Sequential administration of peripheral nerve blocks and onabotulinumtoxinA for the treatment of chronic migraine and other headache disorders-A retrospective tolerability and safety study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the tolerability and safety of concurrent peripheral nerve blocks and onabotulinumtoxinA treatment during a single outpatient clinic procedure visit. BACKGROUND: Procedural interventions are available for the treatment of headache disorders. OnabotulinumtoxinA and peripheral nerve blocks are used as alternatives or in addition to oral therapies to reduce the frequency and intensity of migraine attacks. There is currently a lack of safety data focusing on the sequential administration of local anesthetic via peripheral nerve blocks and onabotulinumtoxinA during a single clinical encounter for the treatment of headache. The primary aim of the study was to determine the safety and tolerability of concurrent peripheral nerve blockade and onabotulinumtoxinA injections during a single outpatient clinic procedure visit. We hypothesized that the dual intervention would be safe and well tolerated by patients with chronic migraine and other headache disorders. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed using clinical data from patients seen by multiple providers over a 16-month timeframe at one outpatient headache clinic. Patients were identified by procedure codes and those receiving peripheral nerve block(s) and onabotulinumtoxinA injections during a single encounter within the study period were eligible for inclusion. Inclusion criteria were (1) patients 18 years and older who were (2) receiving both peripheral nerve blocks and onabotulinumtoxinA injections for the treatment of chronic migraine. Patients were excluded if they were under age 18, received their procedure outside of the clinic (emergency room, inpatient ward), or were receiving sphenopalatine ganglion blocks. Age- and sex-matched patients who received one procedure, either peripheral nerve blocks or onabotulinumtoxinA, were used for control. The primary outcome of this safety study was the number of adverse events that occurred in the dual intervention group compared to the single intervention control arms. Information regarding adverse events was gathered via retrospective chart review. If an adverse event was recorded, it was then graded by the reviewer utilizing the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events ranging from Grade 1 Mild Event to Grade 5 Death. Additionally, it was noted whether the adverse event led to treatment discontinuation. RESULTS: In total, 375 patients were considered eligible for inclusion in the study. After age and sex matching of controls, 131 patients receiving dual intervention were able to be compared to 131 patients receiving onabotulinumtoxinA alone and 104 patients receiving dual intervention were able to be compared to 104 patients receiving peripheral nerve block(s) alone. The primary endpoint analysis showed no significant difference in total adverse events between dual intervention compared to nerve blocks alone or onabotulinumtoxinA alone. The number of adverse events that led to treatment discontinuation approached but did not reach statistical significance for those receiving dual intervention versus onabotulinumtoxinA alone in the number of adverse events that led to treatment termination (4.6%, 6/131 vs. 0.8%, 1/131, p = 0.065); however, the number of patients who discontinued therapy was not significantly different between those groups (2.3%, 3/131 vs. 0.8%, 1/131; p = 0.314; odds ratio 0.3 [0-3.2]; p = 0.338). CONCLUSIONS: In this retrospective chart review, there was no significant difference in adverse events or therapy discontinuation between patients receiving sequential peripheral nerve block(s) and onabotulinumtoxinA injections versus those receiving either peripheral nerve block(s) or onabotulinumtoxinA injections alone. As a result, we concluded that the combination procedure is likely safe and well tolerated in routine clinical practice.

Beyond the Guidelines: A Narrative Review of Treatments on the Horizon for Migraine in Children and Adolescents.

Migraine is common in children and adolescents and can cause significant disability. There are relatively limited evidence-based treatment options available, especially when compared with treatment of migraine in adults. The Pediatric Research Equity Act requires the study of a new drug or biologic in pediatric populations. As such it is mandatory that the newest migraine treatment options available for adults be evaluated in children and adolescents. It will take years before results from clinical trials in pediatric patients become available. In the meantime, there is eagerness among clinicians to seek out the existing evidence that may help provide clarity on utilization of the newer migraine therapies in children and adolescents because many of the currently available, guideline-recommended treatments do not provide benefit for all patients. In this narrative review, the literature regarding onabotulinumtoxinA, neuromodulatory devices, calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibodies, 5-hydroxytryptamine (1F) agonists (i.e., ditans), and CGRP small-molecule receptor antagonists (i.e., gepants) for the treatment of migraine in children and adolescents will be summarized.

