Dodick, David W.

Objective The objective of this study was the determination of the role of calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) in the induction of medication overuse headache (MOH)-related migraine in an injury-free preclinical model. Methods Rats were primed by a 7-day period of exposure to acute migraine therapies including sumatriptan and morphine. After an additional 14-day drug-free period, rats were exposed to putative migraine triggers including bright light stress (BLS) or nitric oxide (NO) donor in the presence or absence of TEV48125, a fully humanized CGRP antibody. Cutaneous allodynia (CA) was used as an outcome measure and CGRP blood and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) levels were measured. Results BLS and NO donor challenge evoked delayed, long-lasting CA selectively in rats that were previously treated with sumatriptan or morphine. BLS produced a significant increase in CGRP in the plasma, but not CSF, in animals that were previously exposed to sumatriptan compared to saline controls. TEV48125 did not modify baseline tactile thresholds or produce behavioral side effects, but significantly inhibited both BLS- and NO donor-induced CA in animals that were previously primed with sumatriptan or morphine; an isotype control protein that does not bind CGRP had no effect. Interpretation These data suggest that acute migraine medications may promote MOH in susceptible individuals through CGRP-dependent mechanisms and that anti-CGRP antibodies may be a useful clinical strategy for the treatment of MOH.

Objective The main objective of this pilot study was to investigate the safety of administering onabotulinumtoxinA towards the sphenopalatine ganglion in 10 patients with intractable chronic migraine with an open, uncontrolled design. We also collected efficacy data to provide an indication as to whether future placebo-controlled studies should be performed. Method In a prospective, open-label, uncontrolled study after one-month baseline, we performed bilateral injections of 25 IU onabotulinumtoxinA (total dose 50 IU) toward the sphenopalatine ganglion in a single outpatient session in 10 patients with intractable migraine with a follow-up of 12 weeks. The primary outcome was adverse events and the main efficacy outcome was frequency of moderate and severe headache days in month 2 post-treatment compared to baseline. Results All 10 patients experienced a total of 25 adverse events. The majority of these were different types of local discomfort in the face and jaw, and none were classified as serious. In an intention-to-treat analysis of the main efficacy outcome, a statistically significant reduction of moderate and severe headache days in baseline versus month 2 was observed (16.3 ± 6.2 days baseline versus 7.6 ± 7.6 days month 2, p = 0.009). Eight out of 10 patients experienced an at least 50% reduction of moderate and severe headache days compared to baseline. Conclusion The result warrants randomised, placebo-controlled studies to establish both safety and efficacy of this potential novel treatment of chronic migraine.

