Whealy, Mark

CSF-venous fistulas (CVFs) are a common cause of spontaneous intracranial hypotension. These fistulas usually occur without any preceding major trauma, surgery, or other iatrogenic cause. Occasionally, patients have a history of minor trauma, though such cases are usually still considered spontaneous. Little is known about predisposing factors that cause patients to develop spontaneous CVFs. Most patients with CVFs have multiple meningeal diverticula on spine imaging, and fistulas usually arise in association with a diverticulum. In the vast majority of cases, the culprit diverticulum from which the CVF arises is atraumatic in origin, presumably on the spectrum of normal variation in spinal anatomy. Here, we present two cases of CVFs that arose in association with posttraumatic pseudomeningoceles. To our knowledge, this phenomenon has not yet been reported, and it potentially represents a novel etiology for CVFs that furthers understanding of their pathogenesis.

Abstract Objective To develop machine learning models using patient and migraine features that can predict treatment responses to commonly used migraine preventive medications. Background Currently, there is no accurate way to predict response to migraine preventive medications, and the standard trial‐and‐error approach is inefficient. Methods In this cohort study, we analyzed data from the Mayo Clinic Headache database prospectively collected from 2001 to December 2023. Adult patients with migraine completed questionnaires during their initial headache consultation to record detailed clinical features and then at each follow‐up to track preventive medication changes and monthly headache days. We included patients treated with at least one of the following migraine preventive medications: topiramate, beta‐blockers (propranolol, metoprolol, atenolol, nadolol, timolol), tricyclic antidepressants (amitriptyline, nortriptyline), verapamil, gabapentin, onabotulinumtoxinA, and calcitonin gene‐related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) (erenumab, fremanezumab, galcanezumab, eptinezumab). We pre‐trained a deep neural network, “TabNet,” using 145 variables, then employed TabNet‐embedded data to construct prediction models for each medication to predict binary outcomes (responder vs. non‐responder). A treatment responder was defined as having at least a 30% reduction in monthly headache days from baseline. All model performances were evaluated, and metrics were reported in the held‐out test set (train 85%, test 15%). SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) were conducted to determine variable importance. Results Our final analysis included 4260 patients. The responder rate for each medication ranged from 28.7% to 34.9%, and the mean time to treatment outcome for each medication ranged from 151.3 to 209.5 days. The CGRP mAb prediction model achieved a high area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC) of 0.825 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.726, 0.920) and an accuracy of 0.80 (95% CI 0.70, 0.88). The AUCs of prediction models for beta‐blockers, tricyclic antidepressants, topiramate, verapamil, gabapentin, and onabotulinumtoxinA were: 0.664 (95% CI 0.579, 0.745), 0.611 (95% CI 0.562, 0.682), 0.605 (95% CI 0.520, 0.688), 0.673 (95% CI 0.569, 0.724), 0.628 (0.533, 0.661), and 0.581 (95% CI 0.550, 0.632), respectively. Baseline monthly headache days, age, body mass index (BMI), duration of migraine attacks, responses to previous medication trials, cranial autonomic symptoms, family history of headache, and migraine attack triggers were among the most important variables across all models. A variable could have different contributions; for example, lower BMI predicts responsiveness to CGRP mAbs and beta‐blockers, while higher BMI predicts responsiveness to onabotulinumtoxinA, topiramate, and gabapentin. Conclusion We developed an accurate prediction model for CGRP mAbs treatment response, leveraging detailed migraine features gathered from a headache questionnaire before starting treatment. Employing the same methods, the model performances for other medications were less impressive, though similar to the machine learning models reported in the literature for other diseases. This may be due to CGRP mAbs being migraine‐specific. Incorporating medical comorbidities, genomic, and imaging factors might enhance the model performance. We demonstrated that migraine characteristics are important in predicting treatment responses and identified the most crucial predictors for each of the seven types of preventive medications. Our results suggest that precision migraine treatment is feasible.

