Informed consent for image-guided procedures: a nationwide survey of perceptions and current practices.

AIM: To characterise the current landscape of informed consent practices for image-guided procedures, including location of consent, guideline availability, and utility of decision-aid resources. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A survey of 159 interventional radiologists was conducted from April through June 2022. The survey evaluated participant demographics (gender, practice type, and level of training) and consent practices. Fifteen questions investigated discussion of benefits, risks, and alternatives, who obtained consent, location of consent conversations, how decision-making capacity is assessed, availability of formal guidance on consent discussions, and if and how decision-aids are used. RESULTS: Most respondents (93.7%) were "extremely" or "very" comfortable discussing the benefits and risks of image-guided procedures during informed consent. Most respondents were "very" comfortable discussing alternative treatments within radiology (86.8%) while fewer felt confident regarding alternatives outside radiology (46.5%). Most respondents indicated obtaining consent in a pre-procedure area (89.9%), while 12.7% of respondents obtained consent in the procedure room. Of the respondents, 66.7% did not have formal education or documented guidance on what providers should disclose during consent. Ninety-two respondents (57.9%) reported using decision aids. The type of decision aid varied, with most reporting using illustrations or drawings (46.6%). Decision aid utility was more prevalent in non-teaching/academic (71.4%) versus academic (61%) institutions (p=0.02). CONCLUSION: Regardless of demographics, interventionalists are confident in discussing benefits, risks, and alternative image-guided therapies, but are less confident discussing alternative treatment options outside of radiology. Formal education on informed consent is less common, and the use of decision aids varies between teaching and non-teaching institutions.

1st Post-European Headache Federation Meeting: a review of the latest developments presented at the 2020 European Headache Federation Congress. / I Reunión Post-European Headache Federation: revisión de las novedades presentadas en el Congreso de la European Headache Federation de 2020.

INTRODUCTION: After the European Headache Federation (EHF) Congress, renowned Spanish neurologists specialised in migraine presented the most significant latest developments in research in this field at the Post-EHF Meeting. DEVELOPMENT: The main data presented concerning the treatment of chronic and episodic migraine were addressed, with attention paid more specifically to those related to preventive treatments and real-life experience in the management of the disease. An important review was carried out of the new therapeutic targets and the possibilities they offer in terms of understanding the pathophysiology of migraine and its treatment. An update was also presented of the latest developments in the treatment of migraine with fremanezumab, a monoclonal antibody recently authorised by the European Medicines Agency. Participants were also given an update on the latest developments in basic research on the pathology, as well as an overview of the symptoms of migraine and COVID-19. Finally, the repercussions of migraine in terms of its burden on the care and economic resources of the health system were addressed, along with its impact on society. CONCLUSIONS: The meeting summarised the content presented at the 14th EHF Congress, which took place in late June/early July 2020.

TITLE: I Reunión Post-European Headache Federation: revisión de las novedades presentadas en el Congreso de la European Headache Federation de 2020.Introducción. Tras la celebración del congreso de la European Headache Federation (EHF), reconocidos neurólogos españoles expertos en el tratamiento de la migraña expusieron en la Reunión Post-EHF las principales novedades presentadas en el congreso y relacionadas con ese ámbito. Desarrollo. Se abordan los principales datos presentados relacionados con el tratamiento de la migraña crónica y episódica; concretamente, los relacionados con los tratamientos preventivos y la experiencia en vida real en el manejo de la enfermedad. Se hizo una importante revisión de las nuevas dianas terapéuticas y las posibilidades que ofrecen en cuanto al conocimiento de la fisiopatología de la migraña y su tratamiento. Asimismo, se hizo una actualización de las novedades presentadas en el tratamiento de la migraña con fremanezumab, anticuerpo monoclonal recientemente autorizado por la Agencia Europea de Medicamentos. Se hizo una actualización de las novedades en investigación básica en la patología, así como una relación de los síntomas de migraña y COVID-19. Finalmente, se abordaron las implicaciones de la migraña en la carga sanitaria asistencial y económica, y su impacto en la sociedad. Conclusiones. En la reunión se hizo un resumen del contenido presentado en el 14 Congreso de la EHF, que tuvo lugar a finales de junio y principios de julio de 2020.