Profile of Lasmiditan in the Acute Treatment of Migraine in Adults: Design, Development, and Place in Therapy.

Migraine is a common neurological disorder that is present in a large proportion of the global population. It is estimated to occur in around 20.7% of women and 10.7% of men in the United States. The pathophysiology of migraine is a major focus of research, and medications have been developed to interrupt the processes that generate headache and other bothersome symptoms of migraine attacks. The triptan class of medications acts as a direct agonist at the 5-HT1B/D receptor but its use is limited by contraindications for those with coronary or cerebrovascular disease. Lasmiditan is a first-in-class agonist at the 5-HT1F serotonin receptor that does not appear to generate vasoconstriction. This article reviews the design, development, and place in therapy for lasmiditan. A narrative review of the literature using the Ovid MEDLINE database was performed. The rationale behind the development of lasmiditan and pre-clinical, proof-of-concept, Phase II, pivotal, Phase III trials and post-hoc data is covered. Additionally, the efficacy and safety of lasmiditan when compared to other acute treatments in migraine is described, including lasmiditan's side effect profile and status as a Schedule V substance. Further, head-to-head studies of lasmiditan compared with other acute treatments are required.

A qualitative evidence synthesis of patient perspectives on migraine treatment features and outcomes.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to identify migraine treatment features preferred by patients and treatment outcomes most valued by patients. BACKGROUND: The values and preferences of people living with migraine are critical for both the choice of acute therapy and management approach of migraine. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative evidence synthesis. Two reviewers independently selected studies, appraised methodological quality, and undertook a framework synthesis. We developed summary of findings tables following the approach of Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative Research to assess confidence in the findings. RESULTS: Of 1691 candidate references, we included 19 studies (21 publications) involving 459 patients. The studies mostly recruited White women from North America (11 studies) and Europe (8 studies). We identified eight themes encompassing features preferred by patients in a migraine treatment process. Themes described a treatment process that included shared decision-making, a tailored approach, trust in health-care professionals, sharing of knowledge and diversity of treatment options, a holistic approach that does not just address the headache, ease of communication especially for complex treatments, a non-undermining approach, and reciprocity with mutual respect between patient and provider. In terms of the treatment itself, seven themes emerged including patients' preferences for nonpharmacologic treatment, high effectiveness, rapidity of action, long-lasting effect, lower cost and more accessibility, self-management/self-delivery option that increases autonomy, and a mixed preference for abortive versus prophylactic treatments. The treatment outcomes that have high value to patients included maintaining or improving function; avoiding side effects, potential for addiction to medications, and pain reoccurrence; and avoiding non-headache symptoms such as nausea, vomiting, and sensitivity to light or sounds. CONCLUSION: Patient values and preferences were individually constructed, varied widely, and could be at odds with conventional medical perspectives and evidence of treatment effects. Considering the availability of numerous treatments for acute migraine, it is necessary that decision-making incorporates patient values and preferences identified in qualitative research. The findings of this qualitative synthesis can be used to facilitate an individually tailored approach, strengthen the patient-health-care system relationship, and guide choices and decisions in the context of a clinical encounter or a clinical practice guideline.

