Ashina, Messoud

Objective To develop evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for non-invasive neuromodulation devices in acute and preventive migraine treatment. Methods A systematic review was conducted across six databases from 1946 to April 2025. Randomized controlled trials evaluating Food and Drug Administration-cleared or Conformité Européenne (CE)-marked non-invasive neuromodulation devices were included. The quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology, and recommendations were developed through consensus following GRADE Evidence-to-Decision frameworks. The working group comprised 15 senior members and six junior members. Results From 1536 initial records, 15 studies met the inclusion criteria and were finally used to develop evidence-based recommendations. Evidence quality ranged from very low to moderate. Weak recommendations were issued for SAVI Dual, Cefaly, Relivion, and Nerivio in the treatment of acute migraine attacks, and for gammaCore Sapphire, Cefaly, and Nerivio in the preventive migraine treatment. Other cleared devices received no recommendations or have no eligible studies for the GRADE assessment. The primary limitations across studies included imprecision due to small sample sizes and various methodological concerns. Additionally, expert consensus recommendations were developed for devices and clinical scenarios not adequately covered by randomized controlled trials, including potential applications in pediatric populations, vestibular migraine, chronic migraine, menstrual migraine, and medication overuse headache. Conclusion Non-invasive neuromodulation devices offer promising alternatives to drug treatment for migraine management. These devices are safe and generally well tolerated and devoid of drug interactions. While current evidence quality varies, ongoing research and technological advancements show encouraging potential. Future studies should adhere to International Headache Society guidelines for neuromodulation device trials, address proper sham controls and blinding assessment, and account for patient adherence challenges in device use. Expanded insurance coverage would enhance cost-effectiveness and device accessibility. These guidelines provide a framework for clinical decision-making while highlighting areas requiring further research.

We here present evidence-based guidelines for the pharmacological treatment of migraine. These guidelines, created by the Italian Society for the Study of Headache and the International Headache Society, aim to offer clear, actionable recommendations to healthcare professionals. They incorporate evidence-based recommendations from randomized controlled trials and expert-based opinions. The guidelines follow the GRADE approach for assessing the quality of evidence. The guideline development involved a systematic review of literature across multiple databases, adherence to Cochrane review methods, and a structured framework for data extraction and interpretation. Although the guidelines provide a robust foundation for migraine treatment, they also highlight gaps in current research, such as the paucity of head-to-head drug comparisons and the need for long-term outcome studies. These guidelines serve as a resource to standardize migraine treatment and promote high-quality care across different healthcare settings.

Abstract Objective To identify and disseminate research priorities for the headache field that should be areas of research focus during the next 10 years. Background Establishing research priorities helps focus and synergize the work of headache investigators, allowing them to reach the most important research goals more efficiently and completely. Methods The Headache Research Priorities organizing and executive committees and working group chairs led a multistakeholder and international group of experts to develop headache research priorities. The research priorities were developed and reviewed by clinicians, scientists, people with headache, representatives from headache organizations, health‐care industry representatives, and the public. Priorities were revised and finalized after receiving feedback from members of the research priorities working groups and after a public comment period. Results Twenty‐five research priorities across eight categories were identified: human models, animal models, pathophysiology, diagnosis and management, treatment, inequities and disparities, research workforce development, and quality of life. The priorities address research models and methods, development and optimization of outcome measures and endpoints, pain and non‐pain symptoms of primary and secondary headaches, investigations into mechanisms underlying headache attacks and chronification of headache disorders, treatment optimization, research workforce recruitment, development, expansion, and support, and inequities and disparities in the headache field. The priorities are focused enough that they help to guide headache research and broad enough that they are widely applicable to multiple headache types and various research methods. Conclusions These research priorities serve as guidance for headache investigators when planning their research studies and as benchmarks by which the headache field can measure its progress over time. These priorities will need updating as research goals are met and new priorities arise.

