VanderPluym, Juliana

Abstract Objective The goal of this study was to synthesize the evidence on how “status migrainosus” is defined in research studies in comparison to established International Classification of Headache Disorders (ICHD) criteria. Background Current ICHD‐3 criteria define status migrainosus as a headache attack occurring in a patient with a history of migraine with or without aura that is typical of previous attacks except for its duration (>72 h) and severity (debilitating). Despite the ICHD criteria, there are varying inclusion criteria noted in studies enrolling patients with status migrainosus. With this diagnostic uncertainty, there remains difficulty in studying this patient population. Methods This systematic review was conducted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analysis guidelines. Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, All Evidence‐Based Medicine Reviews, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov , and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched with the end search date of August 29, 2025. We included studies that were original research focused on status migrainosus, published in English after January 1, 1988, and also included diagnostic criteria to define this condition. The abstracts and full texts were screened by independent reviewers, with a third independent reviewer remaining available to settle disputes. There were 45 studies that underwent full text review, with 19 of these studies included. Data extraction was conducted recording the criteria used to define status migrainosus, headache characteristics, and goals of each study. Results We identified four common domains among studies of status migrainosus, including use of ICHD criteria, headache duration, symptom severity, and treatment response. Reference to ICHD criteria was variable, with only 68% (13/19) of studies specifying an edition of ICHD criteria applied in recruiting or studying patients with status migrainosus. The majority of studies (16/19; 84%) used a headache duration greater than 72 h to define status migrainosus. The use of symptom severity with “debilitating” or “severe” was present in 63% (12/19) of studies and depended on the edition of ICHD criteria that was referenced. Treatment response was rarely used as a condition in defining status migrainosus, with only 15% (3/19) of studies utilizing this stipulation in diagnostic criteria. Conclusion The results of this systematic review show inconsistent application of ICHD criteria in research studies focusing on status migrainosus. These inconsistencies lead to ambiguity in how status migrainosus is defined in the research setting and limit the ability to replicate or compare studies. Guidelines outlining best practices for research of status migrainosus are necessary. For prospective studies, consistent utilization of ICHD criteria is necessary, with potential need to revise these criteria to better reflect the clinical realities of this entity. For retrospective studies, implementation of a standardized International Classification of Diseases code for status migrainosus would be of benefit to improve diagnostic clarity because the current codes are lengthy, cumbersome, and unclear.

Aim To determine whether there is a difference in the time to complete a rapid number naming task during the interictal state compared to prodrome, migraine headache, postdrome phases of migraine and non-migraine headache, and characterize non-headache symptoms experienced during these phases. Methods This prospective longitudinal cohort study evaluated 30 adults with migraine with or without aura who completed diary entries and a timed rapid number naming task at least three times daily for up to four months from October 2020 to July 2022 at a tertiary headache center. Diary entries included self-report of current migraine phase (having a migraine headache, non-migraine headache, prodrome, postdrome, or interictal baseline) and detailed symptoms experienced. The outcome of interest for the timed rapid number naming task was the time to complete the task with zero errors. Results Compared to the interictal baseline, the time with zero errors for the rapid number naming task was significantly slower during the prodrome (median (Q1, Q3) 1.0 s slower (0.4, 2.9), p -value 0.010), migraine headache (median (Q1, Q3) 3.8 s slower (2.6, 7.5), p -value <0.001), and postdrome (median (Q1, Q3) 0.9 s slower (0.2, 2.1), p -value 0.011) phases of migraine, and non-migraine headache attacks (median (Q1, Q3) 1.2 s slower (0.1, 3.1), p -value 0.006). For those with migraine with aura (N = 15), the time with zero errors was significantly slower during all phases compared to interictal phase. For those with migraine without aura (N = 15), the time with zero errors was significantly slower only during the migraine headache, but not other phases compared to the interictal phase. The top 5 most reported non-headache symptoms during any phase of migraine and non-migraine headache attacks included fatigue, neck stiffness, light sensitivity, blurred vision/vision changes, and difficulty concentrating. Conclusions Among the overall participant cohort, the time with zero errors to complete a rapid number naming task was significantly slower during all ictal phases compared to interictal phase. This was also the case in the migraine with aura cohort but in the migraine without aura cohort there was only a significant difference during the migraine headache phase versus interictal phase. There is overlap in non-headache symptoms between the prodrome, migraine headache, postdrome, and non-migraine headache phases, which may make distinguishing between these phases difficult. Combining subjective data, such as symptom diaries, with objective measures, such as rapid number naming tasks, may allow for more refined assessment of migraine phases and distinguishing migraine from non-migraine headache attacks.