Objective To assess the rates and predictors of traversing steps essential to good medical care for chronic migraine, including: (1) medical consultation, (2) accurate diagnosis, and (3) minimal pharmacologic treatment. Candidate predictors included socioeconomic, demographic, and headache‐specific variables. Background Previous research has established that barriers to effective management for episodic migraine include the absence of health insurance, lack of appropriate medical consultation, failure to receive an accurate diagnosis, and not being offered a regimen with acute and preventive treatments. Methods/Design The Chronic Migraine Epidemiology and Outcomes (CaMEO) Study, a longitudinal web‐based panel study of migraine, included a cross‐sectional module focused on patterns of and barriers to medical care. Participants eligible for this analysis met the study criteria for chronic migraine, had evidence of headache‐related disability, and provided data on health insurance status. The main outcomes in the current analysis included the proportion of respondents who sought consultation for headache with a designated healthcare professional, self‐reported receiving a diagnosis of chronic or transformed migraine, and received minimal pharmacologic treatment for headache with a focus on prescribed acute and preventive treatments. Results In the CaMEO Study, 80,783 respondents provided study data, 16,789 (20.8% of respondents) met criteria for migraine, and 1476 (8.8% of those with migraine) met chronic migraine criteria. In total, 1254 participants (85.0% of those with chronic migraine) met inclusion criteria for this analysis. Of those, 512 respondents (40.8%) reported currently consulting with a healthcare professional for headache. Odds of consulting increased with increasing age (OR 1.02; 95% CI 1.01–1.03), body mass index (BMI) (OR 1.01; 95% CI 1.00–1.03), migraine‐related disability (OR 1.02; 95% CI 1.00–1.04), and migraine severity (OR 1.16; 95% CI 1.11–1.22) and presence of health insurance (OR 4.61; 95% CI 3.05–6.96). Among those consulting a healthcare professional, 126 (24.6%) received an accurate diagnosis and 56 of those with a correct diagnosis (44.4%) received both acute and preventive pharmacologic treatments; odds of a CM diagnosis were higher for women (OR 1.93; 95% CI 1.03–3.61), those with greater migraine severity (OR 1.25; 95% CI 1.14–1.37), and those currently consulting a specialist (OR 2.38; 95% CI 1.54–3.69). No predictors of receiving appropriate treatment were identified among those currently consulting. Among our sample of people with chronic migraine, only 56 (4.5%) individuals successfully traversed the series of 3 barriers to successful chronic migraine care (ie, consulted a healthcare professional for migraine, received an accurate diagnosis, and were prescribed minimal acute and preventive pharmacologic treatments). Conclusion Our findings suggest that <5% of persons with chronic migraine traversed 3 barriers to receiving care for headache (consultation, diagnosis, and treatment), representing a large unmet need for improving care in this population. Predictors of consulting a healthcare professional included age, having health insurance, greater migraine‐related disability, and greater migraine symptom severity. Among those consulting, predictors of an appropriate diagnosis included consulting a specialist, female sex, and greater migraine severity. Public health efforts are needed to improve outcomes for patients with chronic migraine by a range of interventions and educational efforts aimed at improving consultation rates, diagnostic accuracy, and adherence to minimal pharmacologic treatment.

Background Migraine, especially chronic migraine (CM), causes substantial disability; however, health care utilization has not been well characterized among patients receiving different migraine prophylactic treatments. Methods Using a large, US-based, health care claims database, headache-related health care utilization was evaluated among adults with CM treated with onabotulinumtoxinA or oral migraine prophylactic medications (OMPMs). Headache-related health care utilization was assessed at six, nine, and 12 months pre- and post-treatment. The primary endpoint was the difference between pre- and post-index headache-related health care utilization. A logistic regression model was created to test the difference between onabotulinumtoxinA and OMPM-treated groups for headache-related emergency department (ED) visits and hospitalizations. Results Baseline characteristics were comparable between groups. The proportion of patients with ED visits or hospitalizations for a headache-related event decreased after starting onabotulinumtoxinA, but increased after starting an OMPM, for all three cohorts. Regression analyses showed that the odds of having a headache-related ED visit were 21%, 20%, and 19% lower and hospitalization were 47%, 48%, and 56% lower for the onabotulinumtoxinA group compared to the OMPM group for the six-month, nine-month, and 12-month post-index periods, respectively. Conclusions When compared with similar patients who initiated treatment with OMPM, onabotulinumtoxinA was associated with a significantly lower likelihood of headache-related ED visits and hospitalizations.

