User login
History of Abuse May Worsen Disease Burden in Migraine
Key clinical point: Patients with migraine and a history of abuse had a greater migraine burden than those without a history of abuse, with this association being mediated by depression and anxiety.
Major findings: Patients with migraine who did vs did not have a history of abuse had significantly higher migraine-specific disability (68 vs 49), subjective cognitive impairment (10 vs 7), and pain interference (65 vs 62.5) scores, as well as greater overall work impairment (47.6% vs 38.6%) and activity impairment (49.3% vs 39.3%; all P < .001). Depression and anxiety mediated the association between history of abuse and migraine burden.
Study details: This cross-sectional study included 866 patients with migraine from the American Registry for Migraine Research, of whom 316 (36.5 %) had a history of abuse.
Disclosures: This study was supported by the American Migraine Foundation and American Academy of Neurology. Some authors declared receiving research funding from or having other ties with various sources.
Source: Trivedi M, Dumkrieger G, Chong CD, et al. A history of abuse is associated with more severe migraine- and pain-related disability: Results from the American Registry for Migraine Research. Headache. 2024 (Jul 25). Doi: 10.1111/head.14787 Source
Key clinical point: Patients with migraine and a history of abuse had a greater migraine burden than those without a history of abuse, with this association being mediated by depression and anxiety.
Major findings: Patients with migraine who did vs did not have a history of abuse had significantly higher migraine-specific disability (68 vs 49), subjective cognitive impairment (10 vs 7), and pain interference (65 vs 62.5) scores, as well as greater overall work impairment (47.6% vs 38.6%) and activity impairment (49.3% vs 39.3%; all P < .001). Depression and anxiety mediated the association between history of abuse and migraine burden.
Study details: This cross-sectional study included 866 patients with migraine from the American Registry for Migraine Research, of whom 316 (36.5 %) had a history of abuse.
Disclosures: This study was supported by the American Migraine Foundation and American Academy of Neurology. Some authors declared receiving research funding from or having other ties with various sources.
Source: Trivedi M, Dumkrieger G, Chong CD, et al. A history of abuse is associated with more severe migraine- and pain-related disability: Results from the American Registry for Migraine Research. Headache. 2024 (Jul 25). Doi: 10.1111/head.14787 Source
Key clinical point: Patients with migraine and a history of abuse had a greater migraine burden than those without a history of abuse, with this association being mediated by depression and anxiety.
Major findings: Patients with migraine who did vs did not have a history of abuse had significantly higher migraine-specific disability (68 vs 49), subjective cognitive impairment (10 vs 7), and pain interference (65 vs 62.5) scores, as well as greater overall work impairment (47.6% vs 38.6%) and activity impairment (49.3% vs 39.3%; all P < .001). Depression and anxiety mediated the association between history of abuse and migraine burden.
Study details: This cross-sectional study included 866 patients with migraine from the American Registry for Migraine Research, of whom 316 (36.5 %) had a history of abuse.
Disclosures: This study was supported by the American Migraine Foundation and American Academy of Neurology. Some authors declared receiving research funding from or having other ties with various sources.
Source: Trivedi M, Dumkrieger G, Chong CD, et al. A history of abuse is associated with more severe migraine- and pain-related disability: Results from the American Registry for Migraine Research. Headache. 2024 (Jul 25). Doi: 10.1111/head.14787 Source
Anti-CGRP Antibody Efficacy Unaffected by Chronic Migraine Duration
Key clinical point: Anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibodies (mAb) were effective and showed a similar time to onset in patients with chronic migraine (CM), irrespective of disease duration.
Major findings: At 10-12 months of follow-up, anti-CGRP mAb reduced monthly migraine days by an average of 12 days across all tertiles of CM duration (P = .946). Additionally, monthly headache days and acute medication use significantly decreased from baseline to 10-12 months (P < .001) across all tertiles of CM duration, indicating no difference in the time to onset of anti-CGRP mAb across tertiles.
Study details: This cohort study included 335 patients with CM treated with anti-CGRP mAb for at least 12 months. Patients were categorized into different tertiles of CM duration: 0-7 years, 8-18 years, and 18-60 years.
Disclosures: This study did not disclose any funding sources. Four authors declared receiving personal fees from or having other ties with various sources.
Source: Ornello R, Baldini F, Onofri A, et al. Impact of duration of chronic migraine on long-term effectiveness of monoclonal antibodies targeting the calcitonin gene-related peptide pathway-A real-world study. Headache. 2024 (Jul 16). Doi: 10.1111/head.14788 Source
Key clinical point: Anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibodies (mAb) were effective and showed a similar time to onset in patients with chronic migraine (CM), irrespective of disease duration.
Major findings: At 10-12 months of follow-up, anti-CGRP mAb reduced monthly migraine days by an average of 12 days across all tertiles of CM duration (P = .946). Additionally, monthly headache days and acute medication use significantly decreased from baseline to 10-12 months (P < .001) across all tertiles of CM duration, indicating no difference in the time to onset of anti-CGRP mAb across tertiles.
Study details: This cohort study included 335 patients with CM treated with anti-CGRP mAb for at least 12 months. Patients were categorized into different tertiles of CM duration: 0-7 years, 8-18 years, and 18-60 years.
Disclosures: This study did not disclose any funding sources. Four authors declared receiving personal fees from or having other ties with various sources.
Source: Ornello R, Baldini F, Onofri A, et al. Impact of duration of chronic migraine on long-term effectiveness of monoclonal antibodies targeting the calcitonin gene-related peptide pathway-A real-world study. Headache. 2024 (Jul 16). Doi: 10.1111/head.14788 Source
Key clinical point: Anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibodies (mAb) were effective and showed a similar time to onset in patients with chronic migraine (CM), irrespective of disease duration.
Major findings: At 10-12 months of follow-up, anti-CGRP mAb reduced monthly migraine days by an average of 12 days across all tertiles of CM duration (P = .946). Additionally, monthly headache days and acute medication use significantly decreased from baseline to 10-12 months (P < .001) across all tertiles of CM duration, indicating no difference in the time to onset of anti-CGRP mAb across tertiles.
Study details: This cohort study included 335 patients with CM treated with anti-CGRP mAb for at least 12 months. Patients were categorized into different tertiles of CM duration: 0-7 years, 8-18 years, and 18-60 years.
Disclosures: This study did not disclose any funding sources. Four authors declared receiving personal fees from or having other ties with various sources.
Source: Ornello R, Baldini F, Onofri A, et al. Impact of duration of chronic migraine on long-term effectiveness of monoclonal antibodies targeting the calcitonin gene-related peptide pathway-A real-world study. Headache. 2024 (Jul 16). Doi: 10.1111/head.14788 Source
Childhood Abuse Linked to Migraine Risk, Meta-analysis Shows
Key clinical point: Childhood abuse was significantly associated with an increased risk for migraine, with specific types such as physical, sexual, and emotional abuse showing a positive association with migraine onset.
Major findings: Individuals who experienced childhood abuse had a higher risk for migraine than those who did not (odd ratio [OR] 1.60; 95% CI 1.49-1.71). This risk was increased in those who were exposed to sexual abuse (OR 1.71; 95% CI 1.43-2.04), physical abuse (OR 1.47; 95% CI 1.38-1.56), and emotional abuse (OR 1.71; 95% CI 1.52-1.93).
Study details: This meta-analysis of 12 studies evaluated the association between childhood abuse and migraine in 110,776 patients with migraine.
Disclosures: No funding source was disclosed for this study. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
Source: Liu J, Guo Y, Huang Z, et al. Childhood abuse and risk of migraine: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Child Abuse Negl. 2024;155:106961 (Aug 2). Doi: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2024.106961 Source
Key clinical point: Childhood abuse was significantly associated with an increased risk for migraine, with specific types such as physical, sexual, and emotional abuse showing a positive association with migraine onset.
Major findings: Individuals who experienced childhood abuse had a higher risk for migraine than those who did not (odd ratio [OR] 1.60; 95% CI 1.49-1.71). This risk was increased in those who were exposed to sexual abuse (OR 1.71; 95% CI 1.43-2.04), physical abuse (OR 1.47; 95% CI 1.38-1.56), and emotional abuse (OR 1.71; 95% CI 1.52-1.93).
Study details: This meta-analysis of 12 studies evaluated the association between childhood abuse and migraine in 110,776 patients with migraine.
Disclosures: No funding source was disclosed for this study. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
Source: Liu J, Guo Y, Huang Z, et al. Childhood abuse and risk of migraine: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Child Abuse Negl. 2024;155:106961 (Aug 2). Doi: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2024.106961 Source
Key clinical point: Childhood abuse was significantly associated with an increased risk for migraine, with specific types such as physical, sexual, and emotional abuse showing a positive association with migraine onset.
Major findings: Individuals who experienced childhood abuse had a higher risk for migraine than those who did not (odd ratio [OR] 1.60; 95% CI 1.49-1.71). This risk was increased in those who were exposed to sexual abuse (OR 1.71; 95% CI 1.43-2.04), physical abuse (OR 1.47; 95% CI 1.38-1.56), and emotional abuse (OR 1.71; 95% CI 1.52-1.93).
Study details: This meta-analysis of 12 studies evaluated the association between childhood abuse and migraine in 110,776 patients with migraine.
Disclosures: No funding source was disclosed for this study. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
Source: Liu J, Guo Y, Huang Z, et al. Childhood abuse and risk of migraine: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Child Abuse Negl. 2024;155:106961 (Aug 2). Doi: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2024.106961 Source
Increasing Daily Steps Predicts Treatment Response to Anti-CGRP Antibodies in Chronic Migraine
Key clinical point: The daily step count increased noticeably after initiating treatment with anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibodies (mAb) in adults with chronic migraine, with a positive association seen between the increase in daily steps and the treatment response to CGRP mAbs.
Major findings: The average number of steps per day increased from 4421 before initiation of anti-CGRP mAb treatment to 5241 at 3 months after initiation of treatment (P = .039), reflecting a mean percentage increase of 21.3% (95% CI 0.5-42.1). There was a positive association between an increase in daily steps and a reduction in monthly migraine days (correlation coefficient 0.521; P = .013).
Study details: This single-center, cross-sectional, retrospective study included 22 patients with chronic migraine who were treated with anti-CGRP mAbs (erenumab or fremanezumab).
Disclosures: The study was supported by the Lundbeck Foundation. Several authors declared receiving grants, honoraria, or personal fees from or having other ties with various sources.