Incidence of Status Migrainosus in Olmsted County, Minnesota, United States: Characterization and Predictors of Recurrence.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: SM is recognized as a complication of migraine in which pain and/or associated symptoms are unremitting and debilitating for more than 72 hours. The epidemiology of SM in the general population is not known. The aim of this study is to determine the incidence, recurrence rate, and clinical associations of status migrainosus (SM) in care-seeking residents of Olmsted County, Minnesota. METHODS: The Rochester Epidemiology Project was used to identify the incident cases of SM according to the International Classification of Headache Disorders, Third Edition criteria and based on the first physician-encountered case in the record. The clinical characteristics of the incident cases were abstracted from the medical record. One-year recurrence-free survival was evaluated and compared between clinically relevant groups, including baseline demographics, migraine characteristics, and treatment exposures. RESULTS: Between January 1, 2012, and December 31, 2017, 237 incident cases of SM were identified. The median age was 35 (IQR 26-47) years, and 210 (88.6%) were female. A history of chronic migraine was recorded in 82/226 (36.3%) and a history of aura in 76/213 (35.7%). At the time of the incident case, medication reconciliation included a triptan or ergotamine in 127/233 (53.6%) and/or an opioid-containing analgesic in 43/233 (18.5%). The overall age- and sex-adjusted incidence rate was 26.60 per 100,000 [95% CI, 23.21-29.97], with a peak incidence between ages 40 and 49 years. The median (95% CI) attack duration was 5 (4.48-5.42) days. The most frequent triggers were stress (40/237, 16.9%) and too much or too little sleep (27/237, 11.4%). Recurrence occurred in 35/237 (14.8%) at a median of 58 (IQR 23-130) days following the initial attack. In our age- and sex-adjusted multivariable model, too much or too little sleep as a trigger was associated with 12-month risk of recurrence (adjusted OR 3.59 [95% CI 1.58-8.14], p = 0.0022). DISCUSSION: Our study provides a population-based estimate of SM incidence. We identified aberrant sleep patterns as a potentially modifiable risk factor for 1-year SM recurrence.

A Review of Underserved and Vulnerable Populations in Headache Medicine in the United States: Challenges and Opportunities.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This review will briefly summarize recent literature published on headache disparities in underserved and vulnerable populations. It will also report the personal observations of headache medicine providers working with underserved and vulnerable populations in the USA, specifically in an urban practice dedicated to patients in a safety net program and a rural practice dedicated to Native American patients. RECENT FINDINGS: Headache disorders are recognized as one of the most prevalent neurological conditions. People with headache and migraine encounter several barriers to obtaining appropriate care, which are magnified in vulnerable and underserved populations. Research has shown disparities in headache and migraine diagnosis, prevalence rates, treatment, and outcomes based on race, socioeconomic status, and geography. Continued research regarding disparities in headache medicine is required. Strategies to address the identified challenges, including structural competence and the underrepresented in medicine pipeline, are reviewed.

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.

Acute Treatments for Episodic Migraine in Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Importance: Migraine is common and can be associated with significant morbidity, and several treatment options exist for acute therapy. Objective: To evaluate the benefits and harms associated with acute treatments for episodic migraine in adults. Data Sources: Multiple databases from database inception to February 24, 2021. Study Selection: Randomized clinical trials and systematic reviews that assessed effectiveness or harms of acute therapy for migraine attacks. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Independent reviewers selected studies and extracted data. Meta-analysis was performed with the DerSimonian-Laird random-effects model with Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman variance correction or by using a fixed-effect model based on the Mantel-Haenszel method if the number of studies was small. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcomes included pain freedom, pain relief, sustained pain freedom, sustained pain relief, and adverse events. The strength of evidence (SOE) was graded with the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Methods Guide for Effectiveness and Comparative Effectiveness Reviews. Findings: Evidence on triptans and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs was summarized from 15 systematic reviews. For other interventions, 115 randomized clinical trials with 28 803 patients were included. Compared with placebo, triptans and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs used individually were significantly associated with reduced pain at 2 hours and 1 day (moderate to high SOE) and increased risk of mild and transient adverse events. Compared with placebo, calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonists (low to high SOE), lasmiditan (5-HT1F receptor agonist; high SOE), dihydroergotamine (moderate to high SOE), ergotamine plus caffeine (moderate SOE), acetaminophen (moderate SOE), antiemetics (low SOE), butorphanol (low SOE), and tramadol in combination with acetaminophen (low SOE) were significantly associated with pain reduction and increase in mild adverse events. The findings for opioids were based on low or insufficient SOE. Several nonpharmacologic treatments were significantly associated with improved pain, including remote electrical neuromodulation (moderate SOE), transcranial magnetic stimulation (low SOE), external trigeminal nerve stimulation (low SOE), and noninvasive vagus nerve stimulation (moderate SOE). No significant difference in adverse events was found between nonpharmacologic treatments and sham. Conclusions and Relevance: There are several acute treatments for migraine, with varying strength of supporting evidence. Use of triptans, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, acetaminophen, dihydroergotamine, calcitonin gene-related peptide antagonists, lasmiditan, and some nonpharmacologic treatments was associated with improved pain and function. The evidence for many other interventions, including opioids, was limited.