Time-dependent soft and hard x-ray measurements using streak and x-ray diode array diagnostic systems.

High-temperature, high-density experiments require a simultaneous understanding of temporal and spectral regions. The spectral x-ray streak camera (SXSC) is a new high-temporal-resolution spectral x-ray diagnostic system that allows researchers to differentiate between soft and hard x-ray regions. The diagnostic offers three spectral channels with a wide spectral range, one direct channel that includes a filter and two indirect channels that include both mirrors and filters. The opto-mechanical design positions the filtered radiation at three different locations along the streak photo-cathode (PC) slit to provide time-dependent spectral channels with pico-second temporal resolution. A moderate spatial resolution (150-700 µm) is achieved using slits perpendicular to the PC slit, while the slit width is optimized according to the central channel wavelength (for each channel). The diagnostic system covers a spectral range of 30-500 eV for the mirror channels and >1300 eV for the direct channel. The temporal and spatial axes of the streak camera are calibrated with respect to a sequence of x-ray pulses. The SXSC diagnostic system is tested and analyzed using Marshak-wave emission from an SiO2 foam that was heated by a laser-beam irradiated halfraum. The SXSC results are compared to measurements from an x-ray diode array with similar spectral channels.

Single-item migraine screening tests, self-reported bothersome headache or stripe pattern hypersensitivity?

BACKGROUND: A simple screening tool may potentially help the migraine diagnosis in a primary care setting. The use of single-item tests, such as stripe pattern hypersensitivity test and self-reported bothersome headache (HA) question, as migraine screening tools have not been fully explored. METHODS: Two hundred and fifty-four subjects (patients and companions) were randomly enrolled from an OB/GYN clinic (men 82, women 172; age 38 ± 14). They were instructed to rate the stripe sensitivity level (0-4) and to report any bothersome HA (yes/no). A brief structured HA interview was conducted to describe the HA characteristics and for migraine diagnosis based on the ICHD-IIIß criteria. RESULTS: In a multivariate model, bothersome HA question and stripe pattern hypersensitivity test were both significantly associated with EM+PM+CM (odds ratio: 24.0, P < 0.01 vs 2.6, P = 0.01) or EM (odds ratio: 16.2, P < 0.01 vs 3.0, P < 0.01). Bothersome HA question had a greater screening power than stripe pattern hypersensitivity for screening EM+PM+CM (area under the ROC curve: 0.84 [95% CI 0.78-0.89] vs 0.62 [95% CI 0.55-0.69]) or EM (area under the ROC curve: 0.80 [95% CI 0.73-0.86] vs 0.64 [95% CI 0.56-0.72]). CONCLUSION: When performed in an OB/GYN clinic, self-reported bothersome HA question seemed more powerful than visual stripe pattern test in screening migraine thus could potentially be used as a single-item screening test.

Surgically implanted and non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation: a review of efficacy, safety and tolerability.

Vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) is effective in refractory epilepsy and depression and is being investigated in heart failure, headache, gastric motility disorders and asthma. The first VNS device required surgical implantation of electrodes and a stimulator. Adverse events (AEs) are generally associated with implantation or continuous on-off stimulation. Infection is the most serious implantation-associated AE. Bradycardia and asystole have also been described during implantation, as has vocal cord paresis, which can last up to 6 months and depends on surgical skill and experience. The most frequent stimulation-associated AEs include voice alteration, paresthesia, cough, headache, dyspnea, pharyngitis and pain, which may require a decrease in stimulation strength or intermittent or permanent device deactivation. Newer non-invasive VNS delivery systems do not require surgery and permit patient-administered stimulation on demand. These non-invasive VNS systems improve the safety and tolerability of VNS, making it more accessible and facilitating further investigations across a wider range of uses.

RSUME inhibits VHL and regulates its tumor suppressor function.