Source: Jantzen FT, Chaudhry BA, Younis S, et al. Average steps per day as marker of treatment response with anti-CGRP mAbs in adults with chronic migraine: A pilot study. Sci Rep. 2024;14:18068 (Aug 5). Doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-68915-5 Source
Key clinical point: The daily step count increased noticeably after initiating treatment with anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibodies (mAb) in adults with chronic migraine, with a positive association seen between the increase in daily steps and the treatment response to CGRP mAbs.
Major findings: The average number of steps per day increased from 4421 before initiation of anti-CGRP mAb treatment to 5241 at 3 months after initiation of treatment (P = .039), reflecting a mean percentage increase of 21.3% (95% CI 0.5-42.1). There was a positive association between an increase in daily steps and a reduction in monthly migraine days (correlation coefficient 0.521; P = .013).
Study details: This single-center, cross-sectional, retrospective study included 22 patients with chronic migraine who were treated with anti-CGRP mAbs (erenumab or fremanezumab).
Disclosures: The study was supported by the Lundbeck Foundation. Several authors declared receiving grants, honoraria, or personal fees from or having other ties with various sources.
Source: Jantzen FT, Chaudhry BA, Younis S, et al. Average steps per day as marker of treatment response with anti-CGRP mAbs in adults with chronic migraine: A pilot study. Sci Rep. 2024;14:18068 (Aug 5). Doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-68915-5 Source
Key clinical point: The daily step count increased noticeably after initiating treatment with anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibodies (mAb) in adults with chronic migraine, with a positive association seen between the increase in daily steps and the treatment response to CGRP mAbs.
Major findings: The average number of steps per day increased from 4421 before initiation of anti-CGRP mAb treatment to 5241 at 3 months after initiation of treatment (P = .039), reflecting a mean percentage increase of 21.3% (95% CI 0.5-42.1). There was a positive association between an increase in daily steps and a reduction in monthly migraine days (correlation coefficient 0.521; P = .013).
Study details: This single-center, cross-sectional, retrospective study included 22 patients with chronic migraine who were treated with anti-CGRP mAbs (erenumab or fremanezumab).
Disclosures: The study was supported by the Lundbeck Foundation. Several authors declared receiving grants, honoraria, or personal fees from or having other ties with various sources.
Source: Jantzen FT, Chaudhry BA, Younis S, et al. Average steps per day as marker of treatment response with anti-CGRP mAbs in adults with chronic migraine: A pilot study. Sci Rep. 2024;14:18068 (Aug 5). Doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-68915-5 Source
Proinflammatory Diet Linked to Chronic Migraine Risk in Women
Key clinical point: Women with an increased adherence to a pro-inflammatory diet, as measured using a dietary inflammation score (DIS), had an increased risk for chronic migraine (CM).
Major findings: Women with CM had a significantly higher DIS than those with episodic migraine (EM) (0.08 vs 0.62; P = .002). The risk for CM was two times higher in women with a high DIS than in those with a low DIS (adjusted odd ratio 2.02; Ptrend = .03).
Study details: This cross-sectional study included 285 women with migraine, of whom 169 (59.3%) had EM and 116 (40.7%) had CM.
Disclosures: This study was supported by the Student Research Committee of Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
Source: Bakhshimoghaddam F, Shalilahmadi D, Mahdavi R, et al. Association of dietary and lifestyle inflammation score (DLIS) with chronic migraine in women: A cross-sectional study. Sci Rep. 2024;14:16406 (Jul 16). Doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-66776-6 Source
Key clinical point: Women with an increased adherence to a pro-inflammatory diet, as measured using a dietary inflammation score (DIS), had an increased risk for chronic migraine (CM).
Major findings: Women with CM had a significantly higher DIS than those with episodic migraine (EM) (0.08 vs 0.62; P = .002). The risk for CM was two times higher in women with a high DIS than in those with a low DIS (adjusted odd ratio 2.02; Ptrend = .03).
Study details: This cross-sectional study included 285 women with migraine, of whom 169 (59.3%) had EM and 116 (40.7%) had CM.
Disclosures: This study was supported by the Student Research Committee of Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
Source: Bakhshimoghaddam F, Shalilahmadi D, Mahdavi R, et al. Association of dietary and lifestyle inflammation score (DLIS) with chronic migraine in women: A cross-sectional study. Sci Rep. 2024;14:16406 (Jul 16). Doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-66776-6 Source
Key clinical point: Women with an increased adherence to a pro-inflammatory diet, as measured using a dietary inflammation score (DIS), had an increased risk for chronic migraine (CM).
Major findings: Women with CM had a significantly higher DIS than those with episodic migraine (EM) (0.08 vs 0.62; P = .002). The risk for CM was two times higher in women with a high DIS than in those with a low DIS (adjusted odd ratio 2.02; Ptrend = .03).
Study details: This cross-sectional study included 285 women with migraine, of whom 169 (59.3%) had EM and 116 (40.7%) had CM.
Disclosures: This study was supported by the Student Research Committee of Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
Source: Bakhshimoghaddam F, Shalilahmadi D, Mahdavi R, et al. Association of dietary and lifestyle inflammation score (DLIS) with chronic migraine in women: A cross-sectional study. Sci Rep. 2024;14:16406 (Jul 16). Doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-66776-6 Source
Cardiovascular Risk Factors Affect Migraine Risk in Women
Key clinical point: Cardiovascular risk factors (CVRF), such as current smoking status and diabetes mellitus, were associated with a decreased prevalence of migraine in middle-aged and older-aged women, whereas elevated diastolic blood pressure (BP) was associated with an increased prevalence.
Major findings: Among women, current smokers (odds ratio [OR] 0.72; 95% CI 0.58-0.90) and those with diabetes mellitus (OR 0.74; 95% CI 0.56-0.98) had a decreased prevalence of migraine. Conversely, women with elevated diastolic BP had an increased prevalence of migraine (OR per standard deviation increase 1.16; 95% CI 1.04-1.29). No significant association was observed between CVRF and migraine in men.
Study details: This cross-sectional analysis assessed sex-specific associations of CVRF with migraine in 7266 middle-aged and older participants (4181 women and 3085 men) from the Rotterdam Study.
Disclosures: The Rotterdam Study was funded by the Erasmus Medical Center, Erasmus University Rotterdam, and others. Antoinette MaassenVanDenBrink declared receiving research grants or consultation fees from various sources.
Source: Al-Hassany L, Acarsoy C, Ikram MK, et al. Sex-specific association of cardiovascular risk factors with migraine: The Population-Based Rotterdam Study. Neurology. 2024;103:e209700 (Aug 27). Doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000209700 Source
Key clinical point: Cardiovascular risk factors (CVRF), such as current smoking status and diabetes mellitus, were associated with a decreased prevalence of migraine in middle-aged and older-aged women, whereas elevated diastolic blood pressure (BP) was associated with an increased prevalence.
Major findings: Among women, current smokers (odds ratio [OR] 0.72; 95% CI 0.58-0.90) and those with diabetes mellitus (OR 0.74; 95% CI 0.56-0.98) had a decreased prevalence of migraine. Conversely, women with elevated diastolic BP had an increased prevalence of migraine (OR per standard deviation increase 1.16; 95% CI 1.04-1.29). No significant association was observed between CVRF and migraine in men.
Study details: This cross-sectional analysis assessed sex-specific associations of CVRF with migraine in 7266 middle-aged and older participants (4181 women and 3085 men) from the Rotterdam Study.
Disclosures: The Rotterdam Study was funded by the Erasmus Medical Center, Erasmus University Rotterdam, and others. Antoinette MaassenVanDenBrink declared receiving research grants or consultation fees from various sources.
Source: Al-Hassany L, Acarsoy C, Ikram MK, et al. Sex-specific association of cardiovascular risk factors with migraine: The Population-Based Rotterdam Study. Neurology. 2024;103:e209700 (Aug 27). Doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000209700 Source
Key clinical point: Cardiovascular risk factors (CVRF), such as current smoking status and diabetes mellitus, were associated with a decreased prevalence of migraine in middle-aged and older-aged women, whereas elevated diastolic blood pressure (BP) was associated with an increased prevalence.
Major findings: Among women, current smokers (odds ratio [OR] 0.72; 95% CI 0.58-0.90) and those with diabetes mellitus (OR 0.74; 95% CI 0.56-0.98) had a decreased prevalence of migraine. Conversely, women with elevated diastolic BP had an increased prevalence of migraine (OR per standard deviation increase 1.16; 95% CI 1.04-1.29). No significant association was observed between CVRF and migraine in men.
Study details: This cross-sectional analysis assessed sex-specific associations of CVRF with migraine in 7266 middle-aged and older participants (4181 women and 3085 men) from the Rotterdam Study.
Disclosures: The Rotterdam Study was funded by the Erasmus Medical Center, Erasmus University Rotterdam, and others. Antoinette MaassenVanDenBrink declared receiving research grants or consultation fees from various sources.
Source: Al-Hassany L, Acarsoy C, Ikram MK, et al. Sex-specific association of cardiovascular risk factors with migraine: The Population-Based Rotterdam Study. Neurology. 2024;103:e209700 (Aug 27). Doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000209700 Source
AHS White Paper Guides Treatment of Posttraumatic Headache in Youth
The guidance document, the first of its kind, covers risk factors for prolonged recovery, along with pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic management strategies, and supports an emphasis on multidisciplinary care, lead author Carlyn Patterson Gentile, MD, PhD, attending physician in the Division of Neurology at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia in Pennsylvania, and colleagues reported.
“There are no guidelines to inform the management of posttraumatic headache in youth, but multiple studies have been conducted over the past 2 decades,” the authors wrote in Headache. “This white paper aims to provide a thorough review of the current literature, identify gaps in knowledge, and provide a road map for [posttraumatic headache] management in youth based on available evidence and expert opinion.”
Clarity for an Underrecognized Issue
According to Russell Lonser, MD, professor and chair of neurological surgery at Ohio State University, Columbus, the white paper is important because it offers concrete guidance for health care providers who may be less familiar with posttraumatic headache in youth.
“It brings together all of the previous literature ... in a very well-written way,” Dr. Lonser said in an interview. “More than anything, it could reassure [providers] that they shouldn’t be hunting down potentially magical cures, and reassure them in symptomatic management.”