Abstract Objectives Discuss the current status of advanced practice providers (APPs) onboarding to headache medicine (HM) practices in the United States and present recommendations of the American Headache Society (AHS) APP Work Group to improve the onboarding process. Background A high demand for care, national shortage of specialists, and multiple advancements in HM have led to an increasing interest and presence of APPs of various backgrounds in the field, currently without a unifying onboarding process. Efforts to standardize and optimize the onboarding process for APPs in HM practices are necessary, to ensure high standards in quality of care. Methods The APP Work Group of the AHS Practice Management Committee developed comprehensive recommendations through literature review, survey of AHS members, and expert consensus. A modified Delphi protocol was used to establish key onboarding goals, definitions, and best practice recommendations. Results Recommendations are made regarding duration of onboarding, appropriate supervision, formal education and procedural skills, scope of practice, grading and documentation of competence, and reciprocal feedback. Conclusion Currently, there are no standard onboarding and training guidelines for APPs in the field of HM. We provide recommendations for a more systematic approach to help develop qualified providers and enhance their retention in HM practices.

Abstract Background OnabotulinumtoxinA (BoNT‐A) is an established preventive treatment for chronic migraine but involves 31 to 40 injections per session, often causing discomfort and post‐procedural headaches. Remote electrical neuromodulation (REN) is a noninvasive therapy with efficacy in migraine treatment via conditioned pain modulation but has not been evaluated for procedural pain. This study evaluated REN's effectiveness in reducing acute procedural pain and postprocedural headache associated with BoNT‐A injections. Methods This was an investigator‐initiated single‐center, randomized, single‐blind, sham‐controlled crossover study enrolled 80 adults (aged 22 to 74 years) with chronic migraine undergoing routine BoNT‐A treatment. Each participant received one injection session without a device, followed by sessions using active REN and sham in randomized order. REN was applied to the upper arm 10 min prior to injections and removed after injection completion. Pain intensity was measured using a visual analog scale (0 to 100) at pre‐procedure, intra‐procedure, and post‐procedure time points. The primary outcome was procedural pain intensity, and secondary outcomes included post‐procedural headache incidence and adverse events. Due to clear benefit, the study was terminated early based on predefined stopping criteria. Results Final analysis of 60 participants (mean age 48.0 years; 49/60, 82% female) demonstrated that pre‐procedural pain levels were not significantly different between baseline and the active REN or sham ( p > 0.999 and p = 0.485, respectively). However, during and after BoNT‐A administration, the active REN group reported significantly lower pain scores compared to both the sham and baseline conditions. At intra‐procedure, the REN group experienced a mean pain reduction of 15.0 points ( p < 0.001), and at post‐procedure experienced a 19.1‐point reduction ( p < 0.001). Sham treatment did not result in significant pain reduction compared to baseline ( p > 0.999 for both intra‐procedure and post‐procedure). Additionally, REN lowered the incidence of headache as an adverse event, with only 15% (8/52) of participants experiencing post‐procedural headache compared to 55% (29/53) in the sham group and 39% (23/59) at baseline (odds ratio = 0.28, 95% confidence interval: 0.10 to 0.69, p = 0.008). No additional adverse events were reported. Conclusions REN significantly reduces procedural pain and post‐procedural headache associated with BoNT‐A injections for chronic migraine and may serve as a noninvasive, easily implemented pain management strategy for acute procedural pain. REN represents a promising approach to improving patient comfort during routine migraine treatment as well as reducing post‐procedural headache.

