Italian guidelines for primary headaches: 2012 revised version

Efficacy and safety of simple analgesics for acute treatment of episodic tension-type headache in adults: a network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Tension-type headache is the most common type of primary headache and results in a huge socioeconomic burden. This network meta-analysis (NMA) aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of simple analgesics for the treatment of episodic tension-type headache (ETTH) in adults.

METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Chinese BioMedical Literature database and International Clinical Trials Registry Platform databases for eligible randomized clinical trials reporting the efficacy and/or safety of simple analgesics. A Bayesian NMA was performed to compare relative efficacy and safety. The surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) was calculated to rank interventions. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42018090554.

RESULTS

We highlighted six studies including 3507 patients. For the 2 h pain-free rate, the SUCRA ranking was ibuprofen > diclofenac-K > ketoprofen > acetaminophen > naproxen > placebo. All drugs except naproxen reported a higher 2 h pain-free rate than placebo, with a risk ratio (RR) of 2.86 (95% credible interval, CrI: 1.62-5.42) for ibuprofen and 2.61 (1.53-4.88) for diclofenac-K. For adverse events rate, the SUCRA ranking was: metamizol > diclofenac-K > ibuprofen > lumiracoxib > placebo > aspirin > acetaminophen > naproxen > ketoprofen. The adverse event rates of all analgesics were no higher than those of placebo, except for ketoprofen. Moreover, all drugs were superior to placebo in the global assessment of efficacy. In particular, the RR of lumiracoxib was 2.47 (1.57-4.57). Global heterogeneity I2 between the studies was low.

CONCLUSIONS

Simple analgesics are considered more effective and safe as a placebo for ETTH in adults. Our results suggest that ibuprofen and diclofenac-K may be the two best treatment options for patients with ETTH from a comprehensive point of view (both high-quality evidence).

The impact of genetic factors on the response to migraine therapy

Migraine is a multidimensional disease affecting a large portion of the human population presenting with a variety of symptoms. In the era of personalized medicine, successful migraine treatment presents a challenge, as several studies have shown the impact of a patient's genetic profile on therapy response. However, with the emergence of contemporary treatment options, there is promise for improved outcomes. A literature search was conducted in PubMed and Scopus, in order to obtain studies investigating the impact of genetic factors on migraine therapy outcome. Overall, 23 studies were included in the current review, exhibiting diversity in the treatments used and the genetic variants investigated. Divergent genes were assessed for each category of migraine treatment. Several genetic factors were identified to contribute to the heterogeneous response to treatment. SNPs related to pharmacodynamic receptors, pharmacogenetics and migraine susceptibility loci were the most investigated variants, revealing some interesting significant results. To date, various associations have been recorded correlating the impact of genetic factors on migraine treatment responses. More extensive research needs to take place with the aim of shedding light on the labyrinthine effects of genetic variations on migraine treatment, and, consequently, these findings can promptly affect migraine treatment and improve migraine patients' life quality in the vision of precise medicine.

Evidence-Based Opinions from Multidisciplinary Experts on Use of Naturopathic Herbal Remedies in Pain Management

Background

Pharmacological approaches to acute and chronic pain management, including non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and opioids, are respectively associated with adverse reactions (such as gastrointestinal, cardiovascular, and renal effects) that might limit their use in patients with comorbidities and controversy related to inappropriate use. Naturopathic remedies might offer patients alternative and integrative treatments with minimal side effects.

Objective

To explore the regional variation in the acceptance and use of naturopathic remedies in pain management.

Methods

Two expert panel discussions were held by GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare (now Haleon Pte. Ltd.) over 9 and 12 hours in 2020 and 2021, respectively, and attended by multidisciplinary experts in naturopathy, Ayurvedic medicine, community pharmacy, physiotherapy, clinical pharmacy, Western medicine, academics, and naturopathic pain relief. Experts shared and discussed their experiences of naturopathic treatments and relevant clinical evidence related to different types of pain (including joint and muscle pain, migraine, sleeplessness due to pain, and general pain) and examined barriers to providing support to patients.

Results

Experts agreed on the potential for curcumin (2020, 71.4% [5/7]; 2021, 91.7% [11/12]) and fish oil (2020, 100% [7/7]) for management of osteoarthritic joint pain although these are not uniformly recommended in osteoarthritis treatment guidelines. In treatment of migraines, coenzyme Q10 and magnesium were favored by experts (2021, 90.9% [10/11] and 63.6% [7/11], respectively).

Conclusion

The need was emphasized for more and higher quality clinical studies to support naturopathic remedies, which might not be reflected in the latest treatment guidelines. The expert panel also highlighted missed opportunities for physicians and pharmacists to recommend effective naturopathic treatments.

Peppermint and menthol: a review on their biochemistry, pharmacological activities, clinical applications, and safety considerations

In this manuscript, we conducted a comprehensive review of the diverse effects of peppermint on human health and explored the potential underlying mechanisms. Peppermint contains three main groups of phytochemical constituents, including essential oils (mainly menthol), flavonoids (such as hesperidin, eriodictyol, naringenin, quercetin, myricetin, and kaempferol), and nonflavonoid phenolcarboxylic acids. Peppermint exhibits antimicrobial, antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, immunomodulatory, anti-cancer, anti-aging, and analgesic properties and may be effective in treating various disorders, including gastrointestinal disorders (e.g., irritable bowel syndrome, dyspepsia, constipation, functional gastrointestinal disorders, nausea/vomiting, and gallbladder stones). In addition, peppermint has therapeutic benefits for psychological and cognitive health, dental health, urinary retention, skin and wound healing, as well as anti-depressant and anti-anxiety effects, and it may improve memory. However, peppermint has paradoxical effects on sleep quality and alertness, as it has been shown to improve sleep quality in patients with fatigue and anxiety, while also increasing alertness under conditions of monotonous work and relaxation. We also discuss its protective effects against toxic agents at recommended doses, as well as its safety and potential toxicity. Overall, this review provides the latest findings and insights into the properties and clinical effects of peppermint/menthol and highlights its potential as a natural therapeutic agent for various health conditions.

Patterns of anti-CGRP mAbs use and variation of triptan consumption following treatment initiation: A descriptive drug utilization study in the Tuscany region, Italy

OBJECTIVE

To describe the pattern of anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies (anti-CGRP mAbs) utilization in the Tuscany region, Italy, and the variation of triptan consumption after treatment initiation.

BACKGROUND

Given the recent commercialization of anti-CGRP mAbs as migraine preventive medications, real-world evidence on their patterns of utilization and their impact on migraine abortive medication use is still limited.

METHODS

A retrospective, descriptive, cohort study on the real-world utilization of anti-CGRP mAbs was performed using the population-based regional administrative database of Tuscany. Patients with ≥1 anti-CGRP mAb dispensing (namely erenumab, galcanezumab, fremanezumab) between April 1, 2019, and September 30, 2021, were identified. The first dispensing was the cohort entry (CE). New users (NUs) were patients with no anti-CGRP mAb dispensing before CE. Kaplan-Meier (KM) curves were plotted to describe the cumulative probability of remaining with the initial anti-CGRP mAb during a 15-month follow-up period as a measure of treatment persistence. Among NUs with ≥2 triptan dispensings during the 6 months before CE (i.e., baseline), the mean monthly number of triptan dosage units dispensed was measured in five consecutive follow-up time windows (months 1-3, 4-6, 7-9, 10-12, 13-15) and the difference from the baseline was calculated.

RESULTS

A total of 624 NUs (erenumab = 295, galcanezumab = 223, fremanezumab = 106) were identified, of whom 188 (78%) were women. Mean age was 49.2 years (standard deviation [SD] = 12.6). The survival to discontinuation at 6, 12, and 15 months was about 69%, 48%, and 6%, respectively. The survival to switch was about 6% at 15 months. The observed variation of triptan consumption at 3/6/9/12/15 months and the corresponding SD was -4.4 [8.2]/-5.2 [9.0]/-5.5 [9.2]/-5.4 [9.2]/-4.5 [10.0], respectively.

CONCLUSION

Patient demographics reflect the place of these medications in therapy. Overall, findings seem to indicate a favorable tolerability and effectiveness profile. Further studies are warranted to better establish the long-term comparative effectiveness, safety, and cost effectiveness of anti-CGRP mAbs compared to other preventive medications.

Antiseizure medications as migraine preventatives: a call for action for a teratogenic and neurodevelopmental risk removal

INTRODUCTION

A recent study has demonstrated an increased risk of neurodevelopmental disorders, including autism spectrum disorder, in individuals exposed to either valproate or topiramate monotherapy. Regulatory bodies have initiated a review to reassess the safety of topiramate exposure during pregnancy. These novel findings raise concerns regarding the recommendation of antiseizure medications in women of childbearing potential. This manuscript highlights current research defining concerns specific to the use of valproate and topiramate in women of childbearing potential.

AREAS COVERED

This manuscript summarizes recent findings regarding the safety of valproate and topiramate when compared to alternative therapies for the preventative treatment of migraine in women of childbearing potential. The studies included in this review were selected following a comprehensive literature review of multiple relevant databases. All studies that were published within the past 15 years were considered for inclusion.

EXPERT OPINION

The use of valproate and topiramate in women of childbearing potential should be highly discouraged. Our recommendations include a review of current prescribing guidelines, further public education regarding the neurodevelopmental and congenital risks associated with the use of valproate and topiramate, and an appeal for further research defining the safety of alternative medications for migraine prevention when intrauterine exposure is possible.