Ubrogepant in the Acute Management of Migraine: A Narrative Review.

Ubrogepant is a small-molecule calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor antagonist that received Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval for the acute treatment of migraine with and without aura in adults. The ACHIEVE I and ACHIEVE II Phase III clinical trials showed that ubrogepant was superior to placebo for pain freedom and freedom of the most bothersome migraine-associated symptom at 2 hours after medication intake. The 52-week open label extension of the Phase III trials demonstrated safety of ubrogepant. A real-world study conducted at a tertiary headache center also confirmed the efficacy and safety of ubrogepant. Adverse event rates were higher in the real-world population. Studies are needed to evaluate its long-term efficacy and safety, especially in the setting of co-administration with other CGRP modulating therapies such as the CGRP monoclonal antibodies.

Evaluation of the Safety of Calcitonin Gene-Related Peptide Antagonists for Migraine Treatment Among Adults With Raynaud Phenomenon.

Importance: Calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) antagonists have demonstrated tremendous promise in migraine management. However, these medications decrease reflex vasodilatory response, which may lead to exacerbation of microvascular disease in susceptible patients, such as patients with Raynaud phenomenon (RP). Objective: To investigate the microvascular complications of CGRP antagonists in patients with underlying RP. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study was performed from May 18, 2018, to September 15, 2020, in Mayo Clinic Health System patients with Raynaud phenomenon while undergoing CGRP antagonist therapy to treat migraine. Inclusion criteria were age older than 18 years, history of migraine, past or current treatment with CGRP antagonists, and diagnosis of primary or secondary RP. Exposure: Treatment with CGRP antagonists. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome measure was microvascular complications (eg, worsening RP, digital ulcerations, and gangrenous necrosis) after initiation of treatment with a CGRP antagonist. Patient demographic and clinical characteristics were compared between those who experienced complications and those who did not. Results: A total of 169 patients (163 [96.4%] female; 151 [89.3%] non-Hispanic White; mean [SD] age, 46 [13] years) were identified. Of the 169 patients, 9 (5.3%) exhibited microvascular complications, ranging from worsening RP to gangrene and autonecrosis that required distal digit amputation. Comparative analysis did not find statistically significant differences in demographic or clinical characteristics between the 2 cohorts. All 9 patients with complications were female (mean [SD] age, 40 [12] years). Five of the 9 patients (55.6%) had previously diagnosed RP; in 3 the RP was primary, and 2 it was secondary to scleroderma. The other 4 patients (44.4%) were newly diagnosed with RP. Eight of the 9 patients (88.9%) had chronic migraine; 4 had migraine with aura, and 5 had migraine without aura. The CGRP antagonist agents temporally associated with the microvascular complications included galcanezumab (in 3 patients), erenumab (in 5 patients), and fremanezumab (in 1 patient). Conclusions and Relevance: The results of this study indicate that microvascular complications of CGRP antagonist use in patients with underlying RP are uncommon. The incidence of serious adverse events, although rare, warrant caution when considering the use of these agents in patients with RP.

The intersection of COVID-19, school, and headaches: Problems and solutions.

OBJECTIVE: To equip clinicians with recommendations specific to concerns related to the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), which impact the physical, emotional, and social health of youth with headache disorders. BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has affected societies on a global scale including children and youth with chronic headache disorders. Many concerns are predicted to arise in the 2020-2021 school year, whether classes are conducted in-person or virtually. METHODS: Clinical impressions were combined with a review of the literature, although limited due to the recent nature of this issue. RESULTS: We describe recommendations to support caregivers and youth as they face changes expected with the return to school in the fall of 2020. CONCLUSION: Although there are significant concerns for caregivers and youth with migraine given the context of changes related to the pandemic, there are many recommendations that can help minimize exacerbations of the physical, emotional, and social health of youth with chronic migraine.

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.