Somatic mutations or loss of von Hippel-Lindau (pVHL) happen in the majority of VHL disease tumors, which present a constitutively active Hypoxia Inducible Factor (HIF), essential for tumor growth. Recently described mechanisms for pVHL modulation shed light on the open question of the HIF/pVHL pathway regulation. The aim of the present study was to determine the molecular mechanism by which RSUME stabilizes HIFs, by studying RSUME effect on pVHL function and to determine the role of RSUME on pVHL-related tumor progression. We determined that RSUME sumoylates and physically interacts with pVHL and negatively regulates the assembly of the complex between pVHL, Elongins and Cullins (ECV), inhibiting HIF-1 and 2α ubiquitination and degradation. We found that RSUME is expressed in human VHL tumors (renal clear-cell carcinoma (RCC), pheochromocytoma and hemangioblastoma) and by overexpressing or silencing RSUME in a pVHL-HIF-oxygen-dependent degradation stability reporter assay, we determined that RSUME is necessary for the loss of function of type 2 pVHL mutants. The functional RSUME/pVHL interaction in VHL-related tumor progression was further confirmed using a xenograft assay in nude mice. RCC clones, in which RSUME was knocked down and express either pVHL wt or type 2 mutation, have an impaired tumor growth, as well as HIF-2α, vascular endothelial growth factor A and tumor vascularization diminution. This work shows a novel mechanism for VHL tumor progression and presents a new mechanism and factor for targeting tumor-related pathologies with pVHL/HIF altered function.

OnabotulinumtoxinA for chronic migraine: efficacy, safety, and tolerability in patients who received all five treatment cycles in the PREEMPT clinical program.

OBJECTIVE: Chronic migraine (CM) is a prevalent and disabling neurological disorder. Phase III REsearch Evaluating Migraine Prophylaxis Therapy (PREEMPT) clinical program assessed efficacy and safety of onabotulinumtoxinA (BOTOX(®)) for prophylaxis of headaches in adults with CM. This secondary analysis assessed patients who received all five treatment cycles and completed the study. MATERIALS AND METHODS: PREEMPT (two phase III studies: 24-week double-blind, placebo-controlled [DBPC], parallel-group phase, followed by 32-week open-label [OL] phase) evaluated the efficacy and safety of onabotulinumtoxinA in CM (≥15 days/month with headache lasting ≥4 h a day). Patients were randomized (1:1) to onabotulinumtoxinA or placebo every 12 weeks for two cycles, followed by onabotulinumtoxinA for three cycles. Multiple headache symptom measures were evaluated. Results for the completer (five cycles) subgroup of patients are reported. RESULTS: Of 1384 total PREEMPT patients, 1005 received all five treatment cycles (513 received onabotulinumtoxinA only [onabotulinumtoxinA/onabotulinumtoxinA (O/O)] and 492 received two cycles of placebo then three cycles of onabotulinumtoxinA [placebo/onabotulinumtoxinA (P/O)]). Demographics were similar between treatment groups. At Week 56, after all patients were treated with onabotulinumtoxinA, there continued to be significant between-group differences favoring the O/O vs P/O group for the following headache symptom measures: LS mean change from baseline in frequencies of headache days (-12.0 O/O, -11.1 P/O; P = 0.035), migraine days (-11.6 O/O, -10.7 P/O; P = 0.038), and moderate/severe headache days (-11.0 O/O, -10.1 P/O; P = 0.042). For other measures (cumulative hours of headache on headache days, frequency of headache episodes, and percentage with severe Headache Impact Test (HIT)-6 score, and total HIT-6 and Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire scores), there were also large mean improvements from baseline. The percent of patients with a ≥50% reduction from baseline in frequency of headache days was significantly greater for the onabotulinumtoxinA-only group at Week 56 (69.6% O/O, 62.8% P/O; P = 0.023). The treatment-related adverse event rate was 28.5% for onabotulinumtoxinA vs 12.4% for placebo in the DBPC phase and 34.8% for patients treated with onabotulinumtoxinA for all five cycles throughout the 56-week trials. CONCLUSIONS: This subgroup analysis demonstrated improvements with onabotulinumtoxinA treatment (five cycles) vs placebo (two cycles)/onabotulinumtoxinA (three cycles) for multiple headache symptom measures and suggests that at Week 56, patients treated earlier with onabotulinumtoxinA had better outcomes. These findings demonstrate the continued need and cumulative benefit over time with continued prophylaxis, an important and clinically pragmatic observation for clinicians and patients.