Meeryo C. Choe, MD, associate clinical professor of pediatric neurology at UCLA Health in Calabasas, California, said the paper also helps shine a light on what may be a more common condition than the public suspects.
“While the media focuses on the effects of concussion in professional sports athletes, the biggest population of athletes is in our youth population,” Dr. Choe said in a written comment. “Almost 25 million children participate in sports throughout the country, and yet we lack guidelines on how to treat posttraumatic headache which can often develop into persistent postconcussive symptoms.”
This white paper, she noted, builds on Dr. Gentile’s 2021 systematic review, introduces new management recommendations, and aligns with the latest consensus statement from the Concussion in Sport Group.
Risk Factors
The white paper first emphasizes the importance of early identification of youth at high risk for prolonged recovery from posttraumatic headache. Risk factors include female sex, adolescent age, a high number of acute symptoms following the initial injury, and social determinants of health.
“I agree that it is important to identify these patients early to improve the recovery trajectory,” Dr. Choe said.
Identifying these individuals quickly allows for timely intervention with both pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic therapies, Dr. Gentile and colleagues noted, potentially mitigating persistent symptoms. Clinicians are encouraged to perform thorough initial assessments to identify these risk factors and initiate early, personalized management plans.
Initial Management of Acute Posttraumatic Headache
For the initial management of acute posttraumatic headache, the white paper recommends a scheduled dosing regimen of simple analgesics. Ibuprofen at a dosage of 10 mg/kg every 6-8 hours (up to a maximum of 600 mg per dose) combined with acetaminophen has shown the best evidence for efficacy. Provided the patient is clinically stable, this regimen should be initiated within 48 hours of the injury and maintained with scheduled dosing for 3-10 days.
If effective, these medications can subsequently be used on an as-needed basis. Careful usage of analgesics is crucial, the white paper cautions, as overadministration can lead to medication-overuse headaches, complicating the recovery process.
Secondary Treatment Options
In cases where first-line oral medications are ineffective, the AHS white paper outlines several secondary treatment options. These include acute intravenous therapies such as ketorolac, dopamine receptor antagonists, and intravenous fluids. Nerve blocks and oral corticosteroid bridges may also be considered.
The white paper stresses the importance of individualized treatment plans that consider the specific needs and responses of each patient, noting that the evidence supporting these approaches is primarily derived from retrospective studies and case reports.
“Patient preferences should be factored in,” said Sean Rose, MD, pediatric neurologist and codirector of the Complex Concussion Clinic at Nationwide Children’s Hospital, Columbus, Ohio.
Supplements and Preventive Measures
For adolescents and young adults at high risk of prolonged posttraumatic headache, the white paper suggests the use of riboflavin and magnesium supplements. Small randomized clinical trials suggest that these supplements may aid in speeding recovery when administered for 1-2 weeks within 48 hours of injury.
If significant headache persists after 2 weeks, a regimen of riboflavin 400 mg daily and magnesium 400-500 mg nightly can be trialed for 6-8 weeks, in line with recommendations for migraine prevention. Additionally, melatonin at a dose of 3-5 mg nightly for an 8-week course may be considered for patients experiencing comorbid sleep disturbances.
Targeted Preventative Therapy
The white paper emphasizes the importance of targeting preventative therapy to the primary headache phenotype.
For instance, patients presenting with a migraine phenotype, or those with a personal or family history of migraines, may be most likely to respond to medications proven effective in migraine prevention, such as amitriptyline, topiramate, and propranolol.
“Most research evidence [for treating posttraumatic headache in youth] is still based on the treatment of migraine,” Dr. Rose pointed out in a written comment.
Dr. Gentile and colleagues recommend initiating preventive therapies 4-6 weeks post injury if headaches are not improving, occur more than 1-2 days per week, or significantly impact daily functioning.
Specialist Referrals and Physical Activity
Referral to a headache specialist is advised for patients who do not respond to first-line acute and preventive therapies. Specialists can offer advanced diagnostic and therapeutic options, the authors noted, ensuring a comprehensive approach to managing posttraumatic headache.
The white paper also recommends noncontact, sub–symptom threshold aerobic physical activity and activities of daily living after an initial 24-48 hour period of symptom-limited cognitive and physical rest. Engaging in these activities may promote faster recovery and help patients gradually return to their normal routines.
“This has been a shift in the concussion treatment approach over the last decade, and is one of the most important interventions we can recommend as physicians,” Dr. Choe noted. “This is where pediatricians and emergency department physicians seeing children acutely can really make a difference in the recovery trajectory for a child after a concussion. ‘Cocoon therapy’ has been proven not only to not work, but be detrimental to recovery.”
Nonpharmacologic Interventions
Based on clinical assessment, nonpharmacologic interventions may also be considered, according to the white paper. These interventions include cervico-vestibular therapy, which addresses neck and balance issues, and cognitive-behavioral therapy, which helps manage the psychological aspects of chronic headache. Dr. Gentile and colleagues highlighted the potential benefits of a collaborative care model that incorporates these nonpharmacologic interventions alongside pharmacologic treatments, providing a holistic approach to posttraumatic headache management.
“Persisting headaches after concussion are often driven by multiple factors,” Dr. Rose said. “Multidisciplinary concussion clinics can offer multiple treatment approaches such as behavioral, physical therapy, exercise, and medication options.”
Unmet Needs
The white paper concludes by calling for high-quality prospective cohort studies and placebo-controlled, randomized, controlled trials to further advance the understanding and treatment of posttraumatic headache in children.
Dr. Lonser, Dr. Choe, and Dr. Rose all agreed.
“More focused treatment trials are needed to gauge efficacy in children with headache after concussion,” Dr. Rose said.
Specifically, Dr. Gentile and colleagues underscored the need to standardize data collection via common elements, which could improve the ability to compare results across studies and develop more effective treatments. In addition, research into the underlying pathophysiology of posttraumatic headache is crucial for identifying new therapeutic targets and clinical and biological markers that can personalize patient care.
They also stressed the importance of exploring the impact of health disparities and social determinants on posttraumatic headache outcomes, aiming to develop interventions that are equitable and accessible to all patient populations.The white paper was approved by the AHS, and supported by the National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke K23 NS124986. The authors disclosed relationships with Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Amgen, and others. The interviewees disclosed no conflicts of interest.
The guidance document, the first of its kind, covers risk factors for prolonged recovery, along with pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic management strategies, and supports an emphasis on multidisciplinary care, lead author Carlyn Patterson Gentile, MD, PhD, attending physician in the Division of Neurology at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia in Pennsylvania, and colleagues reported.
“There are no guidelines to inform the management of posttraumatic headache in youth, but multiple studies have been conducted over the past 2 decades,” the authors wrote in Headache. “This white paper aims to provide a thorough review of the current literature, identify gaps in knowledge, and provide a road map for [posttraumatic headache] management in youth based on available evidence and expert opinion.”
Clarity for an Underrecognized Issue
According to Russell Lonser, MD, professor and chair of neurological surgery at Ohio State University, Columbus, the white paper is important because it offers concrete guidance for health care providers who may be less familiar with posttraumatic headache in youth.
“It brings together all of the previous literature ... in a very well-written way,” Dr. Lonser said in an interview. “More than anything, it could reassure [providers] that they shouldn’t be hunting down potentially magical cures, and reassure them in symptomatic management.”
Meeryo C. Choe, MD, associate clinical professor of pediatric neurology at UCLA Health in Calabasas, California, said the paper also helps shine a light on what may be a more common condition than the public suspects.
“While the media focuses on the effects of concussion in professional sports athletes, the biggest population of athletes is in our youth population,” Dr. Choe said in a written comment. “Almost 25 million children participate in sports throughout the country, and yet we lack guidelines on how to treat posttraumatic headache which can often develop into persistent postconcussive symptoms.”
This white paper, she noted, builds on Dr. Gentile’s 2021 systematic review, introduces new management recommendations, and aligns with the latest consensus statement from the Concussion in Sport Group.
Risk Factors
The white paper first emphasizes the importance of early identification of youth at high risk for prolonged recovery from posttraumatic headache. Risk factors include female sex, adolescent age, a high number of acute symptoms following the initial injury, and social determinants of health.
“I agree that it is important to identify these patients early to improve the recovery trajectory,” Dr. Choe said.
Identifying these individuals quickly allows for timely intervention with both pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic therapies, Dr. Gentile and colleagues noted, potentially mitigating persistent symptoms. Clinicians are encouraged to perform thorough initial assessments to identify these risk factors and initiate early, personalized management plans.
Initial Management of Acute Posttraumatic Headache
For the initial management of acute posttraumatic headache, the white paper recommends a scheduled dosing regimen of simple analgesics. Ibuprofen at a dosage of 10 mg/kg every 6-8 hours (up to a maximum of 600 mg per dose) combined with acetaminophen has shown the best evidence for efficacy. Provided the patient is clinically stable, this regimen should be initiated within 48 hours of the injury and maintained with scheduled dosing for 3-10 days.
If effective, these medications can subsequently be used on an as-needed basis. Careful usage of analgesics is crucial, the white paper cautions, as overadministration can lead to medication-overuse headaches, complicating the recovery process.
Secondary Treatment Options
In cases where first-line oral medications are ineffective, the AHS white paper outlines several secondary treatment options. These include acute intravenous therapies such as ketorolac, dopamine receptor antagonists, and intravenous fluids. Nerve blocks and oral corticosteroid bridges may also be considered.
The white paper stresses the importance of individualized treatment plans that consider the specific needs and responses of each patient, noting that the evidence supporting these approaches is primarily derived from retrospective studies and case reports.
“Patient preferences should be factored in,” said Sean Rose, MD, pediatric neurologist and codirector of the Complex Concussion Clinic at Nationwide Children’s Hospital, Columbus, Ohio.
Supplements and Preventive Measures
For adolescents and young adults at high risk of prolonged posttraumatic headache, the white paper suggests the use of riboflavin and magnesium supplements. Small randomized clinical trials suggest that these supplements may aid in speeding recovery when administered for 1-2 weeks within 48 hours of injury.
If significant headache persists after 2 weeks, a regimen of riboflavin 400 mg daily and magnesium 400-500 mg nightly can be trialed for 6-8 weeks, in line with recommendations for migraine prevention. Additionally, melatonin at a dose of 3-5 mg nightly for an 8-week course may be considered for patients experiencing comorbid sleep disturbances.
Targeted Preventative Therapy
The white paper emphasizes the importance of targeting preventative therapy to the primary headache phenotype.
