Lipton, Richard B.

Background New antiamyloid therapies (AAT) for treating patients with early Alzheimer disease (AD) have become available in the past 3 years. Although AAT can be beneficial in slowing progression of AD, they also come with potentially serious side effects, particularly for patients requiring anticoagulation or thrombolysis for cardiovascular conditions. Given that most patients with AD are older and likely to have cardiovascular risk factors, there is urgent need for additional guidance for clinicians about potential risks and benefits associated with AAT for patients with cardiovascular comorbidities, best practices for management of these patients, and special considerations with respect to emergency evaluation and treatment of patients on AAT who develop acute neurological symptoms. Methods The American Heart Association convened 75 multidisciplinary experts for the Amyloid‐Related Imaging Abnormalities Summit: Cardiovascular and Stroke Considerations for β‐Amyloid Immunotherapy in AD in July 2025. These experts were divided into 8 work groups to evaluate the current evidence related to AAT usage in patients with cardiovascular risk factors and conditions and develop consensus‐based guidance for clinicians. Results This statement outlines the outcomes of the Summit, including considerations for prescribers, primary care professionals, emergency personnel, and health care system stakeholders. These considerations are intended to improve identification of patients as appropriate candidates for AAT, management of patients with co‐occurring AD and cardiovascular conditions, and their emergency evaluation and treatment. The statement also includes guidance for shared decision‐making, implementation of system changes for improving dementia care, and recommendations for future research and data collection to add to the body of evidence for treating patients with concomitant AD and cardiovascular conditions. Conclusions Building on lessons learned from the establishment of stroke systems of care, the consensus‐based considerations outlined in this document can serve as a foundation for AD systems of care aimed at ensuring optimal use of these ground‐breaking therapies.

Abstract Objective To assess the role of small‐molecule calcitonin gene–related peptide receptor antagonists (gepants) in the acute treatment of migraine, particularly in relation to triptan treatments. Background Triptans have established efficacy and are widely prescribed for the acute treatment of migraine. However, triptans may not be recommended for some individuals due to cardiovascular contraindications and precautions, as well as other comorbidities, and many may discontinue triptans because of inadequate or inconsistent symptom relief or poor tolerability. Several gepants are also indicated for the treatment of migraine (both acute and preventive), and their demonstrated efficacy and safety may address some challenges associated with triptans. Methods This narrative review addresses considerations for the acute treatment of migraine through summarizing literature and data from preclinical studies and clinical trials of triptans and gepants. Results We consider triptans and gepants, where available, first‐line treatment options for the acute treatment of migraine. Triptans may be prescribed in the absence of contraindications, significant risk of cardiovascular disease, or risk for or history of medication‐overuse headache. In those who have contraindications or precautions for triptans, those who do not have an adequate response to triptans, and those unable to tolerate them, gepants are often an appropriate option. The efficacy and safety of gepants for the acute treatment of migraine has been established through clinical trials and open‐label extension studies and based on real‐world evidence. Gepants have demonstrated efficacy and tolerability in triptan insufficient responders, perhaps because of their distinct mechanisms of action. Additionally, the safety of gepants, including relative cardiovascular safety, is supported in pivotal controlled trials and open‐label extension trials. In experimental settings and through their use as preventive treatment for migraine, gepants appear unlikely to produce medication‐overuse headache. In addition, one gepant (ubrogepant) has demonstrated efficacy in preventing headache onset when given during the prodrome, a finding that has not been demonstrated for triptans. A single‐arm, open‐label study of naratriptan given during the prodrome suggested fewer subsequent headaches, but interpretation is limited because there was no contemporaneous control group. Limited head‐to‐head clinical trials comparing gepants and triptans have not demonstrated significant differences. Prescribers of both triptans and gepants should be mindful of potential drug–drug interactions. Conclusions Key advantages of gepants include their favorable tolerability, efficacy for the acute treatment of both the prodromal/premonitory phase (ubrogepant) and the headache phase of migraine (ubrogepant, rimegepant, zavegepant), lack of cardiovascular contraindications, and lack of association with medication‐overuse headache. Disadvantages include limitations due to cost and access and CYP3A4 drug interactions for most gepants. Together, the advantages may help to optimize patient care and lead to better persistence and effectiveness in a real‐world setting. Head‐to‐head studies are needed to clarify the comparative effectiveness of triptans and gepants.

Abstract Objectives The aim of this work was to develop an American Headache Society position statement addressing diagnostic screening for migraine among girls and women. Background Despite its high prevalence and substantial negative impacts, migraine is underdiagnosed and undertreated. Diagnostic screening for migraine enables more patients to receive timely, appropriate, and effective management. Methods Development of this position statement followed the rules established by the American Headache Society Guidelines Committee. The published literature was reviewed to determine if migraine meets criteria for when disease screening is justified, to guide recommendations for screening tools, and to determine subpopulation(s) for which migraine screening is indicated. After author consensus was reached, the position statement was reviewed and approved by the American Headache Society Board of Directors. Results Migraine fulfills established criteria for conditions in which screening is appropriate since it is highly prevalent, results in significant morbidity, and exerts substantial economic and social costs. Migraine incidence and prevalence are exceptionally high among girls and women during adolescence and through menopause. Furthermore, there are valid and reliable diagnostic screening methods (e.g., ID Migraine) and effective treatments that reduce migraine symptoms and disease impact. Conclusion Yearly diagnostic screening for migraine should be included as part of women's preventive healthcare services, particularly from adolescence to menopause.