Efficacy endpoints in migraine clinical trials: the importance of assessing freedom from pain.

Many efficacy endpoints have been used in clinical trials of acute migraine pharmacotherapy. Headache response or headache relief (i.e., moderate/severe pain reduced to mild/no pain) at a single, specified time-point, traditionally the primary endpoint, and headache recurrence (i.e., return of pain after initial postdose relief) are inadequate. Headache relief does not provide information about pain-free response and counts a partial response as a treatment success. Headache recurrence can reflect sustained efficacy but is confounded by initial response to treatment, because ineffective drugs have low recurrence rates. The International Headache Society (IHS) guidelines state that 2 hour pain-free response and sustained pain-free response (i.e., freedom from pain with no recurrence or use of rescue or study medication 2-24 hours postdose) provide the most clinically relevant information about the efficacy of migraine pharmacotherapy. The pain-free criterion counts partial responses as failures and thus is a more rigorous test of therapeutic benefit than headache relief, and the two endpoints together incorporate the main treatment attributes that determine patient satisfaction. As an example, consider needle-free subcutaneous sumatriptan and oral triptan tablets. An open-label study of needle-free subcutaneous sumatriptan by Cady and colleagues found that 2 hour pain-free response and sustained pain-free response were 64% and 42% respectively. For oral triptan tablets, the 2001 metaanalysis by Ferrari and colleagues reported 2 hour pain-free response rates ranging from 23% to 38% and sustained pain-free response rates ranging from 11% to 26%. The measures of pain-free response 2 hours postdose and sustained pain-free response can differentiate among treatments and be used to guide therapeutic choices.

Emerging target-based paradigms to prevent and treat migraine.

Migraine is a primary brain disorder resulting from altered modulation of normal sensory stimuli and trigeminal nerve dysfunction. The second edition of the International Classification of Headache Disorders (ICHD-2) defines seven subtypes of migraine. Migraine treatment can be acute or preventive. New targeted therapies include 5-HT(1F) receptor agonists, calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) antagonists, nitric oxide synthetase inhibitors, and ion channel antagonists. A recent development is the creation of antibodies to CGRP and its receptor for migraine prevention.

Occipital nerve stimulation for primary headaches.

Occipital nerve stimulation may be effective for primary headache disorders. Four studies, including two double-blind show, stimulation-controlled studies that were performed for chronic migraine showed evidence of benefit. A separate study suggested a benefit for combined supraorbital and greater occipital nerve stimulation. Anecdotal evidence suggests benefit in hemicrania continua. In chronic cluster headache, several case series have shown improvement, which, combined with the safety of occipital nerve stimulation relative to deep brain stimulation, have led to published reports supporting this as the preferred surgical technique for chronic cluster headache. A few case reports suggest a possible benefit in short-lasting unilateral neuralgiform headache attacks with conjunctival injection tearing and short-lasting unilateral neuralgiform headache.

Evidence-based guideline update: pharmacologic treatment for episodic migraine prevention in adults: report of the Quality Standards Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology and the American Headache Society.

OBJECTIVE: To provide updated evidence-based recommendations for the preventive treatment of migraine headache. The clinical question addressed was: What pharmacologic therapies are proven effective for migraine prevention? METHODS: The authors analyzed published studies from June 1999 to May 2009 using a structured review process to classify the evidence relative to the efficacy of various medications available in the United States for migraine prevention. RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: The author panel reviewed 284 abstracts, which ultimately yielded 29 Class I or Class II articles that are reviewed herein. Divalproex sodium, sodium valproate, topiramate, metoprolol, propranolol, and timolol are effective for migraine prevention and should be offered to patients with migraine to reduce migraine attack frequency and severity (Level A). Frovatriptan is effective for prevention of menstrual migraine (Level A). Lamotrigine is ineffective for migraine prevention (Level A).