For instance, patients presenting with a migraine phenotype, or those with a personal or family history of migraines, may be most likely to respond to medications proven effective in migraine prevention, such as amitriptyline, topiramate, and propranolol.
“Most research evidence [for treating posttraumatic headache in youth] is still based on the treatment of migraine,” Dr. Rose pointed out in a written comment.
Dr. Gentile and colleagues recommend initiating preventive therapies 4-6 weeks post injury if headaches are not improving, occur more than 1-2 days per week, or significantly impact daily functioning.
Specialist Referrals and Physical Activity
Referral to a headache specialist is advised for patients who do not respond to first-line acute and preventive therapies. Specialists can offer advanced diagnostic and therapeutic options, the authors noted, ensuring a comprehensive approach to managing posttraumatic headache.
The white paper also recommends noncontact, sub–symptom threshold aerobic physical activity and activities of daily living after an initial 24-48 hour period of symptom-limited cognitive and physical rest. Engaging in these activities may promote faster recovery and help patients gradually return to their normal routines.
“This has been a shift in the concussion treatment approach over the last decade, and is one of the most important interventions we can recommend as physicians,” Dr. Choe noted. “This is where pediatricians and emergency department physicians seeing children acutely can really make a difference in the recovery trajectory for a child after a concussion. ‘Cocoon therapy’ has been proven not only to not work, but be detrimental to recovery.”
Nonpharmacologic Interventions
Based on clinical assessment, nonpharmacologic interventions may also be considered, according to the white paper. These interventions include cervico-vestibular therapy, which addresses neck and balance issues, and cognitive-behavioral therapy, which helps manage the psychological aspects of chronic headache. Dr. Gentile and colleagues highlighted the potential benefits of a collaborative care model that incorporates these nonpharmacologic interventions alongside pharmacologic treatments, providing a holistic approach to posttraumatic headache management.
“Persisting headaches after concussion are often driven by multiple factors,” Dr. Rose said. “Multidisciplinary concussion clinics can offer multiple treatment approaches such as behavioral, physical therapy, exercise, and medication options.”
Unmet Needs
The white paper concludes by calling for high-quality prospective cohort studies and placebo-controlled, randomized, controlled trials to further advance the understanding and treatment of posttraumatic headache in children.
Dr. Lonser, Dr. Choe, and Dr. Rose all agreed.
“More focused treatment trials are needed to gauge efficacy in children with headache after concussion,” Dr. Rose said.
Specifically, Dr. Gentile and colleagues underscored the need to standardize data collection via common elements, which could improve the ability to compare results across studies and develop more effective treatments. In addition, research into the underlying pathophysiology of posttraumatic headache is crucial for identifying new therapeutic targets and clinical and biological markers that can personalize patient care.
They also stressed the importance of exploring the impact of health disparities and social determinants on posttraumatic headache outcomes, aiming to develop interventions that are equitable and accessible to all patient populations.The white paper was approved by the AHS, and supported by the National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke K23 NS124986. The authors disclosed relationships with Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Amgen, and others. The interviewees disclosed no conflicts of interest.
The guidance document, the first of its kind, covers risk factors for prolonged recovery, along with pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic management strategies, and supports an emphasis on multidisciplinary care, lead author Carlyn Patterson Gentile, MD, PhD, attending physician in the Division of Neurology at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia in Pennsylvania, and colleagues reported.
“There are no guidelines to inform the management of posttraumatic headache in youth, but multiple studies have been conducted over the past 2 decades,” the authors wrote in Headache. “This white paper aims to provide a thorough review of the current literature, identify gaps in knowledge, and provide a road map for [posttraumatic headache] management in youth based on available evidence and expert opinion.”
Clarity for an Underrecognized Issue
According to Russell Lonser, MD, professor and chair of neurological surgery at Ohio State University, Columbus, the white paper is important because it offers concrete guidance for health care providers who may be less familiar with posttraumatic headache in youth.
“It brings together all of the previous literature ... in a very well-written way,” Dr. Lonser said in an interview. “More than anything, it could reassure [providers] that they shouldn’t be hunting down potentially magical cures, and reassure them in symptomatic management.”
Meeryo C. Choe, MD, associate clinical professor of pediatric neurology at UCLA Health in Calabasas, California, said the paper also helps shine a light on what may be a more common condition than the public suspects.
“While the media focuses on the effects of concussion in professional sports athletes, the biggest population of athletes is in our youth population,” Dr. Choe said in a written comment. “Almost 25 million children participate in sports throughout the country, and yet we lack guidelines on how to treat posttraumatic headache which can often develop into persistent postconcussive symptoms.”
This white paper, she noted, builds on Dr. Gentile’s 2021 systematic review, introduces new management recommendations, and aligns with the latest consensus statement from the Concussion in Sport Group.
Risk Factors
The white paper first emphasizes the importance of early identification of youth at high risk for prolonged recovery from posttraumatic headache. Risk factors include female sex, adolescent age, a high number of acute symptoms following the initial injury, and social determinants of health.
“I agree that it is important to identify these patients early to improve the recovery trajectory,” Dr. Choe said.
Identifying these individuals quickly allows for timely intervention with both pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic therapies, Dr. Gentile and colleagues noted, potentially mitigating persistent symptoms. Clinicians are encouraged to perform thorough initial assessments to identify these risk factors and initiate early, personalized management plans.
Initial Management of Acute Posttraumatic Headache
For the initial management of acute posttraumatic headache, the white paper recommends a scheduled dosing regimen of simple analgesics. Ibuprofen at a dosage of 10 mg/kg every 6-8 hours (up to a maximum of 600 mg per dose) combined with acetaminophen has shown the best evidence for efficacy. Provided the patient is clinically stable, this regimen should be initiated within 48 hours of the injury and maintained with scheduled dosing for 3-10 days.
If effective, these medications can subsequently be used on an as-needed basis. Careful usage of analgesics is crucial, the white paper cautions, as overadministration can lead to medication-overuse headaches, complicating the recovery process.
Secondary Treatment Options
In cases where first-line oral medications are ineffective, the AHS white paper outlines several secondary treatment options. These include acute intravenous therapies such as ketorolac, dopamine receptor antagonists, and intravenous fluids. Nerve blocks and oral corticosteroid bridges may also be considered.
The white paper stresses the importance of individualized treatment plans that consider the specific needs and responses of each patient, noting that the evidence supporting these approaches is primarily derived from retrospective studies and case reports.
“Patient preferences should be factored in,” said Sean Rose, MD, pediatric neurologist and codirector of the Complex Concussion Clinic at Nationwide Children’s Hospital, Columbus, Ohio.
Supplements and Preventive Measures
For adolescents and young adults at high risk of prolonged posttraumatic headache, the white paper suggests the use of riboflavin and magnesium supplements. Small randomized clinical trials suggest that these supplements may aid in speeding recovery when administered for 1-2 weeks within 48 hours of injury.
If significant headache persists after 2 weeks, a regimen of riboflavin 400 mg daily and magnesium 400-500 mg nightly can be trialed for 6-8 weeks, in line with recommendations for migraine prevention. Additionally, melatonin at a dose of 3-5 mg nightly for an 8-week course may be considered for patients experiencing comorbid sleep disturbances.
Targeted Preventative Therapy
The white paper emphasizes the importance of targeting preventative therapy to the primary headache phenotype.
For instance, patients presenting with a migraine phenotype, or those with a personal or family history of migraines, may be most likely to respond to medications proven effective in migraine prevention, such as amitriptyline, topiramate, and propranolol.
“Most research evidence [for treating posttraumatic headache in youth] is still based on the treatment of migraine,” Dr. Rose pointed out in a written comment.
Dr. Gentile and colleagues recommend initiating preventive therapies 4-6 weeks post injury if headaches are not improving, occur more than 1-2 days per week, or significantly impact daily functioning.
Specialist Referrals and Physical Activity
Referral to a headache specialist is advised for patients who do not respond to first-line acute and preventive therapies. Specialists can offer advanced diagnostic and therapeutic options, the authors noted, ensuring a comprehensive approach to managing posttraumatic headache.
The white paper also recommends noncontact, sub–symptom threshold aerobic physical activity and activities of daily living after an initial 24-48 hour period of symptom-limited cognitive and physical rest. Engaging in these activities may promote faster recovery and help patients gradually return to their normal routines.
“This has been a shift in the concussion treatment approach over the last decade, and is one of the most important interventions we can recommend as physicians,” Dr. Choe noted. “This is where pediatricians and emergency department physicians seeing children acutely can really make a difference in the recovery trajectory for a child after a concussion. ‘Cocoon therapy’ has been proven not only to not work, but be detrimental to recovery.”
Nonpharmacologic Interventions
Based on clinical assessment, nonpharmacologic interventions may also be considered, according to the white paper. These interventions include cervico-vestibular therapy, which addresses neck and balance issues, and cognitive-behavioral therapy, which helps manage the psychological aspects of chronic headache. Dr. Gentile and colleagues highlighted the potential benefits of a collaborative care model that incorporates these nonpharmacologic interventions alongside pharmacologic treatments, providing a holistic approach to posttraumatic headache management.
“Persisting headaches after concussion are often driven by multiple factors,” Dr. Rose said. “Multidisciplinary concussion clinics can offer multiple treatment approaches such as behavioral, physical therapy, exercise, and medication options.”
Unmet Needs
The white paper concludes by calling for high-quality prospective cohort studies and placebo-controlled, randomized, controlled trials to further advance the understanding and treatment of posttraumatic headache in children.
Dr. Lonser, Dr. Choe, and Dr. Rose all agreed.
“More focused treatment trials are needed to gauge efficacy in children with headache after concussion,” Dr. Rose said.
Specifically, Dr. Gentile and colleagues underscored the need to standardize data collection via common elements, which could improve the ability to compare results across studies and develop more effective treatments. In addition, research into the underlying pathophysiology of posttraumatic headache is crucial for identifying new therapeutic targets and clinical and biological markers that can personalize patient care.
They also stressed the importance of exploring the impact of health disparities and social determinants on posttraumatic headache outcomes, aiming to develop interventions that are equitable and accessible to all patient populations.The white paper was approved by the AHS, and supported by the National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke K23 NS124986. The authors disclosed relationships with Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Amgen, and others. The interviewees disclosed no conflicts of interest.