Abstract Objective Assess the long‐term efficacy and safety of erenumab in patients with chronic migraine with acute medication overuse. Background Overuse of acute medication in patients with chronic migraine has been linked to greater pain intensity and disability and may diminish the effectiveness of preventive therapies. Methods This 52‐week open‐label extension study followed a 12‐week double‐blind placebo‐controlled study in which patients with chronic migraine were randomized 3:2:2 to placebo or once‐monthly erenumab 70 mg or 140 mg. Patients were stratified by region and medication overuse status. Patients received erenumab 70 mg or 140 mg throughout or switched from erenumab 70 to 140 mg (based on protocol amendment to augment safety data at higher dose). Efficacy was assessed in patients with and without medication overuse at parent study baseline. Results Of 609 patients enrolled in the extension study, 252/609 (41.4%) met the criteria for medication overuse at parent study baseline. At Week 52, the mean change in monthly migraine days from parent study baseline was −9.3 (95% confidence interval: −10.4, −8.1 days) in the medication overuse subgroup versus −9.3 (−10.1, −8.5 days) in the non‐medication overuse subgroup (combined erenumab doses); proportion of patients achieving ≥50% reduction in monthly migraine days at Week 52 was 55.9% (90/161; 48.2%, 63.3%) versus 61.3% (136/222; 54.7%, 67.4%), respectively. Among baseline users of acute migraine‐specific medication, the mean change in monthly migraine‐specific medication days at Week 52 was −7.4 (−8.3, −6.4 days) in the medication overuse subgroup versus −5.4 (−6.1, −4.7 days) in the non–medication overuse subgroup. Most patients (197/298; 66.1%) in the medication overuse subgroup transitioned to non‐overuse status by Week 52. Erenumab 140 mg was associated with numerically greater efficacy than erenumab 70 mg across all endpoints. No new safety signals were identified. Conclusion Long‐term erenumab treatment demonstrated sustained efficacy and safety in patients with chronic migraine with and without acute medication overuse.

Background Although the European Medicines Agency and the US Food and Drug Administration have cleared several devices that use neuromodulation to provide clinical benefits in the acute or preventive treatment of migraine, the Clinical Trials Committee of the International Headache Society has not developed guidelines specifically for clinical trials of neuromodulation devices. In recognition of the distinct needs and challenges associated with their assessment in controlled trials, the Committee provides these recommendations for optimizing the design and conduct of controlled trials of neuromodulation devices for the acute and/or preventive treatment of migraine. Methods An international group of headache scientists and clinicians with expertise in neuromodulation evaluated clinical trials involving neuromodulation devices that have been published since 2000. The Clinical Trials Committee incorporated findings from this expert analysis into a new guideline for clinical trials of neuromodulation devices for the treatment of migraine. Results Key terms were defined and recommendations provided relative to the assessment of neuromodulation devices for acute treatment in adults, preventive treatment in adults, and acute and preventive treatment in children and adolescents. Ethical and administrative responsibilities were outlined, and a bibliography of previous research involving neuromodulation devices was created. Conclusions Adoption of these recommendations will improve the quality of evidence regarding this important area in migraine treatment.

AbstractBackground and purposeAlthough erenumab has demonstrated significant reduction in migraine frequency and improved quality of life in studies lasting 3 to 12 months, little is known about long‐term therapy.MethodsThis study was an open‐label, 5‐year treatment phase following a 12‐week, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled trial in adults with episodic migraine. Patients initially received open‐label erenumab 70 mg, which increased to 140 mg following a protocol amendment. Efficacy analyses included change from baseline in monthly migraine days (MMDs), monthly acute migraine‐specific medication (AMSM) days, and health‐related quality of life.ResultsOf 383 patients enrolled, 250 switched to 140 mg; 215 (56.1%) completed open‐label treatment. Mean (standard error) change in MMDs from baseline of 8.7 (0.2) days was −5.3 (0.3) days; an average reduction of 62.3% at year 5. Among patients using AMSM at baseline (6.3 [2.8] treatment days), mean change in monthly AMSM days was −4.4 (0.3) days at the end of 5 years. Patient‐reported outcomes indicated stable improvements in disability, headache impact, and migraine‐specific quality of life. Exposure‐adjusted patient incidence rates of adverse events (AEs) were 123.0/100 patient‐years; AEs were most frequently nasopharyngitis, upper respiratory tract infection, and influenza. Serious AEs (SAEs) reported by 49 patients (3.8/100 patient‐years) were mostly single occurrence. Two fatal adverse events were reported. There were no increases in incidence of AEs, SAEs, or AEs leading to treatment discontinuation over 5 years of exposure.ConclusionsTreatment with erenumab was associated with reductions in migraine frequency and improvements in health‐related quality of life that were maintained for at least 5 years. No new safety signals were observed.