Background Cerebrospinal fluid-venous fistulas (CSFVF) are a common cause of spontaneous intracranial hypotension (SIH). Transvenous embolization has emerged as a reliable treatment option. We review the clinical presentation, imaging, and clinical outcomes of 100 consecutive CSFVF patients who underwent embolization over 2 years. Methods Baseline clinical characteristics, imaging findings (including Bern SIH score), technical outcomes, and long-term imaging and clinical outcomes were collected. All patients had at least 3 months of clinical follow-up and had baseline MRI. 99/100 patients underwent follow-up imaging at ≥3 months post-treatment. Results 100 patients were included. Mean imaging and clinical follow-up duration was 8.3±7.7 months and 15.0±6.8 months, respectively. The mean duration of symptoms before embolization was 40.9±52 months. Mean baseline Bern SIH score was 5.9±3.3. The most common baseline symptoms were headache (96 patients), tinnitus (55 patients), and cognitive dysfunction (44 patients). Technical success rate was 100%. Mean post-treatment Bern SIH score was 0.9±1.6 (P<0.0001). Following treatment, 95% of patients reported significant improvement or resolution in symptoms (58 patients reporting resolution and 37 reporting improvement). 5 patients reported no improvement. There were no major procedural or periprocedural complications. 10 patients had minor procedural complications that did not result in any change in management (Onyx emboli, venous perforation). 19 patients had rebound intracranial hypertension requiring acetazolamide therapy. 7 patients had recurrent fistula at the initially treated level. Conclusions Transvenous embolization of CSFVF in SIH patients is safe and effective with a 95% treatment response, significant improvement in imaging outcomes, and a very low rate of complications.

Objective To summarize the current literature on non‐steroidal anti‐inflammatory drug and corticosteroid use during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic, recognizing that these are commonly used treatments in the field of headache medicine. Background The use of non‐steroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs and corticosteroids in patients during the COVID‐19 pandemic has been a controversial topic within the medical community and international and national health organizations. Lay press and social media outlets have circulated opinions on this topic despite the fact that the evidence for or against the use of these medications is sparse. In the field of headache medicine, these medications are used commonly and both patients and clinicians may have questions or hesitations pertaining to their use during the COVID‐19 pandemic. Methods A detailed search of the scientific and popular literature was performed. Results There is limited literature pertaining to the safety of non‐steroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs and corticosteroids during the COVID‐19 pandemic. To date, there are no clear scientific data that preclude the use of non‐steroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs in the general population who may acquire COVID‐19 or in those acutely infected with the virus. Several health organizations have concluded that treatment with corticosteroids during active infection should be avoided due to concerns of prolonged viral shedding in the respiratory tract and the lack of survival benefit based on the data from past coronaviruses and influenza virus; specific exceptions exist including treatment for underlying asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, septic shock, and acute respiratory distress syndrome. Conclusion Scientific information regarding the COVID‐19 pandemic is constantly evolving, and limited or contradictory information can lead to confusion for both patients and clinicians. It is recommended that prior to prescribing non‐steroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs and steroids for the treatment of headache, clinicians have open discussions with their patients about the potential risks and benefits of using these medications during the COVID‐19 pandemic. This manuscript summarizes the currently available evidence and understanding about these risks and benefits to help clinicians navigate such discussions.

AbstractObjectiveTo assess the frequency and characteristics of interictal and postictal headaches (using International Classification of Headache Disorders, 3rd edition criteria) in a population of patients with epilepsy admitted to the Mayo Clinic Rochester epilepsy monitoring unit and assess their localizing value.MethodsThis was a cross‐sectional study. Participants were voluntarily recruited upon admission to the epilepsy monitoring unit. Two separate questionnaires were then administered. The first was to assess the presence and character of headaches experienced in the past 12 months. The second was to assess characteristics of postictal headaches experienced during their admission including localization.ResultsOne‐hundred and twenty subjects (77%) met inclusion criteria and completed the initial questionnaire. Mean age was 38.1 years (range 18‐82), and 67 (55.8%) were female. Interictal headaches were reported in 97 of 120 (81%) subjects, and these met ICHD3 criteria for migraine in 48 (50%). Postictal headaches were reported by 75 of 120 (63%) subjects on the initial admission questionnaire, representing migraine in 38 (51%). Thirty‐nine (32%) subjects completed the secondary questionnaire related to postictal headaches experienced during admission, of which nine (23%) met criteria for migraine. There was no seizure lateralizing or localizing value noted based on postictal headache localization.SignificanceMigraine was frequent in this cohort and appears to be the dominant interictal and postictal headache type in patients with epilepsy. In this study, the first to assess incident postictal headache in the setting of an ictal EEG, headache localization was of no seizure localizing value. Few patients were being actively treated; suggesting headache management is often overlooked in the epilepsy population.