Chronic headaches and medication overuse

Preventive treatment response associated with migraine aura subtypes in a Thai population

Introduction

Some studies indicate a different response to treatment between migraine patients with and without aura.

Objectives

To determine whether aura, or simple or complex aura subtypes, are clinical markers predicting response to preventive treatment.

Methods

Conducted a retrospective cohort study at a headache clinic in a tertiary referral hospital. We included data from patients registered from 1 November 2014, to 30 June 2022, having migraine with or without aura, or with simple or complex aura, and who had received migraine preventive treatments with at least 3 months follow-up. The primary outcome was a response to preventive treatment defined as at least a 50% reduction from a baseline of monthly migraine or headache days (MMDs/MHDs). Secondary outcomes were improvement in quality of life and disability scores.

Results

For migraine patients with (45) and without (123) aura who took a migraine preventive with at least 3 months follow-up; except for median age, which was older for patients without aura, baseline sex, comorbidity, and migraine data were without significant difference including median history of migraine, chronic migraine subtype, chronic migraine with medication-overuse headache, median or mean MMDs/MHDs, number of preventive medications used, or migraine preventive medication inhibiting spreading depolarizations. Treatment outcomes at 3 and 6 months follow-up were not significantly different between migraine patients with and without aura, or with simple and complex aura, but tended to be greater in those with aura and those with complex aura. After adjustment for baseline comorbidity, migraine subtypes, aura subtypes, the number of preventives used, history of migraine, and MMDs/MHDs, we found no significant differences in 30% and 50% reduction from baseline of MMDs/MHDs in 3 or 6 months or most recent follow-up.

Conclusions

Preventive treatment response tended to be associated with migraine aura subtypes. We found preventive treatment response tended to have more favorable outcomes in those with aura, especially those with complex aura.

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.

Severe migraine and its control: A proposal for definitions and consequences for care

Currently many patients with severe migraine do not receive appropriate treatment and are never referred to specialist headache centres. On the other hand, specialist headache centres are frequently attended by patients whose migraines could be managed adequately in the community. One reason for this may be the absence of standardised definitions of migraine severity and control and of a treatment algorithm for orientating difficult-to-treat patients to specialist headache centres. Based on a review of the relevant literature and consensus meetings, proposals have been made for these items. We propose that migraine should be considered severe if headache frequency is at least eight migraine days per month or, if headaches are less frequent, the HIT-6 score is ≥60 or ≥50% of headaches require complete interruption of activity. The proposed definition of migraine control is defined on the basis of appropriate response to acute headache therapy and to preventative therapy. A treatment algorithm is proposed to assess migraine control regularly and to adapt therapy accordingly. These proposals may contribute to developing and testing strategies for management of severe disease with appropriate and effective preventive treatment strategies. With the anticipated introduction of new possibilities for migraine prevention in the near future, the time is ripe for a holistic approach to migraine management.

Anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies in migraine: current perspectives

Migraine is a highly disabling neurological pain disorder in which management is frequently problematic. Most abortive and preventative treatments employed are classically non-specific, and their efficacy and safety and tolerability are often unsatisfactory. Mechanism-based therapies are, therefore, needed. Calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) is recognized as crucial in the pathophysiology of migraine, and new compounds that target the peptide have been increasingly explored in recent years. First tested were CGRP receptor antagonists; they proved effective in acute migraine treatment in several trials, but were discontinued due to liver toxicity in long-term administration. Monoclonal antibodies against CGRP (LY2951742, ALD-403, and LBR-101/TEV-48125) or its receptor (AMG334) were subsequently developed. As reviewed in this study, numerous phase 1 and 2 trials and preliminary results of phase 3 trials have shown a good safety/tolerability profile and efficacy in migraine prevention, especially in high frequent episodic and chronic forms. Being macromolecules, these mAbs are not suitable for oral administration; however, their intravenous or subcutaneous delivery can be performed at relatively low frequency-every month or even quarterly-which enhances patients' compliance. Although not all migraineurs respond to this treatment, and longer administration periods will be needed to assess long-term effects, the results so far obtained are extraordinarily promising. The future introduction of mAbs on the market will probably represent a turning point for prevention similar to that represented by triptans for abortive treatment in migraine.

Self-reported comorbid pains in severe headaches or migraines in a US national sample

AIMS

To compare prevalence of self-reported comorbid temporomandibular joint muscle disorder-type, neck, back, and joint pains in people with severe headache or migraine; and analyze these self-reported pains in the 2000-2005 US National Health Interview Survey by gender and age for non-Hispanic whites, Hispanics, and non-Hispanic blacks (African Americans).

METHODS

National Health Interview Survey data included information on gender, age, race, ethnicity, health status, and common pain types: severe headache or migraine, temporomandibular joint muscle disorder-type, neck, and low back in the last 3 months, as well as prior-month joint pains. Analyses included survey prevalence estimation and survey logistic regression to obtain odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS

The study included 189,967 adults: 48% males, 52% females; 73% white, 12% Hispanic, and 11% black. Of the entire sample, 29,712 (15%) reported severe headache or migraine, and 19,228 (64%) had severe headache or migraine with at least 1 comorbid pain. Two or more comorbid pains were reported in 10,200 (33%), with no gender difference, and with Hispanics (n = 1847 or 32%) and blacks (n = 1301 or 30%) less likely to report 2 or more comorbid pains than whites (n = 6747 or 34%) (odds ratio = 0.91, P = .032; OR = 0.82, P < .001, respectively). This group also reported significantly lower ratings of self-rated health (P < .001). Differences in type of comorbid pain by age patterns were found.

CONCLUSIONS

Severe headache or migraine is often associated with other common pains, seldom existing alone. Two or more comorbid pains are common, similarly affecting gender and racial/ethnic groups.