Abstract Objective To examine the effectiveness of treatment strategies for medication‐overuse headache (MOH) in children and adolescents. Background There are no guidelines for the treatment of adult or pediatric patients with MOH. However, research pertaining to MOH in adults is far outpacing research in children and adolescents. Methods A systematic review of evidence on treatment for MOH in children and adolescents was performed via PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, PsycINFO, and Cochrane from database inception to October 2024 for articles with the subject headings and keywords for MOH and pediatric, children, and/or adolescent. Inclusion criteria were: (i) randomized controlled trials and retrospective and prospective observational studies, (ii) children and adolescents aged <18 years with chronic headaches and with medication overuse (MO) or MOH, and (iii) interventions addressing MO or MOH, including pharmacologic and behavioral interventions. At least two independent reviewers screened citations and full‐text articles independently. Results A total of 16 studies (one randomized control trial, six prospective observational studies and nine retrospective observational studies) were identified as meeting final inclusion criteria, resulting in 7978 total participants with a subset of those having MO, MOH or probable MOH. Participants ranged in mean age from 10 to 14.7 years, with 7.1%–46.2% male participants. All the studies recruited patients from an outpatient setting. Interventions used in the studies included withdrawal of the overused acute medication, initiation of preventive medication, patient education, physiotherapy and psychological treatment, and motivational interviewing. Multimodal therapy was studied more than single therapeutic intervention. There was vast heterogeneity across the studies, including study design, diagnostic criteria, intervention type, and outcomes. Conclusion From the data available, there does not seem to be a singular superior treatment approach. Accordingly, the most appropriate treatment modality will need to be tailored to the patient and their caregivers. Further research is required regarding management of MOH in children and adolescents.

Abstract Objective To determine the tolerability and safety of concurrent peripheral nerve blocks and onabotulinumtoxinA treatment during a single outpatient clinic procedure visit. Background Procedural interventions are available for the treatment of headache disorders. OnabotulinumtoxinA and peripheral nerve blocks are used as alternatives or in addition to oral therapies to reduce the frequency and intensity of migraine attacks. There is currently a lack of safety data focusing on the sequential administration of local anesthetic via peripheral nerve blocks and onabotulinumtoxinA during a single clinical encounter for the treatment of headache. The primary aim of the study was to determine the safety and tolerability of concurrent peripheral nerve blockade and onabotulinumtoxinA injections during a single outpatient clinic procedure visit. We hypothesized that the dual intervention would be safe and well tolerated by patients with chronic migraine and other headache disorders. Methods A retrospective chart review was performed using clinical data from patients seen by multiple providers over a 16‐month timeframe at one outpatient headache clinic. Patients were identified by procedure codes and those receiving peripheral nerve block(s) and onabotulinumtoxinA injections during a single encounter within the study period were eligible for inclusion. Inclusion criteria were (1) patients 18 years and older who were (2) receiving both peripheral nerve blocks and onabotulinumtoxinA injections for the treatment of chronic migraine. Patients were excluded if they were under age 18, received their procedure outside of the clinic (emergency room, inpatient ward), or were receiving sphenopalatine ganglion blocks. Age‐ and sex‐matched patients who received one procedure, either peripheral nerve blocks or onabotulinumtoxinA, were used for control. The primary outcome of this safety study was the number of adverse events that occurred in the dual intervention group compared to the single intervention control arms. Information regarding adverse events was gathered via retrospective chart review. If an adverse event was recorded, it was then graded by the reviewer utilizing the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events ranging from Grade 1 Mild Event to Grade 5 Death. Additionally, it was noted whether the adverse event led to treatment discontinuation. Results In total, 375 patients were considered eligible for inclusion in the study. After age and sex matching of controls, 131 patients receiving dual intervention were able to be compared to 131 patients receiving onabotulinumtoxinA alone and 104 patients receiving dual intervention were able to be compared to 104 patients receiving peripheral nerve block(s) alone. The primary endpoint analysis showed no significant difference in total adverse events between dual intervention compared to nerve blocks alone or onabotulinumtoxinA alone. The number of adverse events that led to treatment discontinuation approached but did not reach statistical significance for those receiving dual intervention versus onabotulinumtoxinA alone in the number of adverse events that led to treatment termination (4.6%, 6/131 vs. 0.8%, 1/131, p = 0.065); however, the number of patients who discontinued therapy was not significantly different between those groups (2.3%, 3/131 vs. 0.8%, 1/131; p = 0.314; odds ratio 0.3 [0–3.2]; p = 0.338). Conclusions In this retrospective chart review, there was no significant difference in adverse events or therapy discontinuation between patients receiving sequential peripheral nerve block(s) and onabotulinumtoxinA injections versus those receiving either peripheral nerve block(s) or onabotulinumtoxinA injections alone. As a result, we concluded that the combination procedure is likely safe and well tolerated in routine clinical practice.