Yuan, Hsiangkuo

Facial pain disorders, most notoriously trigeminal neuralgia, cause substantial suffering, functional impairment, disability, and impaired quality of life. However, most pain medicine practitioners have had only limited education on the evaluation, diagnosis, and treatment of facial pain. Furthermore, this limited education often contains commonly held myths about facial pain diagnosis. These myths can result in misdiagnoses that lead to ineffective medications, interventions, or surgeries and prolonged pain. Therefore, the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine’s Headache and Facial Pain Special Interest Group convened a multidisciplinary group of neurologists, anesthesiologists, and dentists to identify and dispel pervasive myths in facial pain diagnosis.

Objective To develop evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for non-invasive neuromodulation devices in acute and preventive migraine treatment. Methods A systematic review was conducted across six databases from 1946 to April 2025. Randomized controlled trials evaluating Food and Drug Administration-cleared or Conformité Européenne (CE)-marked non-invasive neuromodulation devices were included. The quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology, and recommendations were developed through consensus following GRADE Evidence-to-Decision frameworks. The working group comprised 15 senior members and six junior members. Results From 1536 initial records, 15 studies met the inclusion criteria and were finally used to develop evidence-based recommendations. Evidence quality ranged from very low to moderate. Weak recommendations were issued for SAVI Dual, Cefaly, Relivion, and Nerivio in the treatment of acute migraine attacks, and for gammaCore Sapphire, Cefaly, and Nerivio in the preventive migraine treatment. Other cleared devices received no recommendations or have no eligible studies for the GRADE assessment. The primary limitations across studies included imprecision due to small sample sizes and various methodological concerns. Additionally, expert consensus recommendations were developed for devices and clinical scenarios not adequately covered by randomized controlled trials, including potential applications in pediatric populations, vestibular migraine, chronic migraine, menstrual migraine, and medication overuse headache. Conclusion Non-invasive neuromodulation devices offer promising alternatives to drug treatment for migraine management. These devices are safe and generally well tolerated and devoid of drug interactions. While current evidence quality varies, ongoing research and technological advancements show encouraging potential. Future studies should adhere to International Headache Society guidelines for neuromodulation device trials, address proper sham controls and blinding assessment, and account for patient adherence challenges in device use. Expanded insurance coverage would enhance cost-effectiveness and device accessibility. These guidelines provide a framework for clinical decision-making while highlighting areas requiring further research.

Background This systematic review and meta-analysis synthesized migraine-related disability outcomes according to headache frequency subclassifications, including low-frequency episodic migraine (LFEM), high-frequency episodic migraine (HFEM) and chronic migraine (CM). Methods We searched the PubMed and Cochrane Library (CENTRAL) up to 16 October 2024 for peer-reviewed non-interventional studies reporting migraine-related disability outcomes in CM and subclassifications of episodic migraine (e.g. LFEM and HFEM). Eligible studies with an HFEM subgroup were grouped by headache frequency measure (monthly migraine days [MMD] or monthly headache days [MHD]), HFEM subgroup, disability parameter and study setting. Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted on groups with three or more studies, with the results presented in forest plots. Risk of bias was assessed using Joanna Briggs Institute tools. Results Of the 32 included studies, 27 were grouped, yielding five meta-analysis groups containing three or more studies. All five groups had an HFEM subgroup of 8–14 MHD. Accordingly, we classified LFEM as 0–7 MHD and CM as ≥15 MHD. Ten studies contributed data to the five meta-analysis groups. Estimated pooled values are reported by headache frequency subgroup for each meta-analysis group: LFEM (95% confidence interval [CI]), HFEM (95% CI) and CM (95% CI). For meta-analysis group 1, four population-based studies reported Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) Grade IV proportions, with pooled values of 11.1% (7.1–17.1), 43.9% (31.8–56.9) and 57.5% (42.7–71.1), respectively. For meta-analysis group 2, five population-based studies documented Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI) outcomes. Pooled mean overall work productivity impairment (OWPI) scores were 36.9% (30.8–43.1), 44.7% (38.4–51.0) and 52.0% (47.7–56.3), respectively. Pooled mean activity impairment (AI) scores were 36.4% (33.7–39.1), 46.4% (42.8–50.0) and 53.5% (52.1–54.8), respectively. For meta-analysis group 3, three clinic-based studies presented MIDAS Grade IV proportions. Pooled values were 15.0% (4.4–40.5), 42.4% (17.1–72.4) and 65.7% (30.3–89.4), respectively. For meta-analysis group 4, three clinic-based studies reported WPAI outcomes. Pooled mean OWPI scores were 28.8% (21.6–35.9), 40.2% (36.2–44.2) and 49.6% (46.3–52.9), respectively. Pooled mean AI scores were 29.4% (21.9–36.9), 43.5% (39.0–48.1) and 51.6% (48.8–54.4), respectively. For meta-analysis group 5, three clinic-based studies detailed MIDAS scores. Pooled mean scores were 10.7 (3.9–17.5), 23.9 (9.4–38.4) and 49.6 (15.8–83.3), respectively. Conclusions This study showed a pattern of increasing migraine-related disability with rising headache frequency. Regardless of study setting, our meta-analyses also suggested a severe level of disability in many individuals (42%–44%) with HFEM, highlighting an unmet need for more effective migraine management. Disability burden and headache frequency should both be considered when determining treatment needs and therapy access, particularly for patients with HFEM. Study Registration: INPLASY2024120039.