FROM HEADACHE
New First-Line Therapies for Migraine Prevention
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
Today I am going to talk about the position statement from the American Headache Society (AHS) “Calcitonin gene-related peptide [CGRP]–targeting therapies are a first-line option for the prevention of migraine”. This update is of critical importance because about three fourths of people with migraine get their care from a primary care clinician, not from a neurologist or a headache specialist. CGRP-targeting therapies have transformed migraine care at the specialty level, but many in primary care are not yet familiar with this class of medicines. Until this new statement was released, CGRPs were not viewed as first-line agents for migraine. That has now changed.
Two main types of therapy for people with migraine headache are: (1) acute or abortive therapy (when a headache develops, it is treated), and (2) preventive therapy. Preventive therapy is typically used when the patient has headaches on 4 or more days per month. Preventive therapy is aimed at reducing the frequency and severity of headaches. About 40% of patients with migraine qualify for preventive therapy, but only a minority are receiving it.
The armamentarium for preventive therapy of migraines had not changed in a long time — until now. First-line preventive therapy has traditionally consisted of three classes of agents: beta-blockers, tricyclic antidepressants, and topiramate. These medicines were developed for different therapeutic purposes, yet they work for migraines. These drugs may have off-target effects that can make them difficult to tolerate.
Based on new evidence, candesartan — an angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) — is now also a first-line drug for migraine. This is good news, because ARBs are a drug class that we have a lot of experience with, are easy to use, and could be an excellent choice for people with concomitant hypertension or chronic kidney disease. The serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (venlafaxine and duloxetine) are also considered first-line agents for migraine treatment.
In the AHS’s new position statement, the two main drug classes are small-molecule CGRP receptor antagonists and monoclonal antibodies.
The role of the neuropeptide CGRP in migraine was originally discovered after finding that blood levels of CGRP were elevated during migraine attacks. This led to the discovery of agents that blocked CGRP, initially for acute treatment of migraine, and then for preventive therapy. Multiple clinical studies show the CGRP targeting therapies to be as or even more effective than traditional first-line agents at decreasing the number of migraine days per month.
The efficacy and safety of these agents have been demonstrated in both randomized trials and in real-world studies. Other important positive endpoints include fewer days of migraine, reduced acute medication use, and improvements in many quality-of-life outcomes. Studies also have shown that CGRP-targeting therapies are well tolerated and safe, with very few serious adverse events.
Furthermore, studies have shown the CGRP targeting therapies are effective in individuals who have failed multiple other first-line therapies. They fit now both as first-line agents and as agents that can be used in difficult-to-treat patients as well as in patients who struggle with acute medication overuse, which is often very challenging.
To quote from the AHS statement,
Side effects are uncommon and can include hypertension, constipation, and Raynaud phenomenon.
The position statement is strong and is based on a lot of evidence and clinical experience. CGRP-targeting therapies are now first-line agents for the prevention of migraine headache. We should learn more about and begin to feel comfortable using this class of agents because they stand to benefit our patients greatly. I’d suggest looking at the table below and picking one new agent to become familiar with so that you can add that agent to your toolbox. 
Dr. Skolnik, professor, Department of Family Medicine, Sidney Kimmel Medical College of Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and associate director, Department of Family Medicine, Abington Jefferson Health, Abington, Pennsylvania, disclosed ties with AstraZeneca, Teva, Eli Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi, Sanofi Pasteur, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Bayer, and Teva.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
Today I am going to talk about the position statement from the American Headache Society (AHS) “Calcitonin gene-related peptide [CGRP]–targeting therapies are a first-line option for the prevention of migraine”. This update is of critical importance because about three fourths of people with migraine get their care from a primary care clinician, not from a neurologist or a headache specialist. CGRP-targeting therapies have transformed migraine care at the specialty level, but many in primary care are not yet familiar with this class of medicines. Until this new statement was released, CGRPs were not viewed as first-line agents for migraine. That has now changed.
Two main types of therapy for people with migraine headache are: (1) acute or abortive therapy (when a headache develops, it is treated), and (2) preventive therapy. Preventive therapy is typically used when the patient has headaches on 4 or more days per month. Preventive therapy is aimed at reducing the frequency and severity of headaches. About 40% of patients with migraine qualify for preventive therapy, but only a minority are receiving it.
The armamentarium for preventive therapy of migraines had not changed in a long time — until now. First-line preventive therapy has traditionally consisted of three classes of agents: beta-blockers, tricyclic antidepressants, and topiramate. These medicines were developed for different therapeutic purposes, yet they work for migraines. These drugs may have off-target effects that can make them difficult to tolerate.
Based on new evidence, candesartan — an angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) — is now also a first-line drug for migraine. This is good news, because ARBs are a drug class that we have a lot of experience with, are easy to use, and could be an excellent choice for people with concomitant hypertension or chronic kidney disease. The serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (venlafaxine and duloxetine) are also considered first-line agents for migraine treatment.
In the AHS’s new position statement, the two main drug classes are small-molecule CGRP receptor antagonists and monoclonal antibodies.
The role of the neuropeptide CGRP in migraine was originally discovered after finding that blood levels of CGRP were elevated during migraine attacks. This led to the discovery of agents that blocked CGRP, initially for acute treatment of migraine, and then for preventive therapy. Multiple clinical studies show the CGRP targeting therapies to be as or even more effective than traditional first-line agents at decreasing the number of migraine days per month.
The efficacy and safety of these agents have been demonstrated in both randomized trials and in real-world studies. Other important positive endpoints include fewer days of migraine, reduced acute medication use, and improvements in many quality-of-life outcomes. Studies also have shown that CGRP-targeting therapies are well tolerated and safe, with very few serious adverse events.
Furthermore, studies have shown the CGRP targeting therapies are effective in individuals who have failed multiple other first-line therapies. They fit now both as first-line agents and as agents that can be used in difficult-to-treat patients as well as in patients who struggle with acute medication overuse, which is often very challenging.
To quote from the AHS statement,
Side effects are uncommon and can include hypertension, constipation, and Raynaud phenomenon.
The position statement is strong and is based on a lot of evidence and clinical experience. CGRP-targeting therapies are now first-line agents for the prevention of migraine headache. We should learn more about and begin to feel comfortable using this class of agents because they stand to benefit our patients greatly. I’d suggest looking at the table below and picking one new agent to become familiar with so that you can add that agent to your toolbox.
Dr. Skolnik, professor, Department of Family Medicine, Sidney Kimmel Medical College of Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and associate director, Department of Family Medicine, Abington Jefferson Health, Abington, Pennsylvania, disclosed ties with AstraZeneca, Teva, Eli Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi, Sanofi Pasteur, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Bayer, and Teva.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
Today I am going to talk about the position statement from the American Headache Society (AHS) “Calcitonin gene-related peptide [CGRP]–targeting therapies are a first-line option for the prevention of migraine”. This update is of critical importance because about three fourths of people with migraine get their care from a primary care clinician, not from a neurologist or a headache specialist. CGRP-targeting therapies have transformed migraine care at the specialty level, but many in primary care are not yet familiar with this class of medicines. Until this new statement was released, CGRPs were not viewed as first-line agents for migraine. That has now changed.
Two main types of therapy for people with migraine headache are: (1) acute or abortive therapy (when a headache develops, it is treated), and (2) preventive therapy. Preventive therapy is typically used when the patient has headaches on 4 or more days per month. Preventive therapy is aimed at reducing the frequency and severity of headaches. About 40% of patients with migraine qualify for preventive therapy, but only a minority are receiving it.
The armamentarium for preventive therapy of migraines had not changed in a long time — until now. First-line preventive therapy has traditionally consisted of three classes of agents: beta-blockers, tricyclic antidepressants, and topiramate. These medicines were developed for different therapeutic purposes, yet they work for migraines. These drugs may have off-target effects that can make them difficult to tolerate.
Based on new evidence, candesartan — an angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) — is now also a first-line drug for migraine. This is good news, because ARBs are a drug class that we have a lot of experience with, are easy to use, and could be an excellent choice for people with concomitant hypertension or chronic kidney disease. The serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (venlafaxine and duloxetine) are also considered first-line agents for migraine treatment.
In the AHS’s new position statement, the two main drug classes are small-molecule CGRP receptor antagonists and monoclonal antibodies.
The role of the neuropeptide CGRP in migraine was originally discovered after finding that blood levels of CGRP were elevated during migraine attacks. This led to the discovery of agents that blocked CGRP, initially for acute treatment of migraine, and then for preventive therapy. Multiple clinical studies show the CGRP targeting therapies to be as or even more effective than traditional first-line agents at decreasing the number of migraine days per month.
The efficacy and safety of these agents have been demonstrated in both randomized trials and in real-world studies. Other important positive endpoints include fewer days of migraine, reduced acute medication use, and improvements in many quality-of-life outcomes. Studies also have shown that CGRP-targeting therapies are well tolerated and safe, with very few serious adverse events.
Furthermore, studies have shown the CGRP targeting therapies are effective in individuals who have failed multiple other first-line therapies. They fit now both as first-line agents and as agents that can be used in difficult-to-treat patients as well as in patients who struggle with acute medication overuse, which is often very challenging.
To quote from the AHS statement,
Side effects are uncommon and can include hypertension, constipation, and Raynaud phenomenon.
The position statement is strong and is based on a lot of evidence and clinical experience. CGRP-targeting therapies are now first-line agents for the prevention of migraine headache. We should learn more about and begin to feel comfortable using this class of agents because they stand to benefit our patients greatly. I’d suggest looking at the table below and picking one new agent to become familiar with so that you can add that agent to your toolbox.
Dr. Skolnik, professor, Department of Family Medicine, Sidney Kimmel Medical College of Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and associate director, Department of Family Medicine, Abington Jefferson Health, Abington, Pennsylvania, disclosed ties with AstraZeneca, Teva, Eli Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi, Sanofi Pasteur, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Bayer, and Teva.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Does Headache Surgery Really Work? Neurologists Remain Unconvinced
Jeffrey E. Janis, MD, is on a mission. The professor of plastic surgery, surgery, neurosurgery, and neurology at The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, Ohio, wants to convince neurologists of the safety and efficacy of nerve decompression surgery for treatment-resistant headache. However, many neurologists remain unconvinced.
There’s 24 years of evidence behind this surgical technique across hundreds of different studies with different study designs,” Dr. Janis said.
Yet this treatment approach — surgery on peripheral nerves rather than the brain or spinal cord — hasn’t garnered much support from neurologists. A scan of the agenda of topics at the recently held 2024 annual meeting of the American Headache Society showed few if any studies or presentations on this topic. And neurologists this news organization spoke to said they believe the surgery is experimental and unproven.
