Schwedt, Todd J

Background The study aims to compare methods of determining headache directionality (imploding, exploding, and/or ocular headaches) in women with migraine, investigate the concordance between physician assignment and patient self‐assignment of pain directionality, and evaluate whether patients assigned their headaches to the same direction when queried using different methods. Directionality of migraine headache pain (imploding, exploding, or ocular) may reflect differences in the underlying pathogenesis of individual migraine attacks among and within individuals. Emerging evidence suggests that directionality of pain in migraine sufferers may predict response to onabotulinumtoxin A . The best method of determining headache directionality in migraine sufferers has not been systematically explored. Methods We conducted a prospective cross‐sectional survey study of 198 female patients with migraine presenting to a W omen's H ealth C linic. Patients determined the directionality (imploding, exploding, and/or ocular) of their own migraine pain by choosing among 3 pictures graphically representing directionality and also by responding to a written question regarding directionality. Clinicians then classified directionality of migraine pain using structured interviews. Concordance between clinician assignment of directionality and patient self‐assignment was determined with K appa coefficients. Results Subjects were females between the ages of 18 and 77 years (mean 48 years). According to patient selection of representative pictures, 62 (31.6%) had imploding headaches with or without ocular pain, 36 (18.4%) had exploding headaches with or without ocular pain, 78 (39.8%) had ocular pain only, and 20 (10.2%) had imploding and exploding headaches with or without ocular pain. Two subjects did not respond. According to patient responses to a written question, 80 (41.0%) had imploding headaches with or without ocular pain, 53 (27.2%) had exploding headaches with or without ocular pain, 46 (23.6%) had ocular pain only, and 16 (8.2%) had imploding and exploding headaches with or without ocular pain. Three subjects did not respond. For physician assignment, 69 (34.9%) subjects had imploding headaches with or without ocular pain, 89 (45%) had exploding headaches with or without ocular pain, 14 (7.1%) had ocular pain only, and 26 (13.1%) had imploding and exploding headaches with or without ocular pain. The concordance ( K appa coefficient) between physician assignment of headache directionality with patient response to the written question was 0.33 (weak agreement), between physician assignment and patient assignment via selection of representative pictures was 0.35 (weak agreement), and between patient assignment via written question and via selection of representative pictures was 0.35 (weak agreement). Conclusions The assignment of headache directionality varied substantially depending upon the method of determination. The concordance between clinician assignment, patient‐self assignment via answering a written question, and patient self‐assignment via choosing a representative picture was weak. Improved methods of determining pain directionality are needed.

Background It is generally felt that patient education and patient knowledge regarding triptan use for acute migraine management are important for successful and safe treatment. It is unclear how knowledgeable triptan users are regarding their triptan, how much education occurs when triptans are prescribed, and the impact patient education has on actual patient knowledge regarding triptan use. Objective The primary objective was to compare triptan users' self‐perceived knowledge and actual knowledge about triptans in patients who report having received triptan education vs patients who report not having received triptan education. Methods This was a multicenter prospective observational study of 207 migraine patients who were using triptans for abortive therapy and who were being evaluated as new patients at academic headache specialty clinics in the U nited S tates. Patients completed standardized questionnaires regarding their self‐perceived knowledge about triptans, their actual knowledge regarding triptans, and the perceived education about the triptan that they had received at the time of prescription. Results Although greater than 80% of the subjects reported receiving education about when to take the triptan and the number of doses they could take for headache, only 71.5% reported receiving education about triptan side effects, 64% for the number of triptan doses they could take each week/month, 64% for taking other medications with the triptan, and 49% for medical contraindications to triptan use. Compared with subjects who did not recall receiving education about when to take their triptan, subjects who recalled such education had a statistically significant greater actual knowledge for taking the triptan immediately after a headache begins (91% vs 77%, P = .049; confidence interval [ CI ]: 0.00–0.33), treating when pain is mild (75% vs 50%, P = .009; CI : 0.04–0.45), understanding that they do not need to fail treatment with over‐the‐counter medications before taking a triptan (74% vs 42%, P = .001; CI : 0.11–0.51), and recognizing that coronary artery disease is a contraindication to triptan use (40% vs 19%, P = .001; CI : 0.09–0.34). Conclusion This study provides evidence that patients who recall having received education at the time of triptan prescribing have greater knowledge regarding optimal triptan use. Triptan users who recalled having received this education had greater recognition of the importance of taking the triptan immediately at the onset of a headache, treating when pain is mild, not needing to fail treatment with over‐the‐counter medications before taking a triptan, and understanding that coronary artery disease is a contraindication to triptan use.