Abstract Objective This study aimed to understand the factors limiting access to medications for the preventive treatment of migraine and to improve access to evidence‐based preventive care. Background For decades, the effective use of medication for the preventive treatment of migraine was limited by slow onset, slow and complex dose titration schedules, modest benefits, drug interactions, frequent side effects, and very low long‐term adherence. The calcitonin gene‐related peptide (CGRP) targeted preventive medications mitigate some of these limitations and demonstrated substantial therapeutic benefits in a significant proportion of adults with migraine. The American Headache Society considers these medications among the first‐line options for migraine prevention, although access to them remains limited. The American Migraine Foundation hosted a single‐day, multidisciplinary expert panel discussion to identify barriers to optimal preventive care and developed recommendations to address them. Methods Participants identified and prioritized barriers and used a modified nominal group technique to achieve consensus on them. A series of moderated discussions in plenary and breakout sessions was used to create possible solutions. Modified nominal group technique was also employed to achieve consensus on the priorities among these barriers and to achieve whole‐group consensus on the recommendations. Ethical issues that inform access were discussed. Results Participants included eight neurologists and board‐certified headache specialists, six representatives of reimbursement decision‐makers, six employees of life sciences companies, four patient advocates with lived experience with migraine, and a medical ethicist. Among those who have consulted healthcare professionals and received a diagnosis of migraine, we identified four main barriers to accessing preventive treatment: restrictive prior authorization requirements, the perceived lack of real‐world evidence and treatment guidelines, the need for clinician education, and the need for patient education. Consensus recommendations for eliminating barriers centered on using new evidence to evaluate policies that restrict the selection of first‐line therapies, initiating/improving collaboration among stakeholders, sharing of data and best practices, and increased training. Participants agreed to explore novel definitions of the value of preventive treatment and to establish the Migraine Prevention Network to facilitate ongoing cooperation and collective action. However, due to financial limitations, staffing changes, and time constraints, post‐meeting discussions led to a shift from establishing a broad Migraine Prevention Network to forming smaller task forces focused on the top‐priority barriers (real‐world evidence and The Patient Playbook ) identified through collaborative voting among American Headache Society, American Migraine Foundation, and industry stakeholders. Conclusions Adults with migraine face multiple barriers in accessing novel migraine‐specific, CGRP‐targeted preventive treatment. Stakeholders in the delivery of care, including clinicians, reimbursement decision‐makers, life sciences companies, and patient and clinician advocates, may be able to overcome many of these barriers and improve access by working with and on behalf of patients.

Abstract Objective This study explores and documents the patient experience during the prodrome phase of migraine. Background Migraine attacks can be divided into four stages: the prodrome (or premonitory phase), the aura, the headache phase, and postdrome. Qualitative data on the range of symptoms during the prodrome and their timing relative to headache onset are sparse. Prodromal symptoms may predict the onset of migraine headache pain and provide a clinically useful benchmark for initiation of treatment early in an attack before pain begins. Design/Methods Eligible participants with a clinician‐confirmed diagnosis of migraine and at least one prodromal symptom were consented, screened, and then participated in 60‐min interviews. The interview guide included open‐ended questions to elicit spontaneous reports and specific probes about prodromal symptoms based on a clinician‐established list. A theory approach was used to analyze the qualitative data collected in interviews to identify key themes and gather insights; data were analyzed using ATLAS.ti. Results Data collection for this study occurred from March 8, 2022, to May 16, 2022. Twenty interviews were conducted, and analyses demonstrated that concept saturation was achieved. Participants reported 36 unique prodromal symptoms, and each participant experienced a mean of 13 symptoms (standard deviation [SD] = 6.6) and a median of 11 symptoms (interquartile range [IQR] = 7.8–17.0) during the prodrome phase. The most commonly reported prodromal symptoms were nausea ( n = 17/20, 85%), fatigue/tiredness ( n = 16/20, 80%), sensitivity to light ( n = 13/20, 65%), neck pain/stiffness ( n = 12/20, 60%), and dizziness/vertigo/light‐headedness ( n = 10/20, 50%). Of the symptoms reported by at least four participants ( n ≥ 4/20, 20%), neck pain/stiffness was rated most bothersome (8.9 out of 10) and sensitivity to light was rated most severe (8.5 out of 10). Almost 40% of all symptoms reported occurred less than 2 h before the start of migraine headache. Of the commonly reported symptoms, nausea (0.8h), sensitivity to light (1.0 h), and dizziness/vertigo/lightheadedness (2.0 h) began closest to headache onset; fatigue/tiredness (4.0 h) and neck pain/stiffness (4.8 h) were the most remote from headache onset. Conclusion This study identified frequently reported prodromal symptoms, with participants commonly reporting that a migraine headache would follow their experience of prodrome within a 1‐ to 6‐h window. Characterizing the prodrome experience may improve measurement strategies for the burden of migraine and create opportunities to treat during the prodromal phase to prevent the onset of moderate or severe headaches.