Experts do agree drugs don’t work for all patients with migraines. Up to 30% of patients don’t respond to the “laundry list of medications” available to treat the condition, said Dr. Janis.
Many patients have also tried, and failed, alternative treatment approaches such as massage, acupuncture, craniosacral therapy, transdermal patches, electrical stimulation, cryoablation, neurostimulation, and radiofrequency ablation.
If nothing else works, is surgery for headaches the answer?
Long-Held Theory
The idea that pinched, irritated, or compressed peripheral nerves can trigger migraine attacks has been around for nearly 25 years. Studies suggest that in addition to migraine, nerve compression can lead to other headache conditions, including occipital neuralgia, supraorbital neuralgia , and post-traumatic headaches.
This has led to the development of surgical techniques to deactivate various compression trigger sites — what Dr. Janis calls “pinch points” — which could involve muscles, bone, fascia, blood vessels, or scar tissue from prior trauma or surgery.
The procedure is predominantly performed by plastic surgeons, but to a lesser degree by neurosurgeons and ear, nose, and throat specialists.
Target nerves in surgical interventions include those in the frontal region of the head above the eye, temporal region, neck region, and nasal region. Affected areas are usually identified either through patient self-reports or by using a nerve block agent such as lidocaine or Botox at specific points, Dr. Janis noted. If pain subsides after an injection, that location is marked as a target.
One of the barriers to referring complicated patients for surgery is that neurologists evaluating migraine treatments “speak a different language” than surgeons performing the procedure, said Dr. Janis.
Neurologists tend to focus on reduction in monthly migraine days (MMD), while surgeons typically use the Migraine Headache Index that incorporates the frequency, intensity, and duration of migraine attacks.
“Rather than try to convince somebody to speak a different language, we thought, why don’t we just learn their language so we can build bridges and take down barriers,” said Dr. Janis, coauthor of a systematic review and meta-analysis published online recently in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery.
Investigators examined 19 studies in the review, including five randomized controlled trials (RCTs), published from January 2020 to September 2023, with a total of 1603 participants who were mostly female and ranged in age from 9 to 72 years. Study follow-ups extended from 6 to 38 months. All but three studies were carried out in the United States, and six different compression sites were addressed during surgery.
Investigators found that across studies and by a number of measures, migraine frequency and severity improved after surgery.
Monthly migraine days decreased by 36%-92% and the number of overall migraine attacks per month dropped 25%-87.5%. Patients also reported decreases in attack duration of 41%-75% and intensity of 28%-82% across studies.
“Even using the neurologist-standard language of monthly migraine days, this surgery works,” said Dr. Janis. “Now this is documented both in the surgical literature and the nonsurgical literature.”
The most common complications were ecchymosis, hair loss or thinning, itching, dryness, and rhinorrhea, all of which Dr. Janis described as “fairly minor.” Major complications such as intraoperative bleeding and wound dehiscence were rare, occurring in 1% or less of participants.
‘One And Done?’
These surgeries are usually done on an outpatient basis and generally offer long-term results, Dr. Janis said.
“The idea is one and done,” he said. “The literature around this type of surgery says that whatever type of effect you get at 1 year is likely to be permanent.”
The American Society of Plastic Surgeons agrees. A 2018 position paper developed by experts and commissioned by the society reports that the intervention is safe and effective for appropriate patients, based on a comprehensive literature search and review of a large body of peer-reviewed scientific evidence.
“There is substantial, extensively replicated clinical data that demonstrates a significant reduction in [migraine headache] symptoms and frequency (even complete elimination of headache pain) following trigger site surgery,” the authors noted.
Pamela Blake, MD, a neurologist, board-certified headache specialist, and medical director at the Headache Center of River Oaks, Houston, is a proponent of what she said can be “lifesaving” headache surgery.
“If a doctor told you that you can either treat this problem with medications that you’ll need to take for the rest of your life or you can have a surgical procedure as an outpatient that has extremely low risk and has, in my experience, a 75% chance of reducing or eliminating your pain, you probably would be interested in surgery,” she said.
Continued Skepticism
However, other neurologists and clinicians appear doubtful about this intervention, including Hans-Christoph Diener, MD, PhD, professor of neurology and director, Essen Headache Centre, University of Duisburg-Essen in Germany.
During a debate on the topic a decade ago at the International Headache Congress, Dr. Diener argued that, as migraine is a complex multigene-related disorder of the brain, it doesn’t make sense that surgery would affect the epigenetics of 22 different genes.
Recently, he said that his views have not changed.
The topic remains controversial, and some neurologists are uncomfortable even openly discussing the procedure. Two clinicians who previously commented on this article later asked not to be included.
One neurologist, who asked to remain anonymous, said that Dr. Janis’s review article is “merely a review collecting 19 studies over the previous 10-plus years.”
Other limitations cited by this neurologist are the lack of consistency in procedures among the various studies and the inclusion of only four RCTs, the most recent of which was published 8 years ago, suggesting “the study was probably done closer to 9 or 10 years ago,” the neurologist said.
Dr. Blake suggested some neurologists’ reluctance could be due to limited background on the procedure, which she said isn’t widely discussed at headache meetings and is covered mostly in plastic surgery journals, not neurology literature. Access to surgery is further limited by a lack of specialists who perform the procedure and inconsistent insurance coverage.
A closer collaboration between neurologists and surgeons who perform the procedure could benefit patients, Dr. Blake noted.
“The headache doctor’s role is to identify who’s a candidate for surgery, who meets the criteria for nerve compression, and then follow that patient postoperatively, managing their medications, although usually we get them off their medications,” she added.
From Dr. Janis’s perspective, things are starting to change.
“I’m definitely seeing a greater comfort level among neurologists who are understanding where this sits in the algorithm for treatment, especially for complicated patients,” he said.
Dr. Janis receives royalties from Thieme and Springer Publishing. Dr. Blake reported no relevant conflicts. Dr. Diener received research support from the German Research Council; serves on the editorial boards of Cephalalgia, Lancet Neurology, and Drugs; and has received honoraria for participation in clinical trials, contribution to advisory boards, or oral presentations from AbbVie, Lilly, Lundbeck, Novartis, Pfizer, Teva, Weber & Weber, and WebMD.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Jeffrey E. Janis, MD, is on a mission. The professor of plastic surgery, surgery, neurosurgery, and neurology at The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, Ohio, wants to convince neurologists of the safety and efficacy of nerve decompression surgery for treatment-resistant headache. However, many neurologists remain unconvinced.
There’s 24 years of evidence behind this surgical technique across hundreds of different studies with different study designs,” Dr. Janis said.
Yet this treatment approach — surgery on peripheral nerves rather than the brain or spinal cord — hasn’t garnered much support from neurologists. A scan of the agenda of topics at the recently held 2024 annual meeting of the American Headache Society showed few if any studies or presentations on this topic. And neurologists this news organization spoke to said they believe the surgery is experimental and unproven.
Experts do agree drugs don’t work for all patients with migraines. Up to 30% of patients don’t respond to the “laundry list of medications” available to treat the condition, said Dr. Janis.
Many patients have also tried, and failed, alternative treatment approaches such as massage, acupuncture, craniosacral therapy, transdermal patches, electrical stimulation, cryoablation, neurostimulation, and radiofrequency ablation.
If nothing else works, is surgery for headaches the answer?
Long-Held Theory
The idea that pinched, irritated, or compressed peripheral nerves can trigger migraine attacks has been around for nearly 25 years. Studies suggest that in addition to migraine, nerve compression can lead to other headache conditions, including occipital neuralgia, supraorbital neuralgia , and post-traumatic headaches.
This has led to the development of surgical techniques to deactivate various compression trigger sites — what Dr. Janis calls “pinch points” — which could involve muscles, bone, fascia, blood vessels, or scar tissue from prior trauma or surgery.
The procedure is predominantly performed by plastic surgeons, but to a lesser degree by neurosurgeons and ear, nose, and throat specialists.
Target nerves in surgical interventions include those in the frontal region of the head above the eye, temporal region, neck region, and nasal region. Affected areas are usually identified either through patient self-reports or by using a nerve block agent such as lidocaine or Botox at specific points, Dr. Janis noted. If pain subsides after an injection, that location is marked as a target.
One of the barriers to referring complicated patients for surgery is that neurologists evaluating migraine treatments “speak a different language” than surgeons performing the procedure, said Dr. Janis.
Neurologists tend to focus on reduction in monthly migraine days (MMD), while surgeons typically use the Migraine Headache Index that incorporates the frequency, intensity, and duration of migraine attacks.
“Rather than try to convince somebody to speak a different language, we thought, why don’t we just learn their language so we can build bridges and take down barriers,” said Dr. Janis, coauthor of a systematic review and meta-analysis published online recently in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery.
Investigators examined 19 studies in the review, including five randomized controlled trials (RCTs), published from January 2020 to September 2023, with a total of 1603 participants who were mostly female and ranged in age from 9 to 72 years. Study follow-ups extended from 6 to 38 months. All but three studies were carried out in the United States, and six different compression sites were addressed during surgery.
Investigators found that across studies and by a number of measures, migraine frequency and severity improved after surgery.
Monthly migraine days decreased by 36%-92% and the number of overall migraine attacks per month dropped 25%-87.5%. Patients also reported decreases in attack duration of 41%-75% and intensity of 28%-82% across studies.
“Even using the neurologist-standard language of monthly migraine days, this surgery works,” said Dr. Janis. “Now this is documented both in the surgical literature and the nonsurgical literature.”
The most common complications were ecchymosis, hair loss or thinning, itching, dryness, and rhinorrhea, all of which Dr. Janis described as “fairly minor.” Major complications such as intraoperative bleeding and wound dehiscence were rare, occurring in 1% or less of participants.
‘One And Done?’
These surgeries are usually done on an outpatient basis and generally offer long-term results, Dr. Janis said.
“The idea is one and done,” he said. “The literature around this type of surgery says that whatever type of effect you get at 1 year is likely to be permanent.”
The American Society of Plastic Surgeons agrees. A 2018 position paper developed by experts and commissioned by the society reports that the intervention is safe and effective for appropriate patients, based on a comprehensive literature search and review of a large body of peer-reviewed scientific evidence.