Evidence-based guideline update: NSAIDs and other complementary treatments for episodic migraine prevention in adults: report of the Quality Standards Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology and the American Headache Society.

OBJECTIVE: To provide updated evidence-based recommendations for the preventive treatment of migraine headache. The clinical question addressed was: Are nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) or other complementary treatments effective for migraine prevention? METHODS: The authors analyzed published studies from June 1999 to May 2009 using a structured review process to classify the evidence relative to the efficacy of various medications for migraine prevention. RESULTS: The author panel reviewed 284 abstracts, which ultimately yielded 49 Class I or Class II articles on migraine prevention; of these 49, 15 were classified as involving nontraditional therapies, NSAIDs, and other complementary therapies that are reviewed herein. RECOMMENDATIONS: Petasites (butterbur) is effective for migraine prevention and should be offered to patients with migraine to reduce the frequency and severity of migraine attacks (Level A). Fenoprofen, ibuprofen, ketoprofen, naproxen, naproxen sodium, MIG-99 (feverfew), magnesium, riboflavin, and subcutaneous histamine are probably effective for migraine prevention (Level B). Treatments considered possibly effective are cyproheptadine, Co-Q10, estrogen, mefenamic acid, and flurbiprofen (Level C). Data are conflicting or inadequate to support or refute use of aspirin, indomethacin, omega-3, or hyperbaric oxygen for migraine prevention. Montelukast is established as probably ineffective for migraine prevention (Level B).

Randomized, placebo-controlled trial of propranolol added to topiramate in chronic migraine.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and safety of adding propranolol to topiramate in chronic migraine subjects inadequately controlled with topiramate alone. METHODS: This was a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial conducted through the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke Clinical Research Collaboration, expected to randomize 250 chronic migraine subjects inadequately controlled (≥10 headaches/month) with topiramate (50-100 mg/day) to either propranolol LA (long acting) (240 mg/day) or placebo. Primary outcome was 28-day moderate to severe headache rate reduction at 6 months (weeks 16 to 24) compared with baseline (weeks -4 to 0). RESULTS: A planned interim analysis was performed after 48 sites randomized 171 subjects. The data and safety monitoring board recommended ending the trial after determining that it would be highly unlikely for the combination to result in a significant reduction in 28-day headache rate compared with topiramate alone if all 250 subjects were randomized. No safety concerns were identified. At study closure, 191 subjects were randomized. The 6-month reduction in moderate to severe 28-day headache rate and total 28-day headache rate for combination therapy vs topiramate alone was not significantly different: 4.0 vs 4.5 days (moderate to severe 28-day headache rate; p = 0.57) and 6.2 vs 6.1 days (total 28-day headache rate; p = 0.91). CONCLUSIONS: This study does not provide evidence that the addition of propranolol LA to topiramate adds benefit when chronic migraine is inadequately controlled with topiramate alone. CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE: This study provides Class II evidence that propranolol LA, added to topiramate, is ineffective in chronic migraine patients who fail topiramate monotherapy.

