VanderPluym, Juliana

Abstract Objective To equip clinicians with recommendations specific to concerns related to the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19), which impact the physical, emotional, and social health of youth with headache disorders. Background COVID‐19 has affected societies on a global scale including children and youth with chronic headache disorders. Many concerns are predicted to arise in the 2020–2021 school year, whether classes are conducted in‐person or virtually. Methods Clinical impressions were combined with a review of the literature, although limited due to the recent nature of this issue. Results We describe recommendations to support caregivers and youth as they face changes expected with the return to school in the fall of 2020. Conclusion Although there are significant concerns for caregivers and youth with migraine given the context of changes related to the pandemic, there are many recommendations that can help minimize exacerbations of the physical, emotional, and social health of youth with chronic migraine.

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.

Objective We surveyed the American Headache Society (AHS) New Investigators and Trainees Section (NITS), and International Headache Academy (IHA) attendees to better