Robertson, Carrie E.

AbstractBackgroundCurrently, there is no biologically based rationale for drug selection in migraine prophylactic treatment.MethodsTo investigate the genetic variation underlying treatment response to verapamil prophylaxis, we selected 225 patients from a longitudinally established, deeply phenotyped migraine database (N = 5983), and collected uninterrupted quantitated verapamil treatment response data and DNA for these 225 cases. We recorded the number of headache days in the four weeks preceding treatment with verapamil and for four weeks, following completion of a treatment period with verapamil lasting at least five weeks. Whole‐exome sequencing (WES) was applied to a discovery cohort consisting of 21 definitive responders and 14 definitive non‐responders, and the identified single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) showing significant association were genotyped in a separate confirmation cohort (185 verapamil treated patients). Statistical analysis of the WES data from the discovery cohort identified 524 SNPs associated with verapamil responsiveness (p < 0.01); among them, 39 SNPs were validated in the confirmatory cohort (n = 185) which included the full range of response to verapamil from highly responsive to not responsive.ResultsFourteen SNPs were confirmed by both percentage and arithmetic statistical approaches. Pathway and protein network analysis implicated myo‐inositol biosynthetic and phospholipase‐C second messenger pathways in verapamil responsiveness, emphasizing the earlier pathogenic understanding of migraine. No association was found between genetic variation in verapamil metabolic enzymes and treatment response.ConclusionOur findings demonstrate that genetic analysis in well‐characterized subpopulations can yield important pharmacogenetic information pertaining to the mechanism of anti‐migraine prophylactic medications.

Objective To review characteristics and outcomes of all cases of visual snow seen at our institution, with attention to possible triggering events or comorbidities. Methods This is a retrospective case series of patients seen at our tertiary care center from January 1994 to January 2020. Charts were reviewed if they contained the term “visual snow”. Results Of the 449 charts reviewed, 248 patients described seeing visual snow in part or all of their vision. Thirty-eight reported transient visual snow as their typical migraine aura. Of the remaining 210 patients, 89 were reported to have either an inciting event or contributing comorbidity for their visual snow symptoms, including: Post-concussion (n = 15), dramatic change in migraine or aura (n = 14), post-infection (n = 13), hallucinogen persisting perception disorder (n = 10), ocular abnormalities (n = 7), idiopathic intracranial hypertension (n = 4), neoplastic (n = 1), and posterior cortical atrophy (n = 1). Some patients had partial improvement with benzodiazepines (n = 6), lamotrigine (n = 5), topiramate (n = 3) and acetazolamide (n = 3). Presenting characteristics were similar, but patients with visual snow attributed to an inciting event or contributing comorbidity were more likely to have some improvement in their symptoms by last follow-up compared to spontaneous visual snow ( p < .001). Conclusions Though most cases of visual snow are spontaneous, potential secondary causes should be recognized by clinicians. Patients who develop visual snow after an inciting event or related to an underlying comorbidity may have a better prognosis than those in whom it develops spontaneously. In select cases, treatment of the suspected underlying cause may significantly alleviate the otherwise typical intractable visual disturbances associated with visual snow.

Objective To summarize the current literature on non‐steroidal anti‐inflammatory drug and corticosteroid use during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic, recognizing that these are commonly used treatments in the field of headache medicine. Background The use of non‐steroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs and corticosteroids in patients during the COVID‐19 pandemic has been a controversial topic within the medical community and international and national health organizations. Lay press and social media outlets have circulated opinions on this topic despite the fact that the evidence for or against the use of these medications is sparse. In the field of headache medicine, these medications are used commonly and both patients and clinicians may have questions or hesitations pertaining to their use during the COVID‐19 pandemic. Methods A detailed search of the scientific and popular literature was performed. Results There is limited literature pertaining to the safety of non‐steroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs and corticosteroids during the COVID‐19 pandemic. To date, there are no clear scientific data that preclude the use of non‐steroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs in the general population who may acquire COVID‐19 or in those acutely infected with the virus. Several health organizations have concluded that treatment with corticosteroids during active infection should be avoided due to concerns of prolonged viral shedding in the respiratory tract and the lack of survival benefit based on the data from past coronaviruses and influenza virus; specific exceptions exist including treatment for underlying asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, septic shock, and acute respiratory distress syndrome. Conclusion Scientific information regarding the COVID‐19 pandemic is constantly evolving, and limited or contradictory information can lead to confusion for both patients and clinicians. It is recommended that prior to prescribing non‐steroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs and steroids for the treatment of headache, clinicians have open discussions with their patients about the potential risks and benefits of using these medications during the COVID‐19 pandemic. This manuscript summarizes the currently available evidence and understanding about these risks and benefits to help clinicians navigate such discussions.