OnabotulinumtoxinA improves quality of life and reduces impact of chronic migraine.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effects of treatment with onabotulinumtoxinA (Botox, Allergan, Inc., Irvine, CA) on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and headache impact in adults with chronic migraine (CM). METHODS: The Phase III Research Evaluating Migraine Prophylaxis Therapy (PREEMPT) clinical program (PREEMPT 1 and 2) included a 24-week, double-blind phase (2 12-week cycles) followed by a 32-week, open-label phase (3 cycles). Thirty-one injections of 5U each (155 U of onabotulinumtoxinA or placebo) were administered to fixed sites. An additional 40 U could be administered "following the pain." Prespecified analysis of headache impact (Headache Impact Test [HIT]-6) and HRQoL (Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire v2.1 [MSQ]) assessments were performed. Because the studies were similar in design and did not notably differ in outcome, pooled results are presented here. RESULTS: A total of 1,384 subjects were included in the pooled analyses (onabotulinumtoxinA, n = 688; placebo, n = 696). Baseline mean total HIT-6 and MSQ v2.1 scores were comparable between groups; 93.1% were severely impacted based on HIT-6 scores ≥60. At 24 weeks, in comparison with placebo, onabotulinumtoxinA treatment significantly reduced HIT-6 scores and the proportion of patients with HIT-6 scores in the severe range at all timepoints including week 24 (p < 0.001). OnabotulinumtoxinA treatment significantly improved all domains of the MSQ v2.1 at 24 weeks (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of CM with onabotulinumtoxinA is associated with significant and clinically meaningful reductions in headache impact and improvements in HRQoL. CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE: This study provides Class 1A evidence that onabotulinumtoxinA treatment reduces headache impact and improves HRQoL.

Integrated headache care.

Patients with chronic or difficult to treat headaches are generally under the care of general practictioners or neurologists in private practice. Some are referred to a headache specialist for evaluation and advice. Treatment is often provided by the referring physician. An alternative is a multidisciplinary headache centre, where care is provided by different disciplines (neurology, behavioural psychology, psychiatry, psychosomatic medicine, physical therapy, sport therapy) across sectors of the healthcare system involving out- and inpatient care and treatment. This is called integrated headache care. This review summarizes experiences in integrated headache care settings in Europe and the USA, describes these settings, and reports outcome data.

OnabotulinumtoxinA for treatment of chronic migraine: results from the double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled phase of the PREEMPT 2 trial.

OBJECTIVES: This is the second of a pair of studies designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of onabotulinumtoxinA (BOTOX) for prophylaxis of headaches in adults with chronic migraine. METHODS: PREEMPT 2 was a phase 3 study, with a 24-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase, followed by a 32-week, open-label phase. Subjects were randomized (1:1) to injections of onabotulinumtoxinA (155U-195U; n = 347) or placebo (n = 358) every 12 weeks for two cycles. The primary efficacy endpoint was mean change in headache days per 28 days from baseline to weeks 21-24 post-treatment. RESULTS: OnabotulinumtoxinA was statistically significantly superior to placebo for the primary endpoint, frequency of headache days per 28 days relative to baseline (-9.0 onabotulinumtoxinA/-6.7 placebo, p < .001). OnabotulinumtoxinA was significantly favoured in all secondary endpoint comparisons. OnabotulinumtoxinA was safe and well tolerated, with few treatment-related adverse events. Few patients (3.5% onabotulinumtoxinA/1.4% placebo) discontinued due to adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: The results of PREEMPT 2 demonstrate that onabotulinumtoxinA is effective for prophylaxis of headache in adults with chronic migraine. Repeated onabotulinumtoxinA treatments were safe and well tolerated.

OnabotulinumtoxinA for treatment of chronic migraine: results from the double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled phase of the PREEMPT 1 trial.

OBJECTIVES: This is the first of a pair of studies designed to assess efficacy, safety and tolerability of onabotulinumtoxinA (BOTOX) as headache prophylaxis in adults with chronic migraine. METHODS: The Phase III REsearch Evaluating Migraine Prophylaxis Therapy 1 (PREEMPT 1) is a phase 3 study, with a 24-week, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled phase followed by a 32-week, open-label phase. Subjects were randomized (1:1) to injections every 12 weeks of onabotulinumtoxinA (155 U-195 U; n = 341) or placebo (n = 338) (two cycles). The primary endpoint was mean change from baseline in headache episode frequency at week 24. RESULTS: No significant between-group difference for onabotulinumtoxinA versus placebo was observed for the primary endpoint, headache episodes (-5.2 vs. -5.3; p = 0.344). Large within-group decreases from baseline were observed for all efficacy variables. Significant between-group differences for onabotulinumtoxinA were observed for the secondary endpoints, headache days (p = .006) and migraine days (p = 0.002). OnabotulinumtoxinA was safe and well tolerated, with few treatment-related adverse events. Few subjects discontinued due to adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: There was no between-group difference for the primary endpoint, headache episodes. However, significant reductions from baseline were observed for onabotulinumtoxinA for headache and migraine days, cumulative hours of headache on headache days and frequency of moderate/severe headache days, which in turn reduced the burden of illness in adults with disabling chronic migraine.