Objective To determine reversion rates from chronic migraine to episodic migraine during long-term erenumab treatment. Methods A daily headache diary was completed during the 12-week, double-blind treatment phase of a placebo-controlled trial comparing erenumab 70 mg, 140 mg, and placebo, and weeks 1–12, 21–24, 37–40, and 49–52 of the open-label treatment phase. Chronic migraine to episodic migraine reversion rates were assessed over the double-blind treatment phase; persistent reversion to episodic migraine over 24 weeks (double-blind treatment phase through the first 12 weeks in the open-label treatment phase), long-term persistent reversion to episodic migraine over 64 weeks (double-blind treatment phase plus open-label treatment phase); delayed reversion to episodic migraine through the first 12 weeks of the open-label treatment phase among patients remaining in chronic migraine during the double-blind treatment phase. Results In the double-blind treatment phase, 53.1% (95% confidence interval: 47.8–58.3) of 358 erenumab-treated completers had reversion to episodic migraine; monthly reversion rates to episodic migraine were typically higher among patients receiving 140 mg versus 70 mg. Among 181 completers (receiving erenumab for 64 weeks), 98 (54.1% [95% confidence interval: 46.6–61.6]) had reversion to episodic migraine during the double-blind treatment phase; of those, 96.9% (95% confidence interval: 91.3–99.4) had persistent reversion to episodic migraine, 96.8% (95% confidence interval: 91.1–99.3) of whom had long-term persistent reversion to episodic migraine. Delayed reversion to episodic migraine occurred in 36/83 (43.4% [95% confidence interval: 32.5–54.7]) patients; of these, 77.8% (95% confidence interval: 60.9–89.9) persisted in reversion through week 64. Conclusions Patients with reversion to episodic migraine at week 12 will likely persist as episodic migraine with longer-term erenumab; others may achieve delayed reversion to episodic migraine. Clinical trial registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT02066415

Introduction YouTube is the most widely used video hosting website in the world; however, the quality and reliability of information is unknown. The aim of this study is to evaluate the content and distribution of the most popular videos on YouTube about migraine. Methods We searched for migraine-related videos on the online video hosting resource YouTube ( http://youtube.com/ ). Two authors screened the titles and video descriptions independently for all videos with a view count of ≥ 10,000 views. For each video we recorded descriptive data, the source/author and the primary purpose/content. Results We identified 351 eligible videos. In total, there was more than 3 days of content viewed more than 163 million times. Only 9% of these videos were authored by healthcare professionals. The majority (44%) of videos focused on complementary and alternative medicine. Discussion YouTube provides a wide array of easily accessible information on migraine, ranging from authoritative sources to potentially questionable content. If used uncritically, this may result in inadequate clinical management. Peer-reviewed information on migraine mechanisms and treatment is needed to provide the best available evidence for the public and patients. Ideally, a professional society or foundation such as the International Headache Society would develop, curate, and distribute content.

Introduction Health information is one of the most frequently searched topics on the internet. In this observational cross-sectional study, we evaluated the content of the highest indexed Google search results related to migraine management. Methods We identified the five most used search terms related to migraine management via Google Trends in the time period 1 January 2004 to 2 October 2019. We entered each search term into Google’s search engine and retrieved the search results from the first three pages from each search query. We stratified the recommended treatment options and evaluated the websites using the DISCERN tool. Results In total, 73 unique websites recommended a total of 77 different migraine treatment options, consisting of 35 (45%) acute and 42 (55%) preventive treatments. For acute treatments, pharmacological options were more frequently recommended (88% of websites), whereas non-pharmacological options were more frequent among preventive treatments (67%). Evaluation of the consumer health information using the DISCERN tool showed that non-governmental organizations had the highest mean total score with 3.8 (±0.19). Conclusions Googling when looking for migraine treatments reveals a multitude of management proposals of varying quality. Non-governmental organizations provide the overall highest quality of written consumer health information on migraine treatments among search results. We encourage stakeholders to optimize and distribute high-quality and peer-reviewed information on migraine management.

Clinical trials are a key component of the evidence base for the treatment of headache disorders. In 1991, the International Headache Society Clinical Trials Standing Committee developed and published the first edition of the Guidelines for Controlled Trials of Drugs in Migraine. Advances in drugs, devices, and biologicals, as well as novel trial designs, have prompted several updates over the nearly 30 years since, including most recently the Guidelines for controlled trials of preventive treatment of chronic migraine (2018), the Guidelines for controlled trials of acute treatment of migraine attacks in adults (2019), and Guidelines for controlled trials of preventive treatment of migraine in children and adolescents (2019). The present update incorporates findings from new research and is intended to optimize the design of controlled trials of preventive pharmacological treatment of episodic migraine in adults. A guideline for clinical trials with devices will be published separately.