Introduction Patients hospitalized for headache treatment pose unique challenges to the healthcare system. Currently, there is a lack of evidence-based guidance on management. This practice advisory aims to fill this critical gap by systematically reviewing the existing literature and providing comprehensive, evidence-based recommendations for managing headache patients during hospitalization. Methods In February 2023, the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine approved this practice advisory proposal. The steering committee selected committee members based on clinical and research expertise in the field of headache medicine. Nine questions were formulated by the committee, and each question was assigned to a group composed of 3–4 members. A systematic literature search for each question was performed in Medline, Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Web of Science on June 21, 2023. The results from each search were imported into separate Covidence projects for screening, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment. Additionally, relevant systematic reviews (SR) were screened. Each group submitted a structured narrative review along with statements and recommendations based on the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) format for grading of evidence. While the USPSTF framework was used, including the language in the recommendations, the formal USPSTF methodology, including the SR with meta-analysis and summary tables with forest plots, was not followed because of low overall evidence quality. The interim draft was shared electronically with each collaborator, who was requested to vote anonymously using two rounds of the modified Delphi approach. A consensus recommendation required >75% agreement. Results The panel generated 12 statements and 17 recommendations, along with their strength and certainty of evidence. Following two rounds of Delphi voting, a high consensus was achieved for all statements and recommendations. Most statements received a low-to-moderate level of certainty, and all but one recommendation received grade B or C, which was consistent with the lack of randomized controlled trials supporting most of the drugs in this document. Conclusions This evidence-based practice advisory provides a foundational step toward standardizing inpatient headache care and highlights existing gaps in the literature that should be addressed through rigorous prospective randomized studies.

Abstract Objective To assess for improvement in comfort in participating in advocacy for migraine and headache disorders and knowledge needed for successful advocacy. Background The Advocacy Connection Team (ACT)‐Now program is an educational program offered through Miles for Migraine, a non‐profit advocacy organization. It is designed to teach headache fellows and patients advocacy skills. Methods In a cross‐sectional pre‐test–post‐test design, the 2021 ACT‐Now cohort of 98 participants were administered a set of 11 pre‐course survey questions identifying their role (healthcare provider/headache fellow or patient/caregiver), baseline knowledge of migraine‐related disability and stigma, and baseline engagement and comfort with advocating. The post‐course survey questions were the same as the pre‐course questions, with the addition of one question assessing knowledge of migraine‐related disability, additional questions addressing comfort levels advocating with insurance and policymakers, as well as creating an advocacy plan. Results For the pre‐course survey, 69 participants responded and for the post‐course survey, 40 participants responded. Compared to the pre‐course survey, participants were able to correctly identify epidemiological data about migraine following the ACT‐Now course (pre‐course 46% correct, post‐course 58% correct, p = 0.263). There was also an increase in the comfort level of participants in advocacy activities, including the creation of an advocacy action plan (pre‐course 23% were “very comfortable” advocating, post‐course 63%, p < 0.05). Conclusion These results demonstrate that ACT‐Now is effective at improving advocacy skills in a mixed cohort of patients and headache fellows, giving them the skills to create advocacy plans and engage with other patients and physicians, payers, and policymakers to create a more understanding, equitable and compassionate world for persons with migraine and other headache diseases.

Background Although the European Medicines Agency and the US Food and Drug Administration have cleared several devices that use neuromodulation to provide clinical benefits in the acute or preventive treatment of migraine, the Clinical Trials Committee of the International Headache Society has not developed guidelines specifically for clinical trials of neuromodulation devices. In recognition of the distinct needs and challenges associated with their assessment in controlled trials, the Committee provides these recommendations for optimizing the design and conduct of controlled trials of neuromodulation devices for the acute and/or preventive treatment of migraine. Methods An international group of headache scientists and clinicians with expertise in neuromodulation evaluated clinical trials involving neuromodulation devices that have been published since 2000. The Clinical Trials Committee incorporated findings from this expert analysis into a new guideline for clinical trials of neuromodulation devices for the treatment of migraine. Results Key terms were defined and recommendations provided relative to the assessment of neuromodulation devices for acute treatment in adults, preventive treatment in adults, and acute and preventive treatment in children and adolescents. Ethical and administrative responsibilities were outlined, and a bibliography of previous research involving neuromodulation devices was created. Conclusions Adoption of these recommendations will improve the quality of evidence regarding this important area in migraine treatment.