“There is substantial, extensively replicated clinical data that demonstrates a significant reduction in [migraine headache] symptoms and frequency (even complete elimination of headache pain) following trigger site surgery,” the authors noted.
Pamela Blake, MD, a neurologist, board-certified headache specialist, and medical director at the Headache Center of River Oaks, Houston, is a proponent of what she said can be “lifesaving” headache surgery.
“If a doctor told you that you can either treat this problem with medications that you’ll need to take for the rest of your life or you can have a surgical procedure as an outpatient that has extremely low risk and has, in my experience, a 75% chance of reducing or eliminating your pain, you probably would be interested in surgery,” she said.
Continued Skepticism
However, other neurologists and clinicians appear doubtful about this intervention, including Hans-Christoph Diener, MD, PhD, professor of neurology and director, Essen Headache Centre, University of Duisburg-Essen in Germany.
During a debate on the topic a decade ago at the International Headache Congress, Dr. Diener argued that, as migraine is a complex multigene-related disorder of the brain, it doesn’t make sense that surgery would affect the epigenetics of 22 different genes.
Recently, he said that his views have not changed.
The topic remains controversial, and some neurologists are uncomfortable even openly discussing the procedure. Two clinicians who previously commented on this article later asked not to be included.
One neurologist, who asked to remain anonymous, said that Dr. Janis’s review article is “merely a review collecting 19 studies over the previous 10-plus years.”
Other limitations cited by this neurologist are the lack of consistency in procedures among the various studies and the inclusion of only four RCTs, the most recent of which was published 8 years ago, suggesting “the study was probably done closer to 9 or 10 years ago,” the neurologist said.
Dr. Blake suggested some neurologists’ reluctance could be due to limited background on the procedure, which she said isn’t widely discussed at headache meetings and is covered mostly in plastic surgery journals, not neurology literature. Access to surgery is further limited by a lack of specialists who perform the procedure and inconsistent insurance coverage.
A closer collaboration between neurologists and surgeons who perform the procedure could benefit patients, Dr. Blake noted.
“The headache doctor’s role is to identify who’s a candidate for surgery, who meets the criteria for nerve compression, and then follow that patient postoperatively, managing their medications, although usually we get them off their medications,” she added.
From Dr. Janis’s perspective, things are starting to change.
“I’m definitely seeing a greater comfort level among neurologists who are understanding where this sits in the algorithm for treatment, especially for complicated patients,” he said.
Dr. Janis receives royalties from Thieme and Springer Publishing. Dr. Blake reported no relevant conflicts. Dr. Diener received research support from the German Research Council; serves on the editorial boards of Cephalalgia, Lancet Neurology, and Drugs; and has received honoraria for participation in clinical trials, contribution to advisory boards, or oral presentations from AbbVie, Lilly, Lundbeck, Novartis, Pfizer, Teva, Weber & Weber, and WebMD.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Jeffrey E. Janis, MD, is on a mission. The professor of plastic surgery, surgery, neurosurgery, and neurology at The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, Ohio, wants to convince neurologists of the safety and efficacy of nerve decompression surgery for treatment-resistant headache. However, many neurologists remain unconvinced.
There’s 24 years of evidence behind this surgical technique across hundreds of different studies with different study designs,” Dr. Janis said.
Yet this treatment approach — surgery on peripheral nerves rather than the brain or spinal cord — hasn’t garnered much support from neurologists. A scan of the agenda of topics at the recently held 2024 annual meeting of the American Headache Society showed few if any studies or presentations on this topic. And neurologists this news organization spoke to said they believe the surgery is experimental and unproven.
Experts do agree drugs don’t work for all patients with migraines. Up to 30% of patients don’t respond to the “laundry list of medications” available to treat the condition, said Dr. Janis.
Many patients have also tried, and failed, alternative treatment approaches such as massage, acupuncture, craniosacral therapy, transdermal patches, electrical stimulation, cryoablation, neurostimulation, and radiofrequency ablation.
If nothing else works, is surgery for headaches the answer?
Long-Held Theory
The idea that pinched, irritated, or compressed peripheral nerves can trigger migraine attacks has been around for nearly 25 years. Studies suggest that in addition to migraine, nerve compression can lead to other headache conditions, including occipital neuralgia, supraorbital neuralgia , and post-traumatic headaches.
This has led to the development of surgical techniques to deactivate various compression trigger sites — what Dr. Janis calls “pinch points” — which could involve muscles, bone, fascia, blood vessels, or scar tissue from prior trauma or surgery.
The procedure is predominantly performed by plastic surgeons, but to a lesser degree by neurosurgeons and ear, nose, and throat specialists.
Target nerves in surgical interventions include those in the frontal region of the head above the eye, temporal region, neck region, and nasal region. Affected areas are usually identified either through patient self-reports or by using a nerve block agent such as lidocaine or Botox at specific points, Dr. Janis noted. If pain subsides after an injection, that location is marked as a target.
One of the barriers to referring complicated patients for surgery is that neurologists evaluating migraine treatments “speak a different language” than surgeons performing the procedure, said Dr. Janis.
Neurologists tend to focus on reduction in monthly migraine days (MMD), while surgeons typically use the Migraine Headache Index that incorporates the frequency, intensity, and duration of migraine attacks.
“Rather than try to convince somebody to speak a different language, we thought, why don’t we just learn their language so we can build bridges and take down barriers,” said Dr. Janis, coauthor of a systematic review and meta-analysis published online recently in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery.
Investigators examined 19 studies in the review, including five randomized controlled trials (RCTs), published from January 2020 to September 2023, with a total of 1603 participants who were mostly female and ranged in age from 9 to 72 years. Study follow-ups extended from 6 to 38 months. All but three studies were carried out in the United States, and six different compression sites were addressed during surgery.
Investigators found that across studies and by a number of measures, migraine frequency and severity improved after surgery.
Monthly migraine days decreased by 36%-92% and the number of overall migraine attacks per month dropped 25%-87.5%. Patients also reported decreases in attack duration of 41%-75% and intensity of 28%-82% across studies.
“Even using the neurologist-standard language of monthly migraine days, this surgery works,” said Dr. Janis. “Now this is documented both in the surgical literature and the nonsurgical literature.”
The most common complications were ecchymosis, hair loss or thinning, itching, dryness, and rhinorrhea, all of which Dr. Janis described as “fairly minor.” Major complications such as intraoperative bleeding and wound dehiscence were rare, occurring in 1% or less of participants.
‘One And Done?’
These surgeries are usually done on an outpatient basis and generally offer long-term results, Dr. Janis said.
“The idea is one and done,” he said. “The literature around this type of surgery says that whatever type of effect you get at 1 year is likely to be permanent.”
The American Society of Plastic Surgeons agrees. A 2018 position paper developed by experts and commissioned by the society reports that the intervention is safe and effective for appropriate patients, based on a comprehensive literature search and review of a large body of peer-reviewed scientific evidence.
“There is substantial, extensively replicated clinical data that demonstrates a significant reduction in [migraine headache] symptoms and frequency (even complete elimination of headache pain) following trigger site surgery,” the authors noted.
Pamela Blake, MD, a neurologist, board-certified headache specialist, and medical director at the Headache Center of River Oaks, Houston, is a proponent of what she said can be “lifesaving” headache surgery.
“If a doctor told you that you can either treat this problem with medications that you’ll need to take for the rest of your life or you can have a surgical procedure as an outpatient that has extremely low risk and has, in my experience, a 75% chance of reducing or eliminating your pain, you probably would be interested in surgery,” she said.
Continued Skepticism
However, other neurologists and clinicians appear doubtful about this intervention, including Hans-Christoph Diener, MD, PhD, professor of neurology and director, Essen Headache Centre, University of Duisburg-Essen in Germany.
During a debate on the topic a decade ago at the International Headache Congress, Dr. Diener argued that, as migraine is a complex multigene-related disorder of the brain, it doesn’t make sense that surgery would affect the epigenetics of 22 different genes.
Recently, he said that his views have not changed.
The topic remains controversial, and some neurologists are uncomfortable even openly discussing the procedure. Two clinicians who previously commented on this article later asked not to be included.
One neurologist, who asked to remain anonymous, said that Dr. Janis’s review article is “merely a review collecting 19 studies over the previous 10-plus years.”
Other limitations cited by this neurologist are the lack of consistency in procedures among the various studies and the inclusion of only four RCTs, the most recent of which was published 8 years ago, suggesting “the study was probably done closer to 9 or 10 years ago,” the neurologist said.
Dr. Blake suggested some neurologists’ reluctance could be due to limited background on the procedure, which she said isn’t widely discussed at headache meetings and is covered mostly in plastic surgery journals, not neurology literature. Access to surgery is further limited by a lack of specialists who perform the procedure and inconsistent insurance coverage.
A closer collaboration between neurologists and surgeons who perform the procedure could benefit patients, Dr. Blake noted.
“The headache doctor’s role is to identify who’s a candidate for surgery, who meets the criteria for nerve compression, and then follow that patient postoperatively, managing their medications, although usually we get them off their medications,” she added.
From Dr. Janis’s perspective, things are starting to change.
“I’m definitely seeing a greater comfort level among neurologists who are understanding where this sits in the algorithm for treatment, especially for complicated patients,” he said.
Dr. Janis receives royalties from Thieme and Springer Publishing. Dr. Blake reported no relevant conflicts. Dr. Diener received research support from the German Research Council; serves on the editorial boards of Cephalalgia, Lancet Neurology, and Drugs; and has received honoraria for participation in clinical trials, contribution to advisory boards, or oral presentations from AbbVie, Lilly, Lundbeck, Novartis, Pfizer, Teva, Weber & Weber, and WebMD.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Commentary: Medication Overuse, Diet, and Parenting in Migraine, August 2024
MOH involves many of the same features as migraine headaches: photophobia, nausea, vomiting, and sleep disturbances.1 Additionally, patients with migraine and comorbid MOH are at a higher risk for anxiety, depression, and emotional stress. MOH is difficult to treat, and symptom relapse after treatment is common. Results of a retrospective analysis published in July 2024 in The Journal of Headache and Facial Pain confirmed the effectiveness of calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) antibody treatment in a real-world setting among migraine patients who had MOH. The study included a total of 291 patients who had been treated with either erenumab, fremanezumab, or galcanezumab. The majority of patients experienced a significant decline in monthly headache days, monthly migraine days, and monthly acute medication intake at 1 year. The researchers found that only 15.4% of the patients who initially met the criterion of chronic migraine with MOH relapsed, meeting the criterion for chronic migraine/MOH at the end of the 1-year follow-up period.