Background Optimizing patient satisfaction with their medical care and maximizing patient adherence with treatment plans requires an understanding of patient preferences regarding education and their role in decision making when treatments are prescribed. Objective To assess the congruence between patient expectations and actual practice regarding education and decision making at the time a triptan is prescribed. Methods This multicenter cross‐sectional survey was performed by headache fellow members of the A merican H eadache S ociety H eadache F ellows R esearch C onsortium at their respective tertiary care headache clinics. Migraine patients who were new patients to the headache clinic and who were current triptan users (use within prior 3 months and for ≥1 year) or past triptan users (no use within 6 months; prior use within 2 years) completed questionnaires that assessed the education they received and their role in decision making at the time a triptan was first prescribed as well as their desire for education and participation in decision making when a triptan is prescribed. Results Consistent with patient preference, most participants received the majority of their education about the triptan from the prescriber's office (70.2%). In descending rank order, participants most desired to be informed about how to decide if a triptan should be taken, when during the course of migraine a triptan should be taken, possible side effects, cost, and how to obtain refills. Regarding side effects, most participants preferred to receive education about the most common side effects of a triptan rather than addressing all possible side effects. Regarding triptan dosing, participants desired to be informed in descending order of importance about taking other medications with triptans, how many doses can be taken for each migraine, how many doses can be taken each week/month, what to do if the triptan does not work, and the triptan mechanism of action. The vast majority of participants (92%) preferred that the decision to prescribe a triptan be a joint decision between the patient and the provider. In actual practice, participants were not as involved in decision making as they would like to be, with patients reporting that the prescriber was the sole decision maker 55.1% of the time. Participants had confidence in their providers (87.7%) and generally felt they did a good job educating them about the triptan (71.1%). Conclusions Based on this study, it is clear that patients prefer the shared model approach to medical decision making in regards to the prescription of triptans. The majority of patients received education that was generally consistent with their desires. Patients preferred that the prescribing provider be the primary source of information. The most desired educational topics included when/if a triptan should be taken, the number of times a triptan can be taken for a single migraine, co‐administration with other acute medications, and the most common side effects. Focusing on these topics should enhance patient satisfaction and may improve compliance.

By definition, the neurologic impairments of hemiplegic migraine are reversible. However, a few cases of permanent neurologic deficits associated with hemiplegic migraine have been reported. Herein, we present the case of a patient with permanent impairments because of hemiplegic migraine despite normalization of associated brain magnetic resonance imaging abnormalities. Cases like these suggest the need to consider aggressive prophylactic therapy for patients with recurrent hemiplegic migraine attacks.

