Lee, Mi Ji

White matter hyperintensities (WMHs) are common MRI findings and established markers of cerebral small-vessel disease associated with stroke, cognitive decline, and vascular risk factors. Several studies have suggested that individuals with migraine, particularly migraine with aura (MA), may have an increased burden of WMHs compared with individuals without migraine. Early population-based studies and meta-analyses reported a higher prevalence of WMHs in migraine, whereas more recent large neuroimaging cohorts have reported conflicting findings or no association. Differences in study design, migraine ascertainment, MRI acquisition parameters, WMH quantification methods, and adjustment for vascular risk factors complicate interpretation of the existing literature. An updated systematic review focusing on methodologically comparable population-based cohorts is therefore warranted. The primary objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to determine whether adults with migraine have a higher prevalence or burden of WMHs on MRI than non-migraine controls. Secondary objectives include evaluating associations according to migraine subtype (MA vs. migraine without aura and episodic vs. chronic migraine), sex, WMH location, age, and MRI acquisition or WMH quantification methods, as well as examining longitudinal WMH progression where available. We will include population-based cross-sectional or longitudinal cohort studies of adults undergoing brain MRI with sequences suitable for WMH detection. Migraine exposure may be defined using International Classification of Headache Disorders criteria, structured interviews, validated questionnaires, physician diagnosis, or ICD codes. Controls must originate from the same source population. Searches will be conducted in PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Scopus. Study selection, data extraction, and risk-of-bias assessment will be performed independently by two reviewers using Covidence, and risk of bias will be evaluated using the ROBINS-E tool. Because WMH burden is reported using heterogeneous metrics across studies, the primary synthesis will use a precision-weighted direction-of-effect approach, in which each study contributes the direction of the association, weighted by statistical precision. Where sufficiently comparable outcomes are available, random-effects meta-analysis will be performed. Sensitivity analyses will explore the influence of diagnostic criteria, MRI field strength, and confounder adjustment. This review will provide an updated and methodologically rigorous synthesis of the evidence on the association between migraine and WMHs.

Migraine is one of the most prevalent and disabling neurological diseases, significantly affecting quality of life and productivity, as well as contributing to substantial societal costs. Recent innovations, including calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) pathway inhibitors and onabotulinumtoxinA, have transformed migraine prevention by offering high efficacy and excellent tolerability, thus improving adherence. Clinical trials and real-world studies show that significant reductions in migraine frequency and, in some cases, complete migraine freedom is achievable. In this Position Statement, we advocate for raising the standards of migraine prevention by setting ambitious treatment goals aimed at optimal outcomes, such as migraine freedom or very low number of days with migraine or moderate/severe headache. We emphasize the importance of addressing residual migraine burden, highlighting that achieving a ≥50% reduction in monthly migraine days, although often considered a successful response, may not fully restore quality of life. Relying solely on percentage-based improvements can obscure the persisting impact of residual burden. This Position Statement does not want to change the standards for clinical trials but aims primarily at real-world clinical practice and proposes a shift from percentage-based measures of success to absolute goals while on treatment. We outline a framework that categorizes outcomes into four tiers: migraine freedom (no days with migraine or moderate-to-severe headache), optimal control (less than four days with migraine or moderate-to-severe headache), modest control (four to six days with migraine or moderate-to-severe headache) and insufficient control (more than days with migraine or moderate-to-severe headache). Focusing on residual burden while on treatment aims to further improve patient quality of life and drive innovation in preventive therapies and non-pharmacological approaches. By advocating for higher standards, this Position Statement, is not aimed primarily to drive reimbursement policies for migraine preventive treatments, but seeks to inspire clinicians, researchers and policymakers to prioritize ambitious goals in migraine prevention, ultimately enhancing patient outcomes and reducing the broader societal and economic impact of this debilitating condition.

Background In an effort to improve migraine management around the world, the International Headache Society (IHS) has here developed a list of practical recommendations for the acute pharmacological treatment of migraine. The recommendations are categorized into optimal and essential, in order to provide treatment options for all possible settings, including those with limited access to migraine medications. Methods An IHS steering committee developed a list of clinical questions based on practical issues in the management of migraine. A selected group of international senior and junior headache experts developed the recommendations, following expert consensus and the review of available national and international headache guidelines and guidance documents. Following the initial search, a bibliography of twenty-one national and international guidelines was created and reviewed by the working group. Results A total of seventeen questions addressing different aspects of acute migraine treatment have been outlined. For each of them we provide an optimal recommendation, to be used whenever possible, and an essential recommendation to be used when the optimal level cannot be attained. Conclusion Adoption of these international recommendations will improve the quality of acute migraine treatment around the world, even where pharmacological options remain limited.