Background/Objective The great auricular nerve (GAN) arises from C2‐C3 and provides innervation over the skin in the pre‐auricular region, jaw angle, posteroinferior pinna, and mastoid. Although damage to the GAN has been reported following trauma or procedures nearby this nerve course, neuralgia of this nerve is uncommon with knowledge based on a handful of case reports in literature. The objective of this study is to describe the presentation, treatment, and outcome of 13 cases of GAN neuralgia. Methods Case series . Retrospecive review of charts from 1994 to 2018 with diagnoses: “auricular neuralgia,” “auricular neuritis,” or “auricular neuropathy.” We included subjects with neuralgic pain within the distribution of the GAN, and excluded patients with atypical facial pain, GAN neuropathy, or unclear etiology. Results Of 79 charts, 13 patients met criteria (age at onset 11‐59; 11 women, 2 men). Pain was most often described as paroxysmal stabbing provoked by: turning the head (n = 7), touching the neck (n = 5), neck position during sleep (n = 2), jaw movement (n = 2), and other (n = 2). Seven patients received GAN blocks: all noted dramatic improvement in pain, including 3 who continued to receive serial blocks at our institution successfully for the next 2 to 5 years. Two patients successfully transitioned from GAN blocks to GAN stimulators. One patient with GAN lymphoma had resolution of pain following GAN resection. Conclusion GAN neuralgia should be considered in the differential for periauricular pain. GAN blocks or stimulators may be helpful for pain management.

Objective Cerebrospinal fluid-venous fistula is an uncommon cause of spontaneous spinal cerebrospinal fluid leak (SSCSFL). We aim to describe the clinical presentation, imaging evaluation, treatment and outcome of SSCSFL secondary to cerebrospinal fluid-venous fistula. Methods A retrospective review was undertaken of SSCSFL cases secondary to cerebrospinal fluid-venous fistula confirmed radiologically or intraoperatively, seen at our institution from January 1994 to March 2019. Cases with undetermined SSCSFL etiology, alternative etiology or unconfirmed fistula were excluded. Results Forty-four of 156 patients met the inclusion criteria (31 women, 13 men). Mean age of symptom onset was 52.6 years (SD 8.7, range 33–71 years). Headache was the presenting symptom in almost all, typically daily (69%), and most often in occipital/suboccipital regions. Headache character was most commonly pressure (38%), followed by throbbing/pulsing (21.4%). Orthostatic headache worsening occurred in 69% and an even greater percentage of patients (88%) reported Valsalva-induced headache exacerbation or precipitation. Headache occurred in isolation to Valsalva maneuvers in 12%. Of 37 patients with documented cerebrospinal fluid opening pressure, 13% were <6 cmH 2 O; 84%, 7–20 cmH 2 O; and one, 25 cmH 2 O. Fistulas were almost exclusively thoracic (95.5%). Only one patient responded definitively to epidural blood patch (EBP). Forty-two patients underwent surgery. Most improved following surgery; 48.7% were completely headache free and 26.8% had at least 50% improvement. Conclusion In our series, cerebrospinal fluid-venous fistula was associated with a greater occurrence of Valsalva-induced headache exacerbation or precipitation than orthostatic headache and did not respond to EBP. Surgery provided significant improvement. Cerebrospinal fluid-venous fistula should be considered early in the differential diagnosis of Valsalva-induced (“cough”) headache.