Lifestyle factors, such as diet, should be addressed when discussing migraine therapy with patients. Dietary factors, including a low–glycemic index diet, have been associated with promising results in migraine control. Results of a 10,359-patient cross-sectional study published in 2023 in the journal Nutrition confirmed that the inflammatory potential of patients' diet is associated with severe headache or migraine in US adults.2A more recent study, published in Frontiers in Nutrition in July 2024, examined dietary vitamin C intake of 13,445 individuals, of whom 20.42% had a severe headache or migraine. Vitamin C is a naturally occurring antioxidant and is also anti-inflammatory, found in foods such as citrus fruit, mangoes, strawberries, broccoli, and peppers. A subgroup analysis showed a significant association between vitamin C intake and severe headaches or migraines, with a reduced risk for severe headaches or migraines associated with an increased consumption of vitamin C. The authors noted that "each 1 mg/day increase in dietary vitamin C intake was significantly associated with a 6% lower risk for severe headache or migraine." Real-life application of this result for patients can involve encouraging patients to swap processed, low-nutrient foods in favor of fresh, nutrient-dense foods.
When treating migraine patients who are also parents, it is crucial to be persistent in searching for effective therapies to treat migraine and to treat or prevent MOH. According to a study published in 2018 in Headache, adolescents reported that parental migraine affected these factors in their lives: loss of parental support, reverse caregiving, emotional experience, interference with school, and missed activities and events.3 According to the authors of a more recent study, published in July 2024 in the Annals of General Psychiatry, parental migraine was significantly associated with an increased risk for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, bipolar disorder, and depressive disorder among offspring of parents with migraine when compared with offspring of parents without migraine. The study authors noted that these outcomes could be the result of multiple factors, including psychosocial interactions, the burden of migraine on the family, and hereditary genetic traits. Nevertheless, even for offspring who may have a predisposition to these conditions because of genetic factors, effective treatment of parental migraine can relieve the day-to-day burden on the family, potentially reducing the effect of parental migraine on children. Parents who have migraine can become better equipped to provide attention to their children when their migraine symptoms are effectively treated. Furthermore, parents who have experienced improvement of their own migraine symptoms can offer hope and support if their children experience migraines, as migraine can be hereditary.
Additional References
1. Göçmez Yılmaz G, Ghouri R, et al. Complicated form of medication overuse headache is severe version of chronic migraine. J Clin Med. 2024;13(13):3696. doi: 10.3390/jcm13133696 Source
2. Liu H, Wang D, Wu F, et al. Association between inflammatory potential of diet and self-reported severe headache or migraine: A cross-sectional study of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Nutrition. 2023;113:112098. doi: 10.1016/j.nut.2023.112098 Source
3. Buse DC, Powers SW, Gelfand AA, et al. Adolescent perspectives on the burden of a parent's migraine: Results from the CaMEO Study. Headache. 2018;58(4):512-524. doi: 10.1111/head.13254 Source
MOH involves many of the same features as migraine headaches: photophobia, nausea, vomiting, and sleep disturbances.1 Additionally, patients with migraine and comorbid MOH are at a higher risk for anxiety, depression, and emotional stress. MOH is difficult to treat, and symptom relapse after treatment is common. Results of a retrospective analysis published in July 2024 in The Journal of Headache and Facial Pain confirmed the effectiveness of calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) antibody treatment in a real-world setting among migraine patients who had MOH. The study included a total of 291 patients who had been treated with either erenumab, fremanezumab, or galcanezumab. The majority of patients experienced a significant decline in monthly headache days, monthly migraine days, and monthly acute medication intake at 1 year. The researchers found that only 15.4% of the patients who initially met the criterion of chronic migraine with MOH relapsed, meeting the criterion for chronic migraine/MOH at the end of the 1-year follow-up period.
Lifestyle factors, such as diet, should be addressed when discussing migraine therapy with patients. Dietary factors, including a low–glycemic index diet, have been associated with promising results in migraine control. Results of a 10,359-patient cross-sectional study published in 2023 in the journal Nutrition confirmed that the inflammatory potential of patients' diet is associated with severe headache or migraine in US adults.2A more recent study, published in Frontiers in Nutrition in July 2024, examined dietary vitamin C intake of 13,445 individuals, of whom 20.42% had a severe headache or migraine. Vitamin C is a naturally occurring antioxidant and is also anti-inflammatory, found in foods such as citrus fruit, mangoes, strawberries, broccoli, and peppers. A subgroup analysis showed a significant association between vitamin C intake and severe headaches or migraines, with a reduced risk for severe headaches or migraines associated with an increased consumption of vitamin C. The authors noted that "each 1 mg/day increase in dietary vitamin C intake was significantly associated with a 6% lower risk for severe headache or migraine." Real-life application of this result for patients can involve encouraging patients to swap processed, low-nutrient foods in favor of fresh, nutrient-dense foods.
When treating migraine patients who are also parents, it is crucial to be persistent in searching for effective therapies to treat migraine and to treat or prevent MOH. According to a study published in 2018 in Headache, adolescents reported that parental migraine affected these factors in their lives: loss of parental support, reverse caregiving, emotional experience, interference with school, and missed activities and events.3 According to the authors of a more recent study, published in July 2024 in the Annals of General Psychiatry, parental migraine was significantly associated with an increased risk for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, bipolar disorder, and depressive disorder among offspring of parents with migraine when compared with offspring of parents without migraine. The study authors noted that these outcomes could be the result of multiple factors, including psychosocial interactions, the burden of migraine on the family, and hereditary genetic traits. Nevertheless, even for offspring who may have a predisposition to these conditions because of genetic factors, effective treatment of parental migraine can relieve the day-to-day burden on the family, potentially reducing the effect of parental migraine on children. Parents who have migraine can become better equipped to provide attention to their children when their migraine symptoms are effectively treated. Furthermore, parents who have experienced improvement of their own migraine symptoms can offer hope and support if their children experience migraines, as migraine can be hereditary.
Additional References
1. Göçmez Yılmaz G, Ghouri R, et al. Complicated form of medication overuse headache is severe version of chronic migraine. J Clin Med. 2024;13(13):3696. doi: 10.3390/jcm13133696 Source
2. Liu H, Wang D, Wu F, et al. Association between inflammatory potential of diet and self-reported severe headache or migraine: A cross-sectional study of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Nutrition. 2023;113:112098. doi: 10.1016/j.nut.2023.112098 Source
3. Buse DC, Powers SW, Gelfand AA, et al. Adolescent perspectives on the burden of a parent's migraine: Results from the CaMEO Study. Headache. 2018;58(4):512-524. doi: 10.1111/head.13254 Source
MOH involves many of the same features as migraine headaches: photophobia, nausea, vomiting, and sleep disturbances.1 Additionally, patients with migraine and comorbid MOH are at a higher risk for anxiety, depression, and emotional stress. MOH is difficult to treat, and symptom relapse after treatment is common. Results of a retrospective analysis published in July 2024 in The Journal of Headache and Facial Pain confirmed the effectiveness of calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) antibody treatment in a real-world setting among migraine patients who had MOH. The study included a total of 291 patients who had been treated with either erenumab, fremanezumab, or galcanezumab. The majority of patients experienced a significant decline in monthly headache days, monthly migraine days, and monthly acute medication intake at 1 year. The researchers found that only 15.4% of the patients who initially met the criterion of chronic migraine with MOH relapsed, meeting the criterion for chronic migraine/MOH at the end of the 1-year follow-up period.
Lifestyle factors, such as diet, should be addressed when discussing migraine therapy with patients. Dietary factors, including a low–glycemic index diet, have been associated with promising results in migraine control. Results of a 10,359-patient cross-sectional study published in 2023 in the journal Nutrition confirmed that the inflammatory potential of patients' diet is associated with severe headache or migraine in US adults.2A more recent study, published in Frontiers in Nutrition in July 2024, examined dietary vitamin C intake of 13,445 individuals, of whom 20.42% had a severe headache or migraine. Vitamin C is a naturally occurring antioxidant and is also anti-inflammatory, found in foods such as citrus fruit, mangoes, strawberries, broccoli, and peppers. A subgroup analysis showed a significant association between vitamin C intake and severe headaches or migraines, with a reduced risk for severe headaches or migraines associated with an increased consumption of vitamin C. The authors noted that "each 1 mg/day increase in dietary vitamin C intake was significantly associated with a 6% lower risk for severe headache or migraine." Real-life application of this result for patients can involve encouraging patients to swap processed, low-nutrient foods in favor of fresh, nutrient-dense foods.
When treating migraine patients who are also parents, it is crucial to be persistent in searching for effective therapies to treat migraine and to treat or prevent MOH. According to a study published in 2018 in Headache, adolescents reported that parental migraine affected these factors in their lives: loss of parental support, reverse caregiving, emotional experience, interference with school, and missed activities and events.3 According to the authors of a more recent study, published in July 2024 in the Annals of General Psychiatry, parental migraine was significantly associated with an increased risk for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, bipolar disorder, and depressive disorder among offspring of parents with migraine when compared with offspring of parents without migraine. The study authors noted that these outcomes could be the result of multiple factors, including psychosocial interactions, the burden of migraine on the family, and hereditary genetic traits. Nevertheless, even for offspring who may have a predisposition to these conditions because of genetic factors, effective treatment of parental migraine can relieve the day-to-day burden on the family, potentially reducing the effect of parental migraine on children. Parents who have migraine can become better equipped to provide attention to their children when their migraine symptoms are effectively treated. Furthermore, parents who have experienced improvement of their own migraine symptoms can offer hope and support if their children experience migraines, as migraine can be hereditary.
Additional References
1. Göçmez Yılmaz G, Ghouri R, et al. Complicated form of medication overuse headache is severe version of chronic migraine. J Clin Med. 2024;13(13):3696. doi: 10.3390/jcm13133696 Source
2. Liu H, Wang D, Wu F, et al. Association between inflammatory potential of diet and self-reported severe headache or migraine: A cross-sectional study of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Nutrition. 2023;113:112098. doi: 10.1016/j.nut.2023.112098 Source
3. Buse DC, Powers SW, Gelfand AA, et al. Adolescent perspectives on the burden of a parent's migraine: Results from the CaMEO Study. Headache. 2018;58(4):512-524. doi: 10.1111/head.13254 Source