Objective To survey neurology residency program directors (PDs) on trainee exposure, supervision, and credentialing in procedures widely utilized in headache medicine. Background Clinic‐based procedures have assumed a prominent role in headache therapy. Headache fellows obtain procedural competence, but reliance on fellowship‐trained neurologists cannot match the population eligible for treatments. The inclusion of educational modules and mechanisms for credentialing trainees pursuing procedural competence in residency curricula at individual programs is not known. Methods A web‐based survey of US neurology residency PDs was designed by the American Headache Society (AHS) procedural special interest section in collaboration with AHS and American Academy of Neurology's Headache and Facial Pain section leadership. The survey addressed exposure, training, and credentialing in: (1) onabotulinumtoxinA (onabotA) injections, (2) extracranial peripheral nerve blocks (PNBs), and (3) trigger point injections (TPIs). Results Fifty‐five PDs (42.6%) completed the survey. Compared to noncompleters, survey completers were more likely to feature headache fellowships at their institutions (38.2% vs 10.8%, P =0.0002). High exposure (onabotA=90.9%, PNBs=80.0%, TPIs=70.9%) usually featured hands‐on patient instruction (66.2%) and lectures (55.7%). Supervised performance rates were high (onabotA=65.5%, PNBs=60.0%, TPIs=52.7%), usually in continuity clinic (60.0%) or headache elective (50.9%). Headache specialists (69.1%) or general neurology (32.7%) faculty most commonly trained residents. Formal credentialing was uncommon (16.4‐18.2%), mostly by documenting supervised procedures (25.5%). Only 27.3% of programs permitted trainees to perform procedures independently. Most PDs felt procedural exposure (80.0‐90.9%) and competence (50.9‐56.4%) by all trainees was important. Conclusions Resident exposure to procedures for headache is high, but credentialing mechanisms, while desired by most PDs, are not generally in place. Implementation of a credentialing process may ensure trainees enter practice with the ability to perform procedures safely and effectively.

Introduction The objective of this review is to provide an evidence-based discussion of different treatment strategies for medication-overuse headache (MOH). Method We searched PubMed for articles discussing the treatment and prognosis of MOH published between 2004 and August 2014. Titles, abstract and articles were reviewed systematically. The level of evidence provided by each study of the included articles was determined according to the American Academy of Neurology Clinical practice guideline manual. We discuss the level of evidence to support the early discontinuation/withdrawal of overused medications, the level of evidence to support the use of preventive treatment, the short- and long-term prognosis, and the outcome according to the class of drug overused in patients diagnosed with MOH. Results The initial search resulted in 1313 articles; 68 articles met our inclusion criteria and were discussed. The level of evidence to support early discontinuation of overused medications alone is low due to the absence of controlled studies. Adding preventive medication to early discontinuation led to a better outcome than early discontinuation alone. For patients with chronic migraine (CM) and medication overuse (MO), there are large randomized control trials supporting the use of onabotulinumtoxinA and topiramate without early discontinuation of overuse; however, the evidence is limited since data were obtained from post hoc analysis. Conclusion Considering current available evidence and the systemic toxicity of overusing acute headache medication, we suggest discontinuation of the overused medication with the addition of preventive medication. Appropriately sized, randomized controlled trials evaluating the safety and long-term efficacy of preventive medication plus early discontinuation of overuse vs preventive medication alone vs early discontinuation of overuse alone are needed.

Background Migraine, particularly chronic migraine (CM), is underdiagnosed and undertreated worldwide. Our objective was to develop and validate a self-administered tool (ID-CM) to identify migraine and CM. Methods ID-CM was developed in four stages. (1) Expert clinicians suggested candidate items from existing instruments and experience (Delphi Panel method). (2) Candidate items were reviewed by people with CM during cognitive debriefing interviews. (3) Items were administered to a Web panel of people with severe headache to assess psychometric properties and refine ID-CM. (4) Classification accuracy was assessed using an ICHD-3β gold-standard clinician diagnosis. Results Stages 1 and 2 identified 20 items selected for psychometric validation in stage 3 ( n = 1562). The 12 psychometrically robust items from stage 3 underwent validity testing in stage 4. A scoring algorithm applied to four symptom items (moderate/severe pain intensity, photophobia, phonophobia, nausea) accurately classified most migraine cases among 111 people (sensitivity = 83.5%, specificity = 88.5%). Augmenting this algorithm with eight items assessing headache frequency, disability, medication use, and planning disruption correctly classified most CM cases (sensitivity = 80.6%, specificity = 88.6%). Discussion ID-CM is a simple yet accurate tool that correctly classifies most individuals with migraine and CM. Further testing in other settings will also be valuable.