Dodick, David

Background Headache disorders comprise the three most prevalent medical disorders globally and contribute almost 20% to the total burden of neurologic illness. Although the experience of a recurrent headache disorder tends to be highly individualized, patient preferences tend to be a low priority in guidelines for the management of patients with headache. Methods In September 2017, the first Global Patient Advocacy Summit was convened, bringing together patients, patient advocates, patient advocacy organizations, healthcare professionals, pharmaceutical manufacturers, scientists, and regulatory agencies to advance issues of importance to patients affected by headache worldwide. Results Presentations and discussion covered multiple issues, such as improving access to appropriate medical care; incorporating the insights of independent patient advocates and advocacy organizations; leveraging the insights, experience and influence of leading health and neurological organizations; and raising awareness of the role of regulatory agencies in disease advocacy. Attendees agreed that it is important to understand and promote the global, regional, and local interests of people with headache disorders, as well as challenge the pervasive stigma associated with headache. They also agreed that those with severe, recurrent, or disabling headache disorders should have reliable access to competent medical care; healthcare professionals should have access to adequate training in Headache Medicine; global benchmarks should be established for accurate diagnosis and the use of evidence-based treatments in patients with headache; and that information is needed about consultation, diagnosis, and treatment of headache, particularly in regard to patient preferences. Conclusion Based on the group’s consensus around these issues, a series of statements was developed, and they are collectively presented herein as the Vancouver Declaration on Global Headache Patient Advocacy 2018.

Background Stress is the most commonly reported migraine trigger. Dynorphin, an endogenous opioid peptide acting preferentially at kappa opioid receptors (KORs), is a key mediator of stress responses. The aim of this study was to use an injury-free rat model of functional cephalic pain with features of migraine and medication overuse headache (MOH) to test the possible preventive benefit of KOR blockade on stress-induced cephalic pain. Methods Following sumatriptan priming to model MOH, rats were hyper-responsive to environmental stress, demonstrating delayed cephalic and extracephalic allodynia and increased levels of CGRP in the jugular blood, consistent with commonly observed clinical outcomes during migraine. Nor-binaltorphimine (nor-BNI), a long-acting KOR antagonist or CYM51317, a novel short-acting KOR antagonist, were given systemically either during sumatriptan priming or immediately before environmental stress challenge. The effects of KOR blockade in the amygdala on stress-induced allodynia was determined by administration of nor-BNI into the right or left central nucleus of the amygdala (CeA). Results KOR blockade prevented both stress-induced allodynia and increased plasma CGRP. Stress increased dynorphin content and phosphorylated KOR in both the left and right CeA in sumatriptan-primed rats. However, KOR blockade only in the right CeA prevented stress-induced cephalic allodynia as well as extracephalic allodynia, measured in either the right or left hindpaws. U69,593, a KOR agonist, given into the right, but not the left, CeA, produced allodynia selectively in sumatriptan-primed rats. Both stress and U69,593-induced allodynia were prevented by right CeA U0126, a mitogen-activated protein kinase inhibitor, presumably acting downstream of KOR. Conclusions Our data reveal a novel lateralized KOR circuit that mediated stress-induced cutaneous allodynia and increased plasma CGRP in an injury-free model of functional cephalic pain with features of migraine and medication overuse headache. Selective, small molecule, orally available, and reversible KOR antagonists are currently in development and may represent a novel class of preventive therapeutics for migraine.

