Anderson, C.

Abstract Background OnabotulinumtoxinA (BoNT‐A) is an established preventive treatment for chronic migraine but involves 31 to 40 injections per session, often causing discomfort and post‐procedural headaches. Remote electrical neuromodulation (REN) is a noninvasive therapy with efficacy in migraine treatment via conditioned pain modulation but has not been evaluated for procedural pain. This study evaluated REN's effectiveness in reducing acute procedural pain and postprocedural headache associated with BoNT‐A injections. Methods This was an investigator‐initiated single‐center, randomized, single‐blind, sham‐controlled crossover study enrolled 80 adults (aged 22 to 74 years) with chronic migraine undergoing routine BoNT‐A treatment. Each participant received one injection session without a device, followed by sessions using active REN and sham in randomized order. REN was applied to the upper arm 10 min prior to injections and removed after injection completion. Pain intensity was measured using a visual analog scale (0 to 100) at pre‐procedure, intra‐procedure, and post‐procedure time points. The primary outcome was procedural pain intensity, and secondary outcomes included post‐procedural headache incidence and adverse events. Due to clear benefit, the study was terminated early based on predefined stopping criteria. Results Final analysis of 60 participants (mean age 48.0 years; 49/60, 82% female) demonstrated that pre‐procedural pain levels were not significantly different between baseline and the active REN or sham ( p > 0.999 and p = 0.485, respectively). However, during and after BoNT‐A administration, the active REN group reported significantly lower pain scores compared to both the sham and baseline conditions. At intra‐procedure, the REN group experienced a mean pain reduction of 15.0 points ( p < 0.001), and at post‐procedure experienced a 19.1‐point reduction ( p < 0.001). Sham treatment did not result in significant pain reduction compared to baseline ( p > 0.999 for both intra‐procedure and post‐procedure). Additionally, REN lowered the incidence of headache as an adverse event, with only 15% (8/52) of participants experiencing post‐procedural headache compared to 55% (29/53) in the sham group and 39% (23/59) at baseline (odds ratio = 0.28, 95% confidence interval: 0.10 to 0.69, p = 0.008). No additional adverse events were reported. Conclusions REN significantly reduces procedural pain and post‐procedural headache associated with BoNT‐A injections for chronic migraine and may serve as a noninvasive, easily implemented pain management strategy for acute procedural pain. REN represents a promising approach to improving patient comfort during routine migraine treatment as well as reducing post‐procedural headache.

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 determine the tolerability and safety of concurrent peripheral nerve blocks and onabotulinumtoxinA treatment during a single outpatient clinic procedure visit. Background Procedural interventions are available for the treatment of headache disorders. OnabotulinumtoxinA and peripheral nerve blocks are used as alternatives or in addition to oral therapies to reduce the frequency and intensity of migraine attacks. There is currently a lack of safety data focusing on the sequential administration of local anesthetic via peripheral nerve blocks and onabotulinumtoxinA during a single clinical encounter for the treatment of headache. The primary aim of the study was to determine the safety and tolerability of concurrent peripheral nerve blockade and onabotulinumtoxinA injections during a single outpatient clinic procedure visit. We hypothesized that the dual intervention would be safe and well tolerated by patients with chronic migraine and other headache disorders. Methods A retrospective chart review was performed using clinical data from patients seen by multiple providers over a 16‐month timeframe at one outpatient headache clinic. Patients were identified by procedure codes and those receiving peripheral nerve block(s) and onabotulinumtoxinA injections during a single encounter within the study period were eligible for inclusion. Inclusion criteria were (1) patients 18 years and older who were (2) receiving both peripheral nerve blocks and onabotulinumtoxinA injections for the treatment of chronic migraine. Patients were excluded if they were under age 18, received their procedure outside of the clinic (emergency room, inpatient ward), or were receiving sphenopalatine ganglion blocks. Age‐ and sex‐matched patients who received one procedure, either peripheral nerve blocks or onabotulinumtoxinA, were used for control. The primary outcome of this safety study was the number of adverse events that occurred in the dual intervention group compared to the single intervention control arms. Information regarding adverse events was gathered via retrospective chart review. If an adverse event was recorded, it was then graded by the reviewer utilizing the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events ranging from Grade 1 Mild Event to Grade 5 Death. Additionally, it was noted whether the adverse event led to treatment discontinuation. Results In total, 375 patients were considered eligible for inclusion in the study. After age and sex matching of controls, 131 patients receiving dual intervention were able to be compared to 131 patients receiving onabotulinumtoxinA alone and 104 patients receiving dual intervention were able to be compared to 104 patients receiving peripheral nerve block(s) alone. The primary endpoint analysis showed no significant difference in total adverse events between dual intervention compared to nerve blocks alone or onabotulinumtoxinA alone. The number of adverse events that led to treatment discontinuation approached but did not reach statistical significance for those receiving dual intervention versus onabotulinumtoxinA alone in the number of adverse events that led to treatment termination (4.6%, 6/131 vs. 0.8%, 1/131, p = 0.065); however, the number of patients who discontinued therapy was not significantly different between those groups (2.3%, 3/131 vs. 0.8%, 1/131; p = 0.314; odds ratio 0.3 [0–3.2]; p = 0.338). Conclusions In this retrospective chart review, there was no significant difference in adverse events or therapy discontinuation between patients receiving sequential peripheral nerve block(s) and onabotulinumtoxinA injections versus those receiving either peripheral nerve block(s) or onabotulinumtoxinA injections alone. As a result, we concluded that the combination procedure is likely safe and well tolerated in routine clinical practice.