systematic review assessed real-world evidence on the effectiveness and safety of preventive treatments for CM in adults. METHODS: A systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane library with back-referencing and supplementary searches retrieved data published between January 2010 and February 2020. Publications were screened, extracted, and quality assessed. Data were narratively synthesized. Search criteria included preventive medications for CM. Evidence was available for topiramate, onabotulinumtoxinA, CGRP mAbs (erenumab, galcanezumab, and fremanezumab). OnabotulinumtoxinA was most commonly assessed (55 studies), followed by erenumab (six studies), multiple CGRP mAbs (one study), and topiramate (one study). Long-term data (> 1 year) were available for onabotulinumtoxinA only, with erenumab reported up 6 months, topiramate up to 3 months, and multiple CGRP mAbs up to 12 months. RESULTS: Substantial data demonstrated that onabotulinumtoxinA reduces the number/frequency of headaches, concomitant acute medication use, and impact of headaches on well-being and daily activity. More limited evidence showed benefits for the same parameters with erenumab. Single studies suggested topiramate and multiple CGRP mAbs decrease the number/frequency of headaches and impact of headaches. To date, onabotulinumtoxinA is the only preventive treatment for CM that has long-term safety data in real-world settings reporting treatment-related adverse events of up to 3 years. CONCLUSION: While substantial real-world evidence supports the long-term effectiveness and safety of onabotulinumtoxinA, real-world data on other preventive treatments of CM are currently limited to short term effectiveness due to their more recent approvals.

Use of Intracranial Pressure Monitoring Frequently Refutes Diagnosis of Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension.

BACKGROUND: The diagnosis and management of patients with idiopathic intracranial hypertension (IIH) frequently relies on lumbar puncture to ascertain intracranial pressure (ICP). However, ICP values derived this way may be spurious owing to patient body habitus and behavior. We recently incorporated direct continuous ICP monitoring into the work-up for IIH. METHODS: Through billing records, we identified all patients during a 3-year period who had a diagnosis of IIH and who underwent ICP monitoring before shunt placement or revision. Patient demographics and clinical data were reviewed. RESULTS: Of 30 patients who underwent ICP monitoring with an intraparenchymal wire, 17 had undergone lumbar puncture within the previous 6 months. Results from lumbar punctures showed an elevated opening pressure in all 17 patients, whereas only 2 patients (12%) were found to have consistently elevated ICP with direct ICP monitoring. Of 15 patients being evaluated for shunting, 4 (27%) were found to have elevated ICP. Of the 15 patients with existing shunts, 2 patients (13%) were found to have malfunctioning shunts after pressure monitoring, and 3 patients (20%) had shunts that were found to be unnecessary and were removed. No patient experienced any complication from invasive monitoring. CONCLUSIONS: Direct ICP monitoring is the gold standard for determining ICP and can be safely and effectively applied to the work-up and treatment of patients with IIH to reduce the occurrence of misdiagnosis and unnecessary surgery.