Objective To identify factors associated with triptan discontinuation among migraine patients. Background It is unclear why many migraine patients who are prescribed triptans discontinue this treatment. This study investigated correlates of triptan discontinuation with a focus on potentially modifiable factors to improve compliance. Methods This multicenter cross‐sectional survey (n = 276) was performed at US tertiary care headache clinics. Headache fellows who were members of the American Headache Society Headache Fellows Research Consortium recruited episodic and chronic migraine patients who were current triptan users (use within prior 3 months and for ≥1 year) or past triptan users (no use within 6 months; prior use within 2 years). Univariate analyses were first completed to compare current triptan users to past users for: migraine characteristics, other migraine treatments, triptan education, triptan efficacy, triptan side effects, type of prescribing provider, Migraine Disability Assessment ( MIDAS ) scores and Beck Depression Inventory ( BDI ) scores. Then, a multivariable logistic regression model was selected from all possible combinations of predictor variables to determine the factors that best correlated with triptan discontinuation. Results Compared with those still using triptans (n = 207), those who had discontinued use (n = 69) had higher rates of medication overuse (30 vs 18%, P = .04) and were more likely to have ever used opioids for migraine treatment (57 vs 38%, P = .006) as well as higher MIDAS (mean 63 vs 37, P = .001) and BDI scores (mean 10.4 vs 7.4, P = .009). Compared with discontinued users, current triptan users were more likely to have had their triptan prescribed by a specialist (neurologist, headache specialist, or pain specialist) (74 vs 54%, P = .002) and were more likely to report headache resolution (53 vs 14%, P < .001) or a reduction in pain intensity (71 vs 28%, P < .001) most of the time from their triptan. On a 1‐5 scale (1 = disagree, 5 = agree), triptan users felt they had more: control over their migraine attacks (2.9 vs 2.1), confidence in their prescribing provider (4.5 vs 4.0), and were more educated about triptan use (4.2 vs 3.7) compared with triptan discontinuers ( P < .001 for all comparisons). Although both current and prior users reported similar rates of side effects (48 vs 43%, P = .44), of those who discontinued use, the main reasons were for lack of effect (44%) and side effects (29%). Our multivariable modeling revealed that the strongest correlate of triptan discontinuation was lack of efficacy (odds ratio = 17, 95% confidence interval [8.8, 33.0]). Other factors associated with discontinuation included MIDAS > 24 (2.6, [1.5, 4.6]), BDI >4 (2.5, [1.4, 4.5]), and a history of ever using opioids for migraine therapy (2.2, [1.3, 3.8]). Having a triptan prescribed by a specialist and using at least 1 other abortive medication with the triptan were associated with a decreased likelihood of triptan discontinuation (0.41, [0.2‐0.7] and 0.44 [0.3, 0.8], respectively). Conclusions As expected, discontinuation was most correlated with lack of efficacy, but other important factors associated with those who had discontinued use included greater migraine‐related disability, depression, and the use of opioids for migraine attacks. Compared with patients who had discontinued triptans, current triptan users felt more: educated about their triptan, control over their migraine attacks, and confidence in their prescribing provider. Current triptan users had their triptan prescribed by a specialist and used other abortive medications with their triptan more often compared with patients who had discontinued triptans. Given the cross‐sectional nature of this study, we cannot determine if these factors contributed to triptan discontinuation or reflect the impact of such discontinuation. Interventions that address modifiable risk factors for triptan discontinuation may decrease the likelihood of triptan discontinuation and thus improve overall migraine control. Because lack of efficacy was most strongly associated with triptan discontinuation, future research should determine why triptans are effective for some patients but not others.

Reversible cerebral vasoconstriction syndrome ( RCVS ) is a cerebrovascular disorder with a clinical picture that continues to be refined. It has presented to multiple subspecialties over the past several decades, bringing with it many questions regarding risk factors, diagnosis, and management. Answers have been forthcoming but many questions remain. RCVS presents with recurrent, secondary thunderclap headaches and predominantly affects young women. The mechanism of vasoconstriction is unclear, but there has been speculation regarding a hyperadrenergic state. Diagnosis requires physician awareness, vascular imaging, and knowledge of the differential. The hallmark of its diagnosis is reversibility. Management is empiric, usually with calcium‐channel blockers, as there are no controlled treatment trials for RCVS . Randomized controlled trials are needed.

“Thunderclap headaches” are severe intensity headaches that reach maximum intensity in less than 1 minute. There are numerous etiologies of thunderclap headache, some associated with substantial morbidity and mortality and others with benign outcomes. Evaluation of the patient with thunderclap headache must occur urgently in order to assess for dangerous etiologies such as subarachnoid hemorrhage. When a cause for thunderclap headache is not identified after initial testing that includes brain computed tomography and cerebrospinal fluid evaluation, additional testing is typically indicated to determine the etiology. “Primary thunderclap headache” is diagnosed when a complete evaluation fails to identify a specific cause for thunderclap headache.

Initial studies indicate an increased prevalence of patent foramen ovale (PFO) in migraineurs with aura, and an increased prevalence of migraine and migraine with aura in persons with PFO. Retrospective analyses of PFO closure suggest clinically significant improvements in migraine patterns. The aim of this study was to examine the prevalence of migraine in patients with PFO, the prevalence of PFO in migraineurs, and the effect of PFO closure on migraine. We conducted a quantitative systematic review of articles on migraine and PFO that met inclusion criteria, then reviewed, appraised, and subjected them to data extraction. Of 134 articles identified, 18 met a priori selection criteria. The estimated strength of association between PFO and migraine, reflected by summary odds ratios (ORs), was 5.13 [95% confidence interval (CI) 4.67, 5.59], and between PFO and migraine with aura the OR was 3.21 (95% CI 2.38, 4.17). The grade of evidence was low. The association between migraine and PFO was OR 2.54 (95% CI 2.01, 3.08). The grade of evidence was low to moderate. Six studies of PFO closure suggested improvement in migraine, but had a very low grade of evidence. The low-to-moderate grade of evidence from observational studies supports an apparent association between PFO and migraine. Although PFO closure seemed to affect migraine patterns favourably, the very low grade of available evidence to support this association precludes definitive conclusions.