Objectives To survey experts in Headache Medicine on their opinions regarding appropriate non‐inferiority margins for outcomes commonly used in migraine research. Methods Members of the American Headache Society and the Canadian Headache Society were invited to participate in the Non‐Inferiority Margins in Migraine Research (NIMM) survey. Adult and child neurologists with expertise in Headache Medicine were eligible to participate. The survey had a multiple choice format and comprised questions on respondent characteristics, eligibility, as well as expert opinion on non‐inferiority margins for outcomes commonly used in trials of both prophylactic and acute interventions for migraine. Results Ninety‐nine eligible respondents completed the survey. Most respondents were adult neurologists (84.9%) and 74% reported practicing in the USA. The following were the most commonly selected non‐inferiority margins: (1) change in monthly migraine attacks comparing baseline to the treatment period: 1 attack (39.4% selecting), (2) change in monthly migraine days comparing baseline to the treatment period: 1 day (44.4%), (3) change in average migraine intensity on a 4‐point scale comparing baseline to the treatment period: 1.0 (31.3%), (4) percentage of participants who are pain‐free 2 hours after the intervention: 5% (41.4%), (5) percentage of participants who have a migraine recurrence within 48 hours of treatment: 5% (42.4%), and (6) percentage of participants with sustained pain freedom: 5% (42.4%). Conclusions The results of the NIMM survey describe the opinions of a group of experts on appropriate non‐inferiority margins for outcomes commonly used in migraine clinical trials. There was significant variability in responses and lack of consensus on the choice of non‐inferiority margins. The survey did not incorporate the patient perspective and was not validated prior to distribution. Further work in this area is required in order to explore how to incorporate clinical considerations into the selection of non‐inferiority margins for migraine research.

Efficient eye movements provide a physical foundation for proficient reading skills. We investigated the effect of in-school saccadic training on reading performance. In this cross-over design, study participants (n = 327, 165 males; mean age [SD]: 7 y 6 mo [1y 1 mo]) were randomized into treatment and control groups, who then underwent eighteen 20-minute training sessions over 5 weeks using King-Devick Reading Acceleration Program Software. Pre- and posttreatment reading assessments included fluency, comprehension, and rapid number naming performance. The treatment group had significantly greater improvement than the control group in fluency (6.2% vs 3.6%, P = .0277) and comprehension (7.5% vs 1.5%, P = .0002). The high-needs student group significantly improved in fluency ( P < .001) and comprehension ( P < .001). We hypothesize these improvements to be attributed to the repetitive practice of reading-related eye movements, shifting visuospatial attention, and visual processing. Consideration should be given to teaching the physical act of reading within the early education curriculum.

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.

Background Occipital nerve (ON) injections with corticosteroids and/or local anesthetics have been employed for the acute and preventive treatment of migraine for decades. However, to date there is no randomized, placebo-controlled evidence to support the use of occipital nerve block (ONB) for the prevention of migraine. Objective The objective of this article is to determine the efficacy of ONB with local anesthetic and corticosteroid for the preventive treatment of migraine. Participants and methods Patients between 18 and 75 years old with ICHD-II-defined episodic (> 1 attack per week) or chronic migraine (modified ICHD-II as patients with > 10 days with consumption of acute medications were permitted into the study) were randomized to receive either 2.5 ml 0.5% bupivacaine plus 0.5 ml (20 mg) methylprednisolone over the ipsilateral (unilateral headache) or bilateral (bilateral headache) ON or 2.75 ml normal saline plus 0.25 ml 1% lidocaine without epinephrine (placebo). Patients completed a one-month headache diary prior to and after the double-blind injection. The primary outcome measure was defined as a 50% or greater reduction in the frequency of days with moderate or severe migraine headache in the four-week post-injection compared to the four-week pre-injection baseline period. Results Thirty-four patients received active and 35 patients received placebo treatment. Because of missing data, the full analysis of 33 patients in the active and 30 patients in the placebo group was analyzed for efficacy. In the active and placebo groups respectively, the mean frequency of at least moderate (mean 9.8 versus 9.5) and severe (3.6 versus 4.3) migraine days and acute medication days (7.9 versus 10.0) were not substantially different at baseline. The percentage of patients with at least a 50% reduction in the frequency of moderate or severe headache days was 30% for both groups (10/30 vs nine of 30, Δ 0.00, 95% CI –0.22 to 0.23). Conclusions Greater ONB does not reduce the frequency of moderate to severe migraine days in patients with episodic or chronic migraine compared to placebo. The study was registered with ClinicalTrial.gov (NCT00915473).