What proportion of people with migraine report postdromal symptoms? A systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies

Hallmarks of primary headache: part 1 - migraine

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Migraine is a common disabling conditions which, globally, affects 15.2% of the population. It is the second cause of health loss in terms of years lived with disability, the first among women. Despite being so common, it is poorly recognised and too often undertreated. Specialty centres and neurologists with specific expertise on headache disorders have the knowledge to provide specific care: however, those who do not regularly treat patients with migraine will benefit from a synopsis on the most relevant and updated information about this condition. This paper presents a comprehensive view on the hallmarks of migraine, from genetics and diagnostic markers, up to treatments and societal impact, and reports the elements that identify migraine specific features.

MAIN RESULTS

The most relevant hallmark of migraine is that it has common and individual features together. Besides the known clinical manifestations, migraine presentation is heterogeneous with regard to frequency of attacks, presence of aura, response to therapy, associated comorbidities or other symptoms, which likely reflect migraine heterogeneous genetic and molecular basis. The amount of therapies for acute and for prophylactic treatment is really wide, and one of the difficulties is with finding the best treatment for the single patient. In addition to this, patients carry out different daily life activities, and might show lifestyle habits which are not entirely adequate to manage migraine day by day. Education will be more and more important as a strategy of brain health promotion, because this will enable reducing the amount of subjects needing specialty care, thus leaving it to those who require it in reason of refractory condition or presence of comorbidities.

CONCLUSIONS

Recognizing the hallmarks of migraine and the features of single patients enables prescribing specific pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments. Medical research on headaches today particularly suffers from the syndrome of single-disease approach, but it is important to have a cross-sectional and joint vision with other close specialties, in order to treat our patients with a comprehensive approach that a heterogeneous condition like migraine requires.

Pharmacological management of migraine: current strategies and future directions

INTRODUCTION

Migraine is a complex neurological disorder that affects a significant portion of the global population. As traditional pharmacological approaches often fall short in alleviating symptoms, the development of innovative therapies has garnered significant interest. This text aims to summarize the current pharmacological options for managing migraine and to explore the potential impact of novel therapies.

AREAS COVERED

We focused on conventional treatments, emerging therapies, and novel compounds in clinical development, including therapies targeting the trigeminovascular system, cannabis-based therapies, hormonal and metabolic therapies, and other options. English peer-reviewed articles were searched in PubMed, Scopus, and ClinicalTrials.gov electronic databases.

EXPERT OPINION

Several novel treatment options for migraine have become available in recent years. Emerging pharmacological therapies targeting the trigeminovascular system, cannabis-based therapies, hormonal and metabolic interventions, and other emerging treatment modalities, may prove to be valuable for the treatment of migraine. Further research, clinical trials, and substantiated evidence are necessary to validate the efficacy, safety, and long-term outcomes of these therapeutic options.

Postdromal symptoms in migraine: a REFORM study

BACKGROUND

Migraine is a multiphasic neurovascular disorder, where headache can be succeeded by postdromal symptoms. However, there are limited research on postdromal symptoms. This study aimed to investigate the proportion of individuals with migraine from a tertiary care unit reporting postdromal symptoms in adherence with the ICHD-3 definition. We also aimed to examine how the means of enquiry might influence the estimated proportions. Additionally, we explored whether any clinical features might affect the likelihood of reporting postdromal symptoms. Finally, we assessed to what extend the postdromal symptoms might impact the disease burden.

METHODS

In a cross-sectional study, we enrolled adult participants diagnosed with migraine who were asked to report their postdromal symptoms (i.e., unprompted reporting). Subsequently, a 16-item list was used to further ascertain the occurrence of postdromal symptoms (i.e., prompted reporting). Clinical characteristics were obtained through a semi-structured interview. Moreover, electronic questionnaires were used to assess the disease burden, i.e., the Six-Item Headache Impact Test (HIT-6), Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS), and the World Health Organization Disability Assessment 2.0 (WHODAS 2.0).

RESULTS

Among 631 participants with migraine, a higher proportion experienced at least one postdromal symptom when prompted (n = 509 [80.7%]) compared with unprompted reporting (n = 421 [66.7%], P < 0.001). Furthermore, the total number of postdromal symptoms experienced was greater with prompted than unprompted reporting (medians 3 [IQR 1 - 6] versus 1 [IQR 0 - 2]; P < 0.001). Furthermore, the likelihood of reporting postdromal symptoms increased with the presence of premonitory symptoms and decreased with higher number of monthly migraine days. Weak correlations were identified between the number of postdromal symptoms reported and both HIT-6 (ρ = 0.14; P < 0.001) and WHODAS scores (ρ = 0.15; P < 0.001), whilst no correlation was observed with MIDAS score (ρ = 0.08; P = 0.054).

CONCLUSIONS

Postdromal symptoms are prevalent in individuals with migraine from a tertiary care unit. However, reported estimates warrant cautious interpretation as they depend on the means of enquiry, presence of premonitory symptoms, and frequency of monthly migraine days. Moreover, a weak correlation was identified between the number of postdromal symptoms and both HIT-6 and WHODAS scores, indicating only a marginal influence on the disease burden.

Nine-Month Continuous Fremanezumab Prophylaxis on the Response to Triptans and Also on the Incidence of Triggers, Hypersensitivity and Prodromal Symptoms of Patients with High-Frequency Episodic Migraine

Objective: To investigate whether the incidence of triggers, prodromal symptoms, hypersensitivity symptoms accompanying headache and responses to triptans were modified during a continuous 9-month fremanezumab therapy for migraine prophylaxis. Patients and methods: We studied 63 patients with high-frequency episodic migraine (HFEM). Enrolled patients received fremanezumab for nine consecutive months before defining the response rates and being stratified into treatment responders (≥50-74% reduction in monthly headache days (MHDs)), super responders (≥75%), partial non-responders (<50%) and super non-responders (<30%). Through headache diaries, patients provided data in order to document the impact of fremanezumab on the incidence of triggers, associated symptoms followed by headache and response to triptans (the use of the migraine treatment optimization questionnaire-4 (mTOQ-4)) during the 9-month treatment period. Results: Fremanezumab had early (after 3 monthly cycles) beneficial effects on the response to triptans in the majority of responders with relevant increases in mTOQ-4 scoring, but also in half of partial non-responders. A significant reduction in median days with migraine-associated symptoms was seen in responders after 6 months of therapy with fremanezumab, mostly for osmophobia, photophobia, phonophobia and nausea/vomiting, but partial non-responders also benefited. Likewise, the incidence of self-reported prodromal symptoms was significantly reduced in responders and was modestly diminished in partial non-responders. Triggers remained unaffected in both responders and non-responders. Conclusions: Fremanezumab given for at least 6-9 months may exert neuromodulatory effects in the migraine brain. These effects could result both in the inhibition of migraine chronification, but also in the diminishing of the magnitude of migraine-associated symptoms, mostly in responders and in partial non-responders.