Right-to-left shunt is common in chronic migraine.

Our aim was to determine the prevalence of right-to-left shunt (RtLS) in patients with chronic migraine (CM), and to correlate the presence and grade of RtLS with aura and neurological symptoms, and duration and severity of disease. The prevalence of RtLS in migraine without aura is similar to that of the general population (between 20 and 35%). In migraine with aura, the prevalence is much higher (approximately 50%). The prevalence in CM, with or without aura, is unknown. Consecutive patients between the ages of 18 and 60 years with CM attending a tertiary care specialty headache clinic over an 8-week period were eligible. There were 131 patients in the study. A structured diagnostic interview was performed. Bubble transcranial Doppler with Valsalva manoeuvre determined RtLS presence and grade. Sixty-six percent (86/131) of patients had RtLS, a statistically significantly greater rate than those reported in the general population and in migraine with or without aura (P < 0.001). There was no difference in RtLS rate or grade between those with and those without aura. Specific headache features and the presence of neurological symptoms were similar between those with and those without RtLS. Compared with both the general population and the episodic migraine population (with and without aura), patients with CM, with or without aura, are more likely to have RtLS. The clinical implications of our findings need to be determined.

Short-term frovatriptan for the prevention of difficult-to-treat menstrual migraine attacks.

The efficacy of a 6-day regimen of frovatriptan for menstrual migraine (MM; attacks starting on day -2 to +3 of menses) prevention in women with difficult-to-treat MM was assessed. Women with a documented inadequate response to triptans for acute MM treatment were included in this placebo-controlled, parallel-group trial. Women were randomized to double-blind treatment for three perimenstrual periods (PMPs) with either frovatriptan 2.5 mg (q.d. or b.i.d.) or placebo initiated 2 days before anticipated MM. The efficacy analysis included 410 women with 85% completing three double-blind PMPs. The mean number of headache-free PMPs was 0.92 with frovatriptan b.i.d., 0.69 with frovatriptan q.d. and 0.42 with placebo [P < 0.001 (b.i.d.) and P < 0.02 (q.d.) vs. placebo]. When migraine occurred, severity was reduced with frovatriptan q.d. (P < 0.001) and b.i.d. (P < 0.001) vs. placebo. Both frovatriptan regimens were well tolerated. In women with difficult-to-treat MM, a 6-day regimen of frovatriptan significantly reduced MM incidence and severity.

Tonabersat, a gap-junction modulator: efficacy and safety in two randomized, placebo-controlled, dose-ranging studies of acute migraine.

Tonabersat is a novel benzopyran derivative that blocks the cortical spreading depression proposed to be associated with migraine attacks. The ability of single oral doses of 15, 25, 40 and 80 mg of tonabersat to relieve the symptoms of moderate to severe migraine was evaluated in 859 migraineurs enrolled in two dose-ranging, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trials, one international and the other North American. In the international study, significantly more patients given tonabersat than given placebo experienced relief of headache pain at 2 h (15 mg, 36.8%; 40 mg, 40.7%), the principal efficacy variable, and at 4 h (40 mg, 63.0%) and complete abolition of headache at 4 h (40 mg, 34.3%). None of the primary or secondary efficacy variables indicated significant differences between tonabersat and placebo in the North American study. Tonabersat was generally well tolerated, with dizziness and nausea the most common side-effects. Serious adverse events were uncommon, and no patient withdrew from either study because of adverse events. These results suggest a possible interplay between tonabersat pharmacokinetics (the relatively long time required to reach maximum plasma concentrations) and patient characteristics (previous triptan exposure) in the management of acute migraine attacks. Based on the pharmacokinetics and actions on cortical spreading depression, tonabersat may have potential value in migraine prophylaxis.