The incidence of vestibular neuritis in Italy

Objective

This study aims to estimate the incidence of Vestibular neuritis (VN) in three different districts in Italy, its epidemiological features, and the prevalence of comorbidities associated with it.

Methods

An observational prospective study of 198 patients referred to ENT departments in Siena, Grosseto, and Cuneo was carried out over a 2-year period. Each patient underwent a complete otoneurologic examination in the first 48 h from the onset of symptoms and a brain MRI in the early stages of the disease. The follow-up lasted for 1 year.

Results

The total VN incidence rate of the three municipalities was 48.497 (95% CI: 48.395-48.598) and its standardized value was 53.564 (95% CI: 53.463-53.666). The total VN incidence rate for the whole sample (municipality and district of the three centers) was 18.218 (95% CI: 18.164-18.272), and its standardized value was 20.185 (95% CI: 20.129-20.241). A significant difference was highlighted between patients living in the city compared to those living in the surrounding area (p < 0.000), this may be due to the ease of reaching the otoneurological referral center.

Conclusion

The total incidence rate for the three municipalities was 48.497. This result is higher than previously reported studies.

Utilization patterns, cardiovascular risk, and concomitant serotoninergic medications among triptan users between 2008 and 2018: A gender analysis in one Italian region, Tuscany

OBJECTIVE

To describe the pattern of triptan use by gender in Tuscany, Italy, focusing on special user populations in which evidence on triptan safety is still not conclusive.

BACKGROUND

Growing evidence supports the role of gender differences in migraine pathophysiology and treatment. However, gender impact on triptan real-word utilization has been poorly investigated.

METHODS

A retrospective, descriptive, cohort study was performed using the population-based Administrative Healthcare Database of Tuscany region (Italy). Subjects registered in the database on the January 1 of each year between 2008 and 2018 were identified. New users (NU) of triptans (ATC:N02CC*) were patients with one or more triptan dispensation during the year of interest and none in the past. Age, cardiovascular comorbidities representing an absolute or a possible contraindication to triptan utilization, concomitant serotonergic medications, and pattern of triptan use during 1-year follow-up were described by gender.

RESULTS

A total of 86,109 patients who received one or more triptan dispensing were identified. Of 64,672 NU (men = 17,039; women = 47,633), 10.2% (6823/64,672) were aged >65 years, who were mostly women (n = 4613). Among NU, men and women with absolute cardiovascular contraindications were 4.3% (740/17,039) and 2.1% (1022/47,633), respectively, while those concomitantly taking serotonergic medications were 17.2% (267/1549) and 21.9% (949/4330), respectively (949/4330). Regular users (two or more dispensing with ≥3 months between first and last observed dispensing) accounted for 26.4% of women (12,597/47,633) and 19.11% of men (3250/17,039); frequent users (≥15 dosage units/month during ≥3 consecutive months) were overall 0.1% (94/64,672) and 62.0% (58/94) of them concomitantly received serotonergic medications.

CONCLUSION

Considering gender differences in triptan use highlighted here, large scale observational studies are warranted to better define what populations are safe to use triptans and whether it is appropriate to tighten or relax certain recommendations on triptan use. In the meantime, any suspected adverse drug reaction observed in the special user populations highlighted in this study should be promptly reported.

Migraine Pharmacological Treatment and Cognitive Impairment: Risks and Benefits

Migraine is a common neurological disorder impairing the quality of life of patients. The condition requires, as an acute or prophylactic line of intervention, the frequent use of drugs acting on the central nervous system (CNS). The long-term impact of these medications on cognition and neurodegeneration has never been consistently assessed. The paper reviews pharmacological migraine treatments and discusses their biological and clinical effects on the CNS. The different anti-migraine drugs show distinct profiles concerning neurodegeneration and the risk of cognitive deficits. These features should be carefully evaluated when prescribing a pharmacological treatment as many migraineurs are of scholar or working age and their performances may be affected by drug misuse. Thus, a reconsideration of therapy guidelines is warranted. Furthermore, since conflicting results have emerged in the relationship between migraine and dementia, future studies must consider present and past pharmacological regimens as potential confounding factors.

Magnesium as an Important Factor in the Pathogenesis and Treatment of Migraine—From Theory to Practice

So far, no coherent and convincing theory has been developed to fully explain the pathogenesis of migraine, although many researchers and experts emphasize its association with spreading cortical depression, oxidative stress, vascular changes, nervous excitement, neurotransmitter release, and electrolyte disturbances. The contribution of magnesium deficiency to the induction of cortical depression or abnormal glutamatergic neurotransmission is a likely mechanism of the magnesium–migraine relationship. Hence, there is interest in various methods of assessing magnesium ion deficiency and attempts to study the relationship of its intra- and extracellular levels with the induction of migraine attacks. At the same time, many clinicians believe that magnesium supplementation in the right dose and form can be a treatment to prevent migraine attacks, especially in those patients who have identified contraindications to standard medications or their different preferences. However, there are no reliable publications confirming the role of magnesium deficiency in the diet as a factor causing migraine attacks. It also seems interesting to deepen the research on the administration of high doses of magnesium intravenously during migraine attacks. The aim of the study was to discuss the probable mechanisms of correlation of magnesium deficiency with migraine, as well as to present the current clinical proposals for the use of various magnesium preparations in complementary or substitute pharmacotherapy of migraine. The summary of the results of research and clinical observations to date gives hope of finding a trigger for migraine attacks (especially migraine with aura), which may turn out to be easy to diagnose and eliminate with pharmacological and dietary supplementation.

Pharmacogenetics in Primary Headache Disorders

Primary headache disorders, such as migraine, tension-type headache (TTH), and cluster headache, belong to the most common neurological disorders affecting a high percentage of people worldwide. Headache induces a high burden for the affected individuals on the personal level, with a strong impact on life quality, daily life management, and causes immense costs for the healthcare systems. Although a relatively broad spectrum of different pharmacological classes for the treatment of headache disorders are available, treatment effectiveness is often limited by high variances in therapy responses. Genetic variants can influence the individual treatment success by influencing pharmacokinetics or pharmacodynamics of the therapeutic as investigated in the research field of pharmacogenetics. This review summarizes the current knowledge on important primary headache disorders, including migraine, TTH, and cluster headache. We also summarize current acute and preventive treatment options for the three headache disorders based on drug classes and compounds taking important therapy guidelines into consideration. Importantly, the work summarizes and discusses the role of genetic polymorphisms regarding their impact on metabolism safety and the effect of therapeutics that are used to treat migraine, cluster headache, and TTH exploring drug classes such as nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, triptans, antidepressants, anticonvulsants, calcium channel blockers, drugs with effect on the renin-angiotensin system, and novel headache therapeutics such as ditans, anti-calcitonin-gene-related peptide antibodies, and gepants. Genetic variants in important phase I-, II-, and III-associated genes such as cytochrome P450 genes, UGT genes, and different transporter genes are scrutinized as well as variants in genes important for pharmacodynamics and several functions outside the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic spectrum. Finally, the article evaluates the potential and limitations of pharmacogenetic approaches for individual therapy adjustments in headache disorders.

Migraine and Neuroticism: A Scoping Review

Headache is the first cause of consultation in neurology, and one of the most frequent reasons for consultation in general medicine. Migraine is one of the most common, prevalent, and socioeconomically impactful disabling primary headache disorders. Neuroticism can be conceptualized as a disposition to suffer anxiety and emotional disorders in general. Neuroticism has been associated with various mental and physical disorders (e.g., chronic pain, depression), including migraine. With the aim to explore in depth the relationship between migraine and neuroticism, and contribute to the understanding of this relation in order to provide a better treatment for migraine patients based on a personalized and more comprehensive approach, a scoping review was performed using PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science. Databases were searched independently by the two researchers, reaching a final set of 18 articles to be included. The search terms were: migraine and neuroticism. Neuroticism seems to be highly prevalent in migraine patients. Findings reveal that migraine patients with comorbid depression and anxiety showed higher levels of neuroticism. Depression has been associated with an increased risk of transformation from episodic to chronic migraine whereas neuroticism might be a mediator factor. Neuroticism also might be a mediator factor between childhood maltreatment and migraine. The revision conducted confirms that: (1) Migraine patients usually have a higher level of neuroticism and vulnerability to negative affect, compared to non-migraineurs and tension-type headache patients. (2) Neuroticism is associated with migraine. Nonetheless, more research is needed to clarify potential moderators of this relationship and the role of neuroticism itself in this disease. This knowledge might be useful in order to promote a better management of negative emotions as part of intervention programs in migraine.

Pediatric Headache in Primary Care and Emergency Departments: Consensus with RAND/UCLA Method

Headache is the most frequent neurological symptom in childhood and the main reason for admission to pediatric emergency departments. The aim of this consensus document is to define a shared clinical pathway between primary care pediatricians (PCP) and hospitals for the management of children presenting with headache. For the purposes of the study, a group of hospital pediatricians and a group of PCP from the Emilia Romagna’s health districts were selected to achieve consensus using the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method. Thirty-nine clinical scenarios were developed: for each scenario, participants were asked to rank the appropriateness of each option from 1 to 9. Agreement was reached if ≥75% of participants ranked within the same range of appropriateness. The answers, results, and discussion helped to define the appropriateness of procedures with a low level of evidence regarding different steps of the diagnostic-therapeutic process: primary care evaluation, emergency department evaluation, hospital admission, acute therapy, prophylaxis, and follow-up. The RAND proved to be a valid method to value appropriateness of procedures and define a diagnostic-therapeutic pathway suitable to the local reality in the management of pediatric headache. From our results, some useful recommendations were developed for optimizing the healthcare professionals’ network among primary care services and hospitals.

Evaluation of the Effect of Intranasal Lidocaine in the Treatment of Spasticity in Patients with Traumatic Brain Injury

Background

Spasticity following traumatic brain injury (TBI) is one of the most significant barriers of returning patients to their normal life. Spasticity caused by TBI does not have a specific or definitive treatment, and the clinical effect of pharmacologic treatments has not been significant.

Methods

In this single-arm study, we evaluated 15 patients. For each patient with spasticity, treatment with oral baclofen 25 mg was started three times a day as a part of standard therapy. After 48 hours, if the spasticity did not decrease by at least one score in the Modified Tardieu or Ashworth scales, lidocaine 0.5% was administered as a continuous intranasal infusion. The initial dose of lidocaine was 1 mg/min, which was gradually increased to 2 mg/min. Spasticity and the frequency of spasms were assessed by Ashworth and modified tardieu scales (MTS) and Spasm Frequency Score (SFS), respectively. Heart rate (HR), respiratory rate (RR), mean arterial blood pressure (MAP), Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS), Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS), and arterial oxygen saturation (SP_o2) of patients were recorded during nine days of treatment. All data were analyzed by SPSS version 21. P-value less than 0.05 was considered as statistically significant.

Results

Out of 15 participants in this study, 13 (86.7%) were male, and 2 (13.3%) were female (mean age: 29.26 ± 12.5 years). There were no significant differences in Ashworth Scale, Modified Tradieu Scale, RASS Score, GCS Score, MAP, SP_o2 percentage, HR, RR, and the number of spasms per day between the time of initiation of treatment and the second day of baclofen treatment (P > 0.05). Evaluation of spasticity using Ashworth scale on the first and last days of lidocaine treatment showed a significant decrease in the mean spasticity (3.46 ± 0.51 and 1.46 ± 0.91, respectively; P < 0.001). Spasticity assessment using the MTS showed a significant reduction in the mean of the last day of treatment compared to the mean of the first day of treatment (3.6 ± 0.5 and 1.26 ± 0.51, respectively; P < 0.001). This decrease was also seen in the mean of the last day of treatment compared to the first day in SFS (13.3 ± 3.88 and 3.8 ± 0.51, respectively; P < 0.001). Comparison of HR, RR, MAP, RASS, GCS, and SP_o2 on the first and last days of treatment did not show any statistical differences.

Conclusions

Although continuous intranasal treatment with lidocaine can be effective in spasm reduction of patients with TBI, further studies with larger sample sizes and longer follow-up periods are required.

Headache and migraine clinical practice guidelines: a systematic review and assessment of complementary and alternative medicine recommendations

BACKGROUND

Globally, 3 billion people suffer from either migraine or tension-type headache disorder over their lifetime. Approximately 50% of American adults suffering from headache or migraine have used complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), however, the quality and quantity of recommendations associated with such therapies across clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for the treatment and/or management of these conditions are unknown. The purpose of this study was to identify the quantity and assess the quality of such CAM recommendations.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL were systematically searched from 2009 to April 2020; the Guidelines International Network and the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health websites were also searched for eligible CPGs. CPGs were included if they provided any therapy recommendations. Eligible CPGs included those written for adult patients with headache and migraine; CPGs containing CAM recommendations were assessed twice for quality using the AGREE II instrument, once for the overall CPG and once for the CAM sections.

RESULTS

Of 486 unique search results, 21 CPGs were eligible and quality assessed; fifteen CPGs mentioned CAM, of which 13 CPGs made CAM recommendations. The overall CPG assessment yielded higher scaled domain percentages than the CAM section across all domains. The results from highest to lowest were as follows (overall, CAM): clarity of presentation (66.7% vs. 50.0%), scope and purpose (63.9% vs. 61.1%), stakeholder involvement (22.2% vs. 13.9%), rigour of development (13.5% vs. 9.4%), applicability (6.3% vs. 0.0%), and editorial independence (0.0% vs. 0.0%).

CONCLUSIONS

Of the eligible CPGs, the CAM sections were of lower quality compared to the overall recommendations across all domains of the AGREE II instrument. CPGs that scored well could serve as a framework for discussion between patients and healthcare professionals regarding use of CAM therapies in the context of headache and migraine.

Osmophobia in primary headache patients: associated symptoms and response to preventive treatments

Background

Osmophobia, is common among primary headaches, with prevalence of migraine.

The study aimed to evaluate prevalence and clinical characteristics of patients with osmophobia in a cohort of primary headache patients selected at a tertiary headache center. The second aim was to verify the possible predicting role of osmophobia in preventive treatment response in a sub cohort of migraine patients.

Methods

This was an observational retrospective cohort study based on data collected in a tertiary headache center.

We selected patients aged 18–65 years, diagnosed as migraine without aura (MO), migraine with aura (MA) or Chronic Migraine (CM), Tension-Type Headache (TTH); and Cluster Headache (CH). We also selected a sub-cohort of migraine patients who were prescribed preventive treatment, according to Italian Guidelines, visited after 3 months follow up.

Patients were considered osmophobic, if reported this symptom in at least the 20% of headache episodes. Other considered variables were: headache frequeny, the migraine disability assessment (MIDAS), Allodynia Symptom Checklist, Self-rating Depression scale, Self-rating Anxiety scale, Pain intensity evaluated by Numerical Rating Scale-NRS- form 0 to 10.

Results

The 37,9% of patients reported osmophobia (444 patients with osmophobia, 726 without osmophobia).

Osmophobia prevailed in patients with the different migraine subtypes, and was absent in patients with episodic tension type headache and cluster headache (chi square 68.7 DF 7 p < 0.0001). Headache patients with osmophobia, presented with longer hedache duration (F 4.91 p 0.027; more severe anxiety (F 7.56 0.007), depression (F 5.3 p 0.019), allodynia (F 6 p 0.014), headache intensity (F 8.67 p 0.003). Tension type headache patients with osmophobia (n° 21), presented with more frequent headache and anxiety. A total of 711 migraine patients was visited after 3 months treatment. The change of main migraine features was similar between patients with and without osmophobia.

Conclusions

While the present study confirmed prevalence of osmophobia in migraine patients, it also indicated its presence among chronic tension type headache cases, marking those with chronic headache and anxiety.

Osmophobia was associated to symptoms of central sensitization, as allodynia. It was not relevant to predict migraine evolution after first line preventive approach.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s10194-021-01327-2.

Manual joint mobilisation techniques, supervised physical activity, psychological treatment, acupuncture and patient education in migraine treatment. A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Many people suffering from migraine combine pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments. The purpose of this systematic review is to provide an updated guideline for some widely used non-pharmacological treatment options for migraine.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic literature review of randomized studies of adults with migraine treated with manual joint mobilisation techniques, supervised physical activity, psychological treatment, acupuncture and patient education. The main outcomes measured were days with headache and quality of life. Recommendations were formulated based on the Grade of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach including patient preferences based on expert opinion and questionnaire data.

RESULTS

The overall level of certainty of the evidence was low to very low. Manual therapy techniques and psychological treatment did not change the studied outcomes. Supervised physical activity might have a positive impact on quality of life, acupuncture on headache frequency, intensity, quality of life and the use of attack-medicine. Patient education might improve self-rated health and quality of life and increase the number of well-informed patients.

CONCLUSION

Based on observed effects, the lack of serious adverse events, and patients' preferences, we make weak recommendations for considering the investigated interventions as a supplement to standard treatment.Protocol registration: Prospero CRD42020220132.

Quality appraisal of existing guidelines for the management of headache disorders by the AGREE II's method

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the quality of existing clinical practice guidelines for headache management and their main recommendations.

BACKGROUND

Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines have been developed to support the clinical decision-making. However, to achieve this goal, the quality of these guidelines must be ensured.

METHODS

A systematic search for clinical practice guidelines for headache management was conducted in the PubMed database, in websites of known guideline developers and in websites of known headache associations. The quality appraisal was performed through the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II method.

RESULTS

Twelve guidelines were evaluated. The domains of rigor of development, applicability, and editorial independence, which most influence the overall quality of guidelines, had the lowest average scores and the highest standard deviation rates (61% ± 23; 37% ± 20; 53% ± 31). The main recommendations regarding medication use for acute treatment of episodic tension-type headache and migraine in adult patients consisted of paracetamol, acetylsalicylic acid, and other nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in all guidelines.

CONCLUSIONS

The statistical results indicate that the appraised guidelines have room for both individual and collective improvement. In addition, there is a well-established medication recommendation pattern among all guidelines evaluated.

Oral cannabinoid preparations for the treatment of chronic migraine: a retrospective study

OBJECTIVE

To explore the effectiveness and safety of 3 oral cannabinoid preparations (FM2®, Bedrocan® and Bediol®) in the treatment of chronic migraine.

DESIGN

Retrospective, cohort study.

SUBJECTS

Patients with chronic migraine who received FM2®, Bedrocan® or Bediol® daily for the off-label treatment of their headache, up to 6 months.

METHODS

The number of migraine days per month, pain intensity, the number of acute medications taken per month, the number of days per month when the patient took at least one acute medication, and adverse events were recorded at baseline, 3 months, and 6 months after the start of treatment with oral cannabinoid preparations.

RESULTS

The number of migraine days didn't change significantly after the 3rd and the 6th month when compared to baseline (P = 0.1182). The pain intensity (P = 0.0004), the acute medication consumption (P = 0.0006) and the number of days per month in which patients took, at least, one acute medication, (P = 0.0004) significantly decreased when compared to the baseline. No significant differences were found between patients who were still taking a preventive treatment for chronic migraine and those who weren't (all P > 0.05). Different oral cannabinoid preparations displayed similar effectiveness (all P > 0.05). The AEs were mostly mild and occurred in the 43.75% of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Oral cannabinoid preparations may have a role in reducing pain intensity and acute medication intake in patients with chronic migraine, but the magnitude of the effect seems modest; further studies are needed.

Paracetamol: A Review of Guideline Recommendations

Musculoskeletal pain conditions are age-related, leading contributors to chronic pain and pain-related disability, which are expected to rise with the rapid global population aging. Current medical treatments provide only partial relief. Furthermore, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and opioids are effective in young and otherwise healthy individuals but are often contraindicated in elderly and frail patients. As a result of its favorable safety and tolerability record, paracetamol has long been the most common drug for treating pain. Strikingly, recent reports questioned its therapeutic value and safety. This review aims to present guideline recommendations. Paracetamol has been assessed in different conditions and demonstrated therapeutic efficacy on both acute and chronic pain. It is active as a single agent and is additive or synergistic with NSAIDs and opioids, improving their efficacy and safety. However, a lack of significant efficacy and hepatic toxicity have also been reported. Fast dissolving formulations of paracetamol provide superior and more extended pain relief that is similar to intravenous paracetamol. A dose reduction is recommended in patients with liver disease or malnourished. Genotyping may improve efficacy and safety. Within the current trend toward the minimization of opioid analgesia, it is consistently included in multimodal, non-opioid, or opioid-sparing therapies. Paracetamol is being recommended by guidelines as a first or second-line drug for acute pain and chronic pain, especially for patients with limited therapeutic options and for the elderly.

Comparison of cervical muscle isometric force between migraine subgroups or migraine-associated neck pain: a controlled study

This study aimed to verify if migraine frequency or migraine-associated neck pain were associated with a reduction of normalized force and altered electromyographic activity during maximal cervical muscle isometric contractions. Additionally, it aimed to assess the correlation of normalized isometric force with years with migraine, headache frequency, headache intensity, migraine-related disability, and severity of cutaneous allodynia. The sample comprises 71 women with migraine (40/31 episodic/chronic, 42/18 with/without neck pain) and 32 women without headache. Cervical muscle isometric force in flexion, extension, and lateral flexion was assessed synchronized with the acquisition of superficial electromyography from the cervical muscles. Women with episodic migraine presented lower normalized isometric force in extension, flexion, and right and left lateral flexions than controls (P < 0.05). Women with migraine and neck pain exhibited lower cervical extension and right/left lateral-flexions normalized isometric force than controls (P < 0.05). No significant differences were observed in antagonist activity. Normalized isometric force in all directions showed weak to moderate correlations with the severity of self-reported symptoms of cutaneous allodynia (- 0.25 ≥ r ≥ - 0.39). No additional linear correlation with clinical migraine features was observed. In conclusion, cervical muscle weakness may be associated with episodic migraine and neck pain concurrent with migraine attacks without altered antagonist activity. Additionally, it may also be related to the severity of cutaneous allodynia.

Comorbidities of primary headache disorders: a literature review with meta-analysis

Background

Primary headache disorders are common and burdensome conditions. They are associated to several comorbidities, such as cardiovascular or psychiatric ones, which, in turn, contribute to the global burden of headache. The aim of this study is to provide a comprehensive description of the pooled prevalence of comorbidities of primary headache disorders using a meta-analytical approach based on studies published between 2000 and 2020.

Methods

Scopus was searched for primary research (clinical and population studies) in which medical comorbidities were described in adults with primary headache disorders. Comorbidities were extracted using a taxonomy derived from the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) study. We compared prevalence of comorbidities among headache sufferers against general population using GBD-2019 estimates, and compared comorbidities’ proportions in clinical vs. population studies, and by age and gender.

Results

A total of 139 studies reporting information on 4.19 million subjects with primary headaches were included: in total 2.75 million comorbidities were reported (median per subject 0.64, interquartile range 0.32–1.07). The most frequently addressed comorbidities were: depressive disorders, addressed in 51 studies (pooled proportion 23 %, 95 % CI 20–26 %); hypertension, addressed in 48 studies (pooled proportion 24 %, 95 % CI 22–26 %); anxiety disorders addressed in 40 studies (pooled proportion 25 %, 95 % CI 22–28 %). For conditions such as anxiety, depression and back pain, prevalence among headache sufferers was higher than in GBD-2109 estimates. Associations with average age and female prevalence within studies showed that hypertension was more frequent in studies with higher age and less females, whereas fibromyalgia, restless leg syndrome, and depressive disorders were more frequent in studies with younger age and more female.

Conclusions

Some of the most relevant comorbidities of primary headache disorders – back pain, anxiety and depression, diabetes, ischemic heart disease and stroke – are among the most burdensome conditions, together with headache themselves, according to the GBD study. A joint treatment of headaches and of these comorbidities may positively impact on headache sufferers’ health status and contribute to reduce the impact of a group of highly burdensome diseases.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s10194-021-01281-z.

Impact of Galcanezumab on Total Pain Burden: A Post Hoc Analysis of a Phase 3, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study in Patients with Episodic Cluster Headache

Purpose

In a phase 3 study, galcanezumab significantly reduced the frequency of episodic cluster headache attacks across weeks 1–3 (primary endpoint) compared with placebo. However, multiple pain dimensions may contribute to the total burden of episodic cluster headache pain. This post hoc analysis assessed the impact of galcanezumab on the total pain burden of episodic cluster headache using a composite measure.

Patients and Methods

Patients with episodic cluster headache were randomized 1:1 to galcanezumab 300 mg or placebo once monthly for 8 weeks. Mean weekly total pain burden was calculated (daily cluster headache attack frequency × average duration × average pain severity summed over 7 days) using data collected in an electronic patient-reported outcomes diary. Change from baseline in weekly total pain burden across weeks 1–3 was compared between galcanezumab and placebo. To explore construct validity, mean weekly total pain burden scores were stratified by Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I) responses at the week 4 clinic visit.

Results

The reduction from baseline in mean weekly total pain burden was significantly greater with galcanezumab (N=49) than with placebo (N=57): the least squares mean difference was −11.18 severity-weighted hours (p=0.035). Median weekly total pain burden decreased as PGI-I ratings improved, from 33.6 to 5.0 severity-weighted hours for patients who felt “very much worse” and “very much better,” respectively.

Conclusion

Galcanezumab significantly reduced mean weekly total pain burden compared with placebo in patients with episodic cluster headache. The composite pain measure demonstrated construct validity. Total pain burden may provide a holistic measure of the pain of episodic cluster headache.

Clinical Trials

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02397473.

The impact of the disease burden on the quality of life of cluster headache patients

Background:

Cluster headache cannot be cured, and not all attacks can be aborted or prevented. Nevertheless, therapeutic guidelines focus solely on the attacks and ignore reverberations of the disorder on patients’ lives. However, it is likely that not only pain reduces patients’ quality of life (QoL).

Objective:

To investigate whether the interictal burden independently influence the QoL of subjects suffering from cluster headache.

Methods:

In this cross-sectional study, we asked patients with a self-reported cluster headache diagnosis to answer a modified EUROLIGHT questionnaire that included the EURO-HIS QoL scale. We built a generalised linear model and included the QoL as the dependent variable. Independent variables comprised both the ictal and the interictal burden.

Results:

The data of 625 participants entered the analysis. Several aspects of the interictal burden independently reduced the QoL. Among them were fear of pain, self-concealment, and private life difficulties due to the disorder.

Conclusion:

Both the ictal and the interictal burden of cluster headache independently reduce patients’ QoL. We advocate adopting a more holistic approach to cluster headache management extending the focus towards the afflicted person and their QoL, which would generate novel therapeutic goals and strategies, complementary to treating and preventing cluster headache attacks.

Applications of Ketogenic Diets in Patients with Headache: Clinical Recommendations

Headaches are among the most prevalent and disabling neurologic disorders and there are several unmet needs as current pharmacological options are inadequate in treating patients with chronic headache, and a growing interest focuses on nutritional approaches as non-pharmacological treatments. Among these, the largest body of evidence supports the use of the ketogenic diet (KD). Exactly 100 years ago, KD was first used to treat drug-resistant epilepsy, but subsequent applications of this diet also involved other neurological disorders. Evidence of KD effectiveness in migraine emerged in 1928, but in the last several year's different groups of researchers and clinicians began utilizing this therapeutic option to treat patients with drug-resistant migraine, cluster headache, and/or headache comorbid with metabolic syndrome. Here we describe the existing evidence supporting the potential benefits of KDs in the management of headaches, explore the potential mechanisms of action involved in the efficacy in-depth, and synthesize results of working meetings of an Italian panel of experts on this topic. The aim of the working group was to create a clinical recommendation on indications and optimal clinical practice to treat patients with headaches using KDs. The results we present here are designed to advance the knowledge and application of KDs in the treatment of headaches.

InterMiG: international differences in the therapeutic approach to migraine patients in specialized headache centers

Background

There is currently a wide therapeutic arsenal for migraine patients, without a single first-line preventive drug and we choose the different available alternatives taking into account comorbidities, national guidelines, previous treatments and personal experiences.

Our objective was to evaluate the differences in the use of migraine treatments between neurologists from different countries.

Methods

This is a multi-centre observational study carried out by neurologists from specialized headache units in seven countries, retrospective with consecutive inclusion of all patients presenting with a migraine diagnosis, over a period of three months.

Results

A total of 734 patients were recruited but only 600 were considered in the analysis in order to homogenize the patient cohorts from countries: 200 Spain (ES), 100 Italy (IT), 85 Russia (RUS), 80 Germany (DE), 60 Portugal (PT), 45 Poland (PL) and 30 Australia (AU). 85.4 % of patients were women with a mean age of 42.6 ± 11.8 years. Considering previous and current preventive treatment, the order of use was: antidepressants (69.3 %), antiepileptic drugs (54.7 %), beta-blockers and antihypertensive drugs (49.7 %), OnabotulinumtoxinA (44.0 %) and others (36.2 %).

Statistically significant differences were found between all pharmacological classes: antidepressants were commonly used in all countries, with the exception of Poland (AU: 76.7 %, IT: 71.0 %, DE: 60.0 %, PL: 31.1 %, PT: 71.7 %, RUS: 70.6 %, ES: 78.5 %; p < 0.0001); antiepileptic drugs were more frequently prescribed in Portugal, Australia and Spain (AU: 73.3 %, IT: 40.0 %, DE: 37.5 %, PL: 48.9 %, PT: 85.0 %, RUS: 29.4 % and ES: 69.0 %; p < 0.0001); beta-blockers and antihypertensive drugs were frequently used in all countries except Italy (AU: 60.0 %, IT: 14.0 %, DE: 53.8 %, PL: 48.9 %, PT: 68.3 %, RUS: 49.4 % and ES: 59.0 %; p < 0.0001); BTX-A were predominately used in Spain, Italy and Australia (AU:56.7 %, IT:58.0 %, DE:20.0 %, PL: 42.2 %, PT: 26.7 %, RUS: 24.7 % and ES: 58.5 %; p < 0.0001) and others were most frequently used in Poland (AU: 0.0 %, IT: 19.0 %, DE: 42.5 %, PL: 95.6 %, PT: 31.7 %, RUS: 3.5 % and ES: 49.5 %; p < 0.0001). If only patients without comorbidities are considered (200/600), statistically differences between countries persist in all preventive treatments.

Conclusions

There is heterogeneity in the choice of preventive treatment between different countries. Prospective comparative studies of the different oral and subcutaneous alternatives would help to create a global therapeutic algorithm that would guarantee the best option for our patients.

Genetics, pathophysiology, diagnosis, treatment, management, and prevention of migraine

Migraine is a neurological ailment that is characterized by severe throbbing unilateral headache and associated with nausea, photophobia, phonophobia and vomiting. A full and clear mechanism of the pathogenesis of migraine, though studied extensively, has not been established yet. The current available information indicates an intracranial network activation that culminates in the sensitization of the trigemino-vascular system, release of inflammatory markers, and initiation of meningeal-like inflammatory reaction that is sensed as headache. Genetic factors might play a significant role in deciding an individual's susceptibility to migraine. Twin studies have revealed that a single gene polymorphism can lead to migraine in individuals with a monogenic migraine disorder. In this review, we describe recent advancements in the genetics, pathophysiology, diagnosis, treatment, management, and prevention of migraine. We also discuss the potential roles of genetic and abnormal factors, including some of the metabolic triggering factors that result in migraine attacks. This review will help to accumulate current knowledge about migraine and understanding of its pathophysiology, and provides up-to-date prevention strategies.

Real world effectiveness and tolerability of candesartan in the treatment of migraine: a retrospective cohort study

To date, two randomized, controlled studies support the use of candesartan for migraine prophylaxis but with limited external validity. We aim to evaluate the effectiveness and tolerability of candesartan in clinical practice and to explore predictors of patient response. Retrospective cohort study including all patients with migraine who received candesartan between April 2008-February 2019. The primary endpoint was the number of monthly headache days during weeks 8-12 of treatment compared to baseline. Additionally, we evaluated the frequency during weeks 20-24. We analysed the percentage of patients with 50% and 75% response rates and the retention rates after three and 6 months of treatment. 120/4121 patients were eligible, aged 45.9 [11.5]; 100 (83.3%) female. Eighty-four patients (70%) had chronic migraine and 53 (42.7%) had medication-overuse headache. The median number of prior prophylactics was 3 (Inter-quartile range 2-5). At baseline, patients had 20.5 ± 8.5 headache days per month, decreasing 4.3 ± 8.4 days by 3 months (weeks 12-16) and by 4.7 ± 8.7 days by 6 months (paired Student's t-test, p < 0.001). The percentage of patients with a 50% response was 32.5% at 3 months and 31.7% at 6 months, while the retention rate was 85.0% and 58.3%. The number of prior treatments (Odds ratio 0.79, 95% CI 0.64-0.97) and the presence of daily headache (Odds ratio 0.39, 95% CI 0.16-0.97) were associated with a lower probability of response. Candesartan showed beneficial effects in the preventive treatment of migraine in clinical practice, including patients with chronic migraine, medication-overuse headache and resistance to prior prophylactics.

Health technology assessment for the acute and preventive treatment of migraine: A position statement of the International Headache Society

The Clinical Trials Subcommittee of the International Headache Society presents the first Health Technology Assessment for the Acute Treatment of Migraine Attacks and Prevention of Migraine. Health technology assessments are systematic evaluations of the properties, effects, and consequences of healthcare technologies; this position statement is designed to inform decision makers about access to and reimbursement for medications and devices for the acute and preventive treatment of migraine. This position statement extends beyond the already available guidelines on randomized controlled trials for migraine to incorporate real-world evidence and a synthetic approach for considering multiple data sources and modelling methods when assessing the value of migraine treatments.

Treatment patterns, health resource consumption, and costs of patients with migraine in an Italian real-world setting

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to describe the demographic and clinical characteristics of migraineurs prescribed ≥1 migraine prophylactic therapy, and to analyze their therapeutic pathways, healthcare resource consumption, and related costs.

METHODS

This retrospective analysis was based on administrative databases from two regions and three local health units in Italy. Adult patients with ≥1 discharge diagnosis for migraine or ≥1 prescription for migraine-specific drugs, or ≥1 emergency room visit for migraine from 1 January 2010 to 31 December 2016 were included if they had received ≥1 migraine prophylactic therapy between 1 January 2011 and 31 December 2015 (enrollment period). The first date of the last migraine prophylactic treatment was considered as the index date (ID). Patients were characterized 1-year prior ID and followed-up for 1 year afterwards.

RESULTS

Of the 166,362 identified migraineurs, 32,794 (mean age: 45.9 ± 13.9 years, 19.2% male) who received migraine prophylaxis were included in the analysis. At ID, 31,629 patients had received 1 prophylactic treatment with antidepressants (51.2%), neuromodulators (28.1%), beta blockers (12.4%), other migraine preparations (7.8%), and botulinum toxin A (0.5%). Focusing on patients with one prophylactic treatment at ID, 85.4% did not have any previous therapeutic failures whereas 14.6% had ≥1 previous failure. During follow-up, 5% of patients made a therapeutic switch after a mean period of 103.4 ± 97.9 days. Total mean annual cost for patients receiving migraine prophylaxis was 1193.64€ during characterization and 1303.86€ during follow-up periods.

CONCLUSION

This real-world study gave insights on the characterization of migraineurs and patterns of prophylaxis utilization in Italian clinical settings, showing an underuse of prophylactic agents.

Treatment Outcomes in Patients Treated With Galcanezumab vs Placebo: Post Hoc Analyses From a Phase 3 Randomized Study in Patients With Episodic Cluster Headache

Background

Cluster headache (CH) is a highly disabling primary headache disorder. To date, characterization of outcomes in the preventive treatment of episodic CH, including precise definitions of clinically meaningful attack frequency reduction and impact on acute treatment management, is lacking.

Methods

This was a Phase 3, randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled study in patients (men or women aged 18‐65 years) diagnosed with episodic CH as defined by the International Classification of Headache Disorders‐3 beta criteria. In this post hoc analysis, we evaluated the median time‐to‐first occurrence of ≥50, ≥75, or 100% reduction from baseline in CH attack frequency, and impact on acute medication use. An anchor‐based assessment of clinically relevant attack frequency reduction using the Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI‐I) scores at Week 4 was also assessed.

Results

The median time‐to‐first occurrence of ≥50, ≥75, or 100% reduction from baseline in CH attacks was consistently shorter (9‐10 days sooner) with galcanezumab vs placebo (median [95% confidence interval, 95% CI]: ≥50%, 5 days [4.0 to 7.0] vs 14 days [6.0 to 19.0]; ≥75%, 11 days [7.0 to 16.0] vs 21 days [13.0 to 26.0]; 100%, 22 days [16.0 to 37.0] vs 32 days [23.0 to 34.0]). Mean reduction from baseline in the overall frequency of weekly pooled acute medication use across Weeks 1‐3 was significantly greater with galcanezumab vs placebo (11.0 vs 5.5; odds ratio, OR [95% CI]: 5.52 [1.02, 10.01]; P value = .017). Patients reporting “much better” on the PGI‐I experienced a median weekly CH attack reduction of approximately 43% from baseline across Weeks 1‐3. The overall odds of achieving an attack reduction threshold of 43% across Weeks 1‐3 was significantly higher with galcanezumab vs placebo (Weeks 1‐3: OR [95% CI], 2.60 [1.3 to 5.3]).

Conclusions

Faster median time‐to‐first occurrence of response rates, lower frequency of pooled acute medications use, and a greater proportion of patients achieving a response anchored by patient‐reported improvement were observed for galcanezumab vs placebo.

Treatment patterns and medication adherence among newly diagnosed patients with migraine: a drug utilisation study

OBJECTIVES

Prophylactic drugs currently used for migraine treatment are not specific. Furthermore, few studies in existing literature describe drugs utilisation patterns and adherence to migraine prophylactic treatment. This study is aimed to describe utilisation patterns of migraine drugs, evaluate adherence to prophylactic medications and investigate drug-related costs.

DESIGN

Retrospective population-based study using an administrative health-related database.

SETTING

Primary care setting in the Campania region, Southern Italy.

PARTICIPANTS

This study was carried out between 1 January 2016 and 31 December 2018, involving 12 894 subjects with any primary or secondary hospital discharge with migraine diagnosis, or at least two medical dispensations of migraine-specific acute or prophylactic medications (triptans or pizotifen). Subjects were classified into four treatment cohorts: no treatment, acute, prophylactic and both acute and prophylactic. Subjects were followed-up for 1 year.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Utilisation patterns of migraine drugs at treatment initiation; adherence to prophylactic treatment; discontinuation, restart and switching rates; annual migraine drug costs per patient.

RESULTS

Overall, 81.1% of subjects received acute treatment as their initial migraine treatment regimen, 10.7% prophylactic treatment, 8.2% both acute and prophylactic treatment. 599 patients were treated prophylactically; of these, 26.2% adhered to their initial treatment while 73.8% reported interruptions in treatment. Among the latter, 46.4% of patients discontinued the treatment completely within 103 days (IQR 89.0), 31% restarted treatment 46 days after interruption (IQR 60.0) and 22.6% switched to another treatment within 98 days (IQR 57.5) (p<0.001). The median annual cost of drugs per patient was €103 for those treated acutely, €75 for those treated prophylactically, €163 for those treated both.

CONCLUSIONS

Migraine treatment with acute medications is still prevalent in Italy; only few patients received prophylactic treatment with poor adherence to treatment. These findings reflect an unmet need for improved prophylactic therapies in order to provide a better disease management.

What is changing in chronic migraine treatment? An algorithm for onabotulinumtoxinA treatment by the Italian chronic migraine group

INTRODUCTION

OnabotulinumtoxinA (OBT-A) and monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) targeting the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) pathway are two of the few treatments that ameliorate chronic migraine (CM) in randomized controlled trials and real-life studies. Separate clinical practice guidelines have been developed for the management of CM with OBT-A or CGRP-targeting mAbs.

AREAS COVERED

Considering the concomitant availability of OBT-A and CGRP-targeting mAbs as therapeutic treatment options, Italian migraine experts reviewed the evidence supporting the efficacy of OBT-A and CGRP-targeting mAbs in CM in order to rationalize the management of CM patients treated with OBT-A. Experts addressed everyday practice needs to shape the optimal pharmacological management by balancing adherence to regulatory indications, ethical considerations, and clinical expertise. Considering the remarkable challenge of improving the health and quality of life of patients with CM, even partial improvements may be clinically meaningful, particularly for those who are resistant or intolerant to oral migraine treatments.

EXPERT OPINION

In this collaborative effort, we propose a treatment algorithm that integrates the relevant aspects of managing patients with CM to provide ready-to-use practical guidance regarding the appropriate use of OBT-A.

Headaches and Magnesium: Mechanisms, Bioavailability, Therapeutic Efficacy and Potential Advantage of Magnesium Pidolate

Magnesium deficiency may occur for several reasons, such as inadequate intake or increased gastrointestinal or renal loss. A large body of literature suggests a relationship between magnesium deficiency and mild and moderate tension-type headaches and migraines. A number of double-blind randomized placebo-controlled trials have shown that magnesium is efficacious in relieving headaches and have led to the recommendation of oral magnesium for headache relief in several national and international guidelines. Among several magnesium salts available to treat magnesium deficiency, magnesium pidolate may have high bioavailability and good penetration at the intracellular level. Here, we discuss the cellular and molecular effects of magnesium deficiency in the brain and the clinical evidence supporting the use of magnesium for the treatment of headaches and migraines.

Galcanezumab for the prevention of cluster headache

INTRODUCTION

Cluster headache (CH) is among the worst painful conditions. The available therapies are scarce and not specific, leaving many patients unsatisfied because of poor efficacy and/or tolerability. Patients not responding to common treatments are offered semi-invasive and invasive procedures with uncertain results. Based on the current understanding of CH pathophysiology, new possible therapeutic approaches come from drugs interfering with Calcitonin Gene Related Peptide (CGRP).

AREAS COVERED

After summarizing the evidence for CGRP involvement in CH pathophysiology, we review the published literature (PubMed) and information (clinicaltrials.gov, EudraCT, EMA and FDA websites) regarding a novel anti-CGRP monoclonal antibody, Galcanezumab, its pharmacological properties, development, and evidence for the treatment of CH. Publications regarding other indications (migraine) are considered for completeness and safety/tolerability profile.

EXPERT OPINION

In one randomized clinical trial, Galcanezumab has proven to be effective and safe as a preventive treatment in episodic CH, with a favorable tolerability profile offering a potential new option in the therapeutic arsenal. Inefficacy of galcanezumab in chronic CH as well as the inefficacy of another monoclonal antibody against CGRP (fremanezumab) in both episodic and chronic CH question the scalability of the drug in CH management. Further, studies comparing galcanezumab to the current standard treatments are highly desirable.

Failure of preventive treatments in migraine: an observational retrospective study in a tertiary headache center

Background

Although the criteria for acute migraine treatment and prevention have been well described, there are still unmet needs, general underuse and low benefits of preventive drugs.

The aim of the present study was to retrospectively observe the short-term effect of preventive treatment in a cohort of migraine patients attending a tertiary headache center, using data from electronic medical records.

Methods

This was an observational retrospective cohort study based on data collected in a tertiary headache center. Data were extracted from an electronic dataset collected from January 2009 to December 2019. The main selection criteria were as follows: age of 18–75 years; diagnosis of migraine without aura (MO), migraine with aura (MA) or chronic migraine (CM); a control visit 3 months after the first access; and prescription of preventive treatment with level of evidence 1 as reported by Italian guidelines. As the primary outcome, we considered the change in the frequency of headache at the follow-up visit. Then, as secondary outcome measures, we used disability scores, intensity of headache, and allodynia. As predictive factors, we considered age, migraine duration, sex, headache frequency, allodynia, anxiety and depression at baseline, and comorbidity with fibromyalgia.

Results

Among the 6430 patients screened, 2800 met the selection criteria, 1800 returned to the follow-up visit, 550 withdrew because of adverse events, and 1100 were included the analysis. One hundred thirty-four patients had a frequency reduction of 50% or more. Flunarizine was used for less severe migraine, with a better effect compared to those of other drugs (odds ratio: 1.48; p: 0.022). Low headache frequency and absent or mild allodynia predicted a better outcome.

Conclusions

The mild effect of preventive drugs on migraine features and even the number of patients who were lost to follow-up or dropped out because of adverse events confirm that in severe and chronic patients, the first line of prevention can only delay a more focused therapeutic approach.

Clinical Reasoning Behind Non-Pharmacological Interventions for the Management of Headaches: A Narrative Literature Review

Headache is the clinical syndrome most commonly observed by neurologists in daily practice. Pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments are commonly used for the management of headaches; however, the clinical reasoning behind these interventions is not properly applied. We conducted a narrative literature review using as data sources for academic PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED, CINAHL, EBSCO, PEDro, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Collaboration Trials Register, and SCOPUS. This narrative literature review mainly considered systematic reviews, meta-analyses, randomised clinical trials, and expert opinions published after the year 2000 discussing clinical reasoning for application of non-pharmacological interventions in individuals with tension-type, migraine, and cervicogenic headaches. After the data extraction, we organized the literature thematically as follows: (1) mapping of theoretical aspects of non-pharmacological interventions; (2) summarizing most updated literature about effectiveness of non-pharmacological interventions grouped by targeted tissue and headache; (3) identifying research gaps in the existing literature and proposing hypotheses for better understanding of current clinical reasoning. We found that there are many non-pharmacological treatment strategies used for headaches, including beyond the tissue-based impairment treatments (bottom-up) and strategies targeting the central nervous system (top down). Bottom-up strategies include joint-biased, soft-tissue biased, or needling interventions, whereas top-down strategies include exercise and cognitive interventions. Evidence shows that the effectiveness of these interventions depends on the application of proper clinical reasoning, since not all strategies are effective for all headaches. For instance, evidence of non-pharmacological interventions is more controversial for migraines than for tension-type or cervicogenic headaches, since migraine pathogenesis involves activation of sub-cortical structures and the trigemino- vascular system, whereas pathogenesis of tension-type or cervicogenic headaches is most associated to musculoskeletal impairments of the cervical spine. We conclude that current literature suggests that not all non-pharmacological interventions are effective for all headaches, and that multimodal, not isolated, approaches seem to be more effective for patients with headaches. Most published studies have reported small clinical effects in the short term. This narrative literature review provides some hypotheses for discrepancies in the available literature and future research. Clinical reasoning should be applied to better understand the effects of non-pharmacological interventions.

Multidimensional assessment of the effects of erenumab in chronic migraine patients with previous unsuccessful preventive treatments: a comprehensive real-world experience

BACKGROUND

erenumab was safe and effective in clinical trials for the prevention of migraine. However, real-life data are still lacking. Here we report the clinical experience from an Italian real-world setting using erenumab in patients with chronic migraine experiencing previous unsuccessful preventive treatments.

METHODS

Seventy patients with chronic migraine and failure to ≥4 migraine preventive medication classes initially received monthly erenumab 70 mg s.c. Patients without a clinically meaningful improvement, considered as a > 30% reduction in headache days per month, after ≥3 months of therapy switched to monthly erenumab 140 mg. At the first administration and after 3 and 6 months, patients underwent extensive interviews to assess clinical parameters of disease severity and migraine-related disability and impact, and validated questionnaires to explore depression/anxiety, sleep, and quality of life (QoL). Finally, the Pain Catastrophizing Scale, Allodynia Symptom Checklist-12 and MIGraine attacks-Subjective COGnitive impairments scale (MIG-SCOG) were administered.

RESULTS

70% of patients were "responders" after the third administration of erenumab 70 mg, whereas 30% switched to erenumab 140 mg; 29% (6 pts) responded after the sixth administration. The headache-day frequency was reduced from 21.1 ± 0.7 to 11.4 ± 0.9 days after the third administration (p < 0.001) and to 8.9 ± 0.7 days after the sixth administration (p < 0.001). 53% and 70% of patients, respectively, showed a reduction of ≥50% of headache days/month after the third and the sixth administrations. Also improved were headache pain severity, migraine-related disability, and impact on daily living, QoL, pain catastrophizing and allodynia (all p < 0.001), quality of sleep, symptoms of depression or anxiety (p < 0.05) but not MIG-SCOG. There were no new adverse event signals.

CONCLUSION

These real-world data support monthly erenumab 70 or 140 mg s.c. as a safe and effective preventive treatment to reduce headache frequency and severity in chronic migraine patients experiencing previous unsuccessful preventive treatments.

From research to clinical practice: a systematic review of the implementation of psychological interventions for chronic headache in adults

BACKGROUND

Psychological interventions have been proved to be effective in chronic headache (CH) in adults. Nevertheless, no data exist about their actual implementation into standard clinical settings. We aimed at critically depicting the current application of psychological interventions for CH into standard care exploring barriers and facilitators to their implementation. Secondarily, main outcomes of the most recent psychological interventions for CH in adults have been summarized.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review through PubMed and PsycINFO in the time range 2008-2018. A quality analysis according to the QATSDD tool and a narrative synthesis were performed. We integrated results by: contacting the corresponding author of each paper; exploring the website of the clinical centers cited in the papers.

RESULTS

Of the 938 identified studies, 28 papers were selected, whose quality largely varied with an average %QATSDD quality score of 64.88%. Interventions included CBT (42.85%), multi-disciplinary treatments (22.43%), relaxation training (17.86%), biofeedback (7.14%), or other interventions (10.72%). Treatments duration (1 day-9 months) and intensity varied, with a prevalence of individual-basis implementation. The majority of the studies focused on all primary headaches; 4 studies focused on medication-overuse headache. Most of the studies suggest interventions as effective, with the reduction in frequency of attacks as the most reported outcome (46.43%). Studies were distributed in different countries, with a prevalent and balanced distribution in USA and Europe. Ten researches (35.71%) were performed in academic contexts, 11 (39.28%) in clinical settings, 7 (25%) in pain/headache centres. Interventions providers were professionals with certified experience. Most of the studies were funded with private or public funding. Two contacted authors answered to our e-mail survey, with only one intervention implemented in the routine clinical practice. Only in three out of the 16 available websites a reference to the implementation into the clinical setting was reported.

CONCLUSION

Analysis of contextual barriers/facilitators and cost-effectiveness should be included in future studies, and contents regarding dissemination/implementation of interventions should be incorporated in the professional training of clinical scientists. This can help in filling the gap between the existing published research and treatments actually offered to people with CH.

Adherence to guidelines of treatment of non-traumatic headache in the emergency department

To evaluate therapies employed in patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with a chief complaint of non-traumatic headache to check if guidelines are followed. A 6-month retrospective analysis of the ED records of all the patients who referred to the ED of the University Hospital of Trieste for non-traumatic headache was performed. Out of 37.335 admissions, 336 patients were selected (0.9%). Diagnosis at discharge was primary headache (25.6%), secondary headache (40.5%), and headache "not otherwise specified" (33.9%). One-hundred-ninety-three patients were treated in mono- (51.8%) or poly-therapy (48.2%), with NSAIDs (46.5%), benzodiazepines (13.4%), antiemetics (10.7%), analgesics (8.3%), opioids (1.6%), triptans (1.5%), and other drugs (17.7%). NSAIDs, particularly ketorolac, are the class of drugs most often prescribed in ED, independently of the discharge diagnosis. Metoclopramide is rarely used in monotherapy (4%), but it is the drug most frequently used in association with NSAIDs (19.3%). Only two migraineurs received triptans. Mean time spent in ED was 231 ± 130 min, which was significantly longer in patients who received treatment (272 ± 141 vs. 177 ± 122 min; p = 0.003). No drugs had any side effects. In accordance with the current guidelines, NSAIDs monotherapy or in association with antiemetics were the drugs most often prescribed in ED. Opioids were rarely used probably because of potential sedative side effects. Only very few patients received triptans. Special attention should be drawn also in ED to apply the International Classification of Headache Disorders criteria, which can lead to clarify the diagnosis and receive the specific treatment.

Predicting initiation of preventive migraine medications: exploratory study in a large U.S. medical claims database

Objective: Despite guidelines that identify potential patients eligible for preventive migraine medications, their underutilization leaves patients at risk of acute medication overuse, disease progression, and higher healthcare resource utilization and disability. This exploratory, retrospective, observational study aimed to identify which factors predict preventive migraine medication initiation. Demographics and initiation of acute medication use were hypothesized to be predictive of initiation of preventive migraine medication.Methods: The Truven Health Analytics MarketScan¹ U.S. Commercial and Medicare Supplemental claims database (2011-2013) was used to identify adults newly diagnosed with migraine. Patients were divided into 2 subgroups: initiated a preventive migraine medication (antidepressants, anti-epileptics, beta-blockers, or neurotoxins) within 1 year of migraine diagnosis and did not initiate a preventive migraine medication. Logistic regression models were constructed to identify factors associated with preventive migraine medication initiation.Results: Study population included 147,923 patients: 43,660 preventive migraine medication initiators and 104,263 non-preventive migraine medication patients. Best-fit model for predicting preventive migraine medication initiation included: female gender (odds ratio = 1.181 [95% CI = 1.144,1.218]; measured at date of first migraine diagnosis); headache diagnosis prior to migraine diagnosis (odds ratio = 1.538 [95% CI = 1.498,1.579]; measured 1-year before first migraine diagnosis); and sleep disorder (odds ratio = 1.206 [95% CI = 1.161,1.252]), headache/migraine-specific Emergency Department (ED) visit (odds ratio = 1.224 [95% CI = 1.168,1.283]), neurologist visit (odds ratio = 1.502 [95% CI = 1.459,1.547]), and acute medication refills with <90-day gap (odds ratio = 1.509 [95% CI = 1.470,1.549]) each measured at 1-year before first preventive migraine medication.Conclusions: In addition to consistent acute medication refills, specific comorbidity diagnoses, headache/migraine-specific ED utilization, and neurologist care are predictive of preventive migraine medication initiation in the 1-year post-incident migraine diagnosis.

Effects of Botulinum Toxin on Migraine Attack Features in Chronic Migraine: A Six-Month Open-Label Observation Study through Electronic Diary Smartphone Application

OnobotulintoxinA (OBT-A) is a treatment option for Chronic Migraine (CM). It works on central sensitization and pain but its mode of action is still unknown. To observe how OBT-A treatment works on single migraine attacks, this paper covers an over-6-month observation period through self-reported smartphone application data. This was an observational, open-label cohort study conducted on 34 CM patients under OBT-A treatment, selected between December 2016 and December 2017, who agreed to download a smartphone headache diary application (Aid Diary) according to the study instructions. The analysis was conducted using the smartphone application data reports on allodynia, intensity and extension of pain, and vegetative symptoms. We analysed a total of 707 records of single migraine attacks reported by compliant users (n = 34) in real-time. OBT-A significantly reduced allodynia, the number of vegetative symptoms, pain extension and intensity in single migraine attacks. Pain intensity was correlated with pain extension. In single migraine attacks, OBT-A improved symptoms of central sensitization. This action could be exerted by modulating nociceptive transmission and reducing the burden of single migraine episodes and improving the overall quality of life.

Current and emerging evidence-based treatment options in chronic migraine: a narrative review

Background

Chronic migraine is a disabling condition that is currently underdiagnosed and undertreated. In this narrative review, we discuss the future of chronic migraine management in relation to recent progress in evidence-based pharmacological treatment.

Findings

Patients with chronic migraine require prophylactic therapy to reduce the frequency of migraine attacks, but the only currently available evidence-based prophylactic treatment options for chronic migraine are topiramate and onabotulinumtoxinA. Improved prophylactic therapy is needed to reduce the high burden of chronic migraine in Italy. Monoclonal antibodies that target the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) pathway of migraine pathogenesis have been specifically developed for the prophylactic treatment of chronic migraine. These anti-CGRP/R monoclonal antibodies have demonstrated good efficacy and excellent tolerability in phase II and III clinical trials, and offer new hope to patients who are currently not taking any prophylactic therapy or not benefitting from their current treatment.

Conclusions

Treatment of chronic migraine is a dynamic and rapidly advancing area of research. New developments in this field have the potential to improve the diagnosis and provide more individualised treatments for this condition. Establishing a culture of prevention is essential for reducing the personal, social and economic burden of chronic migraine.

Onabotulinumtoxin-A in Chronic Migraine: Should Timing and Definition of Non-Responder Status Be Revised? Suggestions From a Real-Life Italian Multicenter Experience

OBJECTIVE

To clarify whether the clinical response after the first 2 cycles with Onabotulinumtoxin A can accurately predict the long-term response.

BACKGROUND

Onabotulinumtoxin-A (OBT-A) is an approved preventive treatment option for chronic migraine (CM). Nowadays, it remains to be clarified if the treatment has to be prolonged for at least an entire year (4 injections every 3 months - ie, quarterly, as proposed in the PREEMPT trials) or it can be halted after the second or third injection if not clinically effective.

DESIGN AND METHODS

We conducted a multicenter observational cohort study based on real-life data on the usage of OBT-A in CM patients from 2 Italian headache centers, Roma Campus Bio-Medico and Milano Besta, adopting the whole 4-injections protocol. We performed a retrospective analysis of medical records of consecutive patients treated in the 2 centers. The main statistical analysis aimed to evaluate longitudinal measures related to headache (monthly headache frequency, monthly number of analgesic drugs, MIDAS). We hypothesized from our clinical practice with OBT-A that only 2 cycles of treatment were not enough to actually define the non-responder status to botulinum toxin A and that probably a longer time of treatment is needed to get the condition of long-term (delayed) responder.

RESULTS

We considered 115 patients from the 2 centers: 53 in Roma and 62 in Milano. Regarding the main analysis, a clear improvement in each measure was obtained at the 6 months assessment and maintained up to 12 months. Comparing patients with <30% and ≥30% reduction in headache frequency between T0 and T2 or T4 (respectively, "Non-Responders" and "Responders"), we found that the agreement between the classification Responders/Non-Responders at T2 and T4 was not very high (79/104 = 76.0%, with a "moderate" Cohen's Kappa of 0.51), suggesting that the status at T4 is not fully predictable by the status at T2 (λ = 0.47). Responders for headache frequency at T4 were 54.8%. Among Responders at T2, Responders at T4 were 47/62 = 75.8% (95% CI: 64.5%, 85.5%), while among Non-Responders at T2, Responders at T4 were 10/42 = 23.8% (95% CI: 11.9%, 38.1%). Similarly, even when considering the 50% reduction in painkillers consumption or in MIDAS total score between T0 and T2 as possible prognostic factors, the changes occurring at T4 are not strongly predictable by those at T2.

CONCLUSIONS

A ≥30% reduction in headache frequency at T2 cut-off is not adequate in predicting a late response to treatment: more than a quarter of excluded patients would miss a clinical improvement with an ongoing treatment, while in a similar percentage of Responders the treatment would lose efficacy. Results from our real-life study suggest that we possibly have to postpone the definition of Responder/Non-Responder to OBT-A at least after 1 year of treatment (4 cycles).

Osteopathic Manipulative Therapy in Patients With Chronic Tension-Type Headache: A Pilot Study

CONTEXT

Nonpharmacologic treatment, such as osteopathic manipulative therapy (OMTh; manipulative care provided by foreign-trained osteopaths) may be a beneficial complementary treatment for tension-type headache. However, to the authors' knowledge, the benefit of OMTh in the management of tension-type headache has not been explored, especially chronic tension-type headache (CTTH).

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the effectiveness of OMTh compared with traditional treatment in reducing pain intensity, frequency, and duration of CTTH, and to evaluate the objective postural measurement of the forward head posture (FHP) as an integral parameter in the assessment of the effects of OMTh and traditional management of CTTH.

METHODS

Patients with CTTH were registered at the Headache Centre of Trieste in Italy. At the time of the study, none of the patients had been taking any headache prophylaxis in the past 3 months. A 3-month baseline period was recorded by all patients with an ad hoc diary. Patients were randomly placed in the test or control group using a simple randomization program in Excel (Microsoft). Patients in the OMTh group underwent a 3-month period of OMTh, and patients in the control group were treated with amitriptyline. Pain intensity, frequency, and duration of headaches, as well as FHP were analyzed.

RESULTS

The study enrolled 10 patients (mean [SD] age, 42.6 [15.2] years) in the OMTh group and 10 patients (51.4 [17.3] years) in the control group. The final assessment of OMTh patients showed statistically significant changes in all headache parameters: pain intensity decreased from a mean (SD) score of 4.9 (1.4) to 3.1 (1.1) (P=.002); frequency decreased from 19.8 (6) to 8.3 (6.2) days per month (P=.002); and the duration of headaches decreased from 10 (4.2) to 6 (3) hours (P=.01). Significant improvement of all parameters was found in the control group as well: pain intensity decreased from a mean (SD) score of 5.9 (0.7) to 4.2 (1.75) (P=.03); frequency decreased from 23.4 (7.2) to 7.4 (8.7) days per month (P=.003); and duration decreased from 7.8 (2.9) to 3.6 (2.1) hours (P=.002). Forward head posture significantly improved in OMTh patients (P=.003).

CONCLUSIONS

Our data suggested that OMTh may be an effective treatment to improve headaches in patients with CTTH. Our results also suggest that OMTh may reduce FHP.

A real-world study on unmet medical needs in triptan-treated migraine: prevalence, preventive therapies and triptan use modification from a large Italian population along two years

Background

Although migraine is a disabling neurological condition that causes important disability, it remains an area of underdiagnosis and undertreatment worldwide. The aim of this study was to depict the burden of the unmet medical needs in migraine treated with triptans in a large Italian population.

Methods

A 2-year longitudinal analysis of migraineurs with unmet medical needs on treatment with triptans was performed. The studied cohort consisted of subjects with ≥4 triptan dose units per month, selected from the general population These patients were stratified into: possible Low-Frequency Episodic Migraine (pLF-EM: 4–9 triptan dose units per month), possible High-Frequency Episodic Migraine (pHF-EM: 10–14 triptan dose units per month) and possible Chronic Migraine (pCM:> 14 triptan dose units per month). The first follow-up year was analysed to describe the use of preventive therapies, the second year to describe the ≥50% reduction in triptan use.

Results

Of 10,270,683 adults, 8.0 per 1000 were triptan users and, of these, 38.2% were migraineurs with unmet medical needs, corresponding to 3.1 per 1000 adults. By stratifying for the number of triptan dose units per month, 72.3% were affected by pLF-EM, 17.4% by pHF-EM, and 10.3% by pCM. In this cohort, 19.1% of individuals used oral preventive drugs and 0.1% botulinum toxin. Triptan use reduction was found in 22.3% individuals of the cohort, decreasing with the intensification of need levels (25.8% pLF-EM, 13.6% pHF-EM, 12.0% pCM).

Conclusions

This real-life analysis underlined that the unmet medical needs concern a large part of patients treated with triptans and there is an undertreatment with preventive therapies whose benefit is insufficient, which may be due to the lack of effective preventive strategies, probably still reserved to severe patients. This study allows forecasting the actual impact of newest therapeutic strategies aimed to fill this gap.

A Neuroscience Perspective of Physical Treatment of Headache and Neck Pain

The most prevalent primary headaches tension-type headache and migraine are frequently associated with neck pain. A wide variety of treatment options is available for people with headache and neck pain. Some of these interventions are recommended in guidelines on headache: self-management strategies, pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions. Physical treatment is a frequently applied treatment for headache. Although this treatment for headache is predominantly targeted on the cervical spine, the neurophysiological background of this intervention remains unclear. Recent knowledge from neuroscience will enhance clinical reasoning in physical treatment of headache. Therefore, we summarize the neuro- anatomical and—physiological findings on headache and neck pain from experimental research in both animals and humans. Several neurophysiological models (referred pain, central sensitization) are proposed to understand the co-occurrence of headache and neck pain. This information can be of added value in understanding the use of physical treatment as a treatment option for patients with headache and neck pain.

Acupuncture for migraine: a protocol for a meta-analysis and meta-regression of randomised controlled trials

INTRODUCTION

Although the effectiveness of acupuncture for episodic migraine has been confirmed by multiple clinical trials and Cochrane systematic reviews, the mechanisms underlying the specific effect of acupuncture for migraine remain controversial. We aim to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of acupuncture for both episodic migraine and chronic migraine by meta-analysis and explore the possible factors influencing the specific effect of acupuncture for migraine by meta-regression.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will search for randomised control trials of acupuncture for migraine in the following eight databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED (via OVID) and four Chinese databases (Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Chinese Science and Technology Periodical Database and Wanfang Database) from inception to 31 December 2017. We will also search OpenSIGLE (opensigle.inist.fr) for conference abstracts. No language restriction will be applied. The selection of studies, data extraction and coding and assessment of risk of bias of the included studies will be conducted independently by two reviewers. Standard meta-analysis and, if appropriate, meta-regression will be performed using the R packages Meta and Metafor.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The results of this meta-analysis and meta-regression will be disseminated through publication in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at a relevant conference. The data used in this meta-analysis will not contain individual patient data; therefore, ethical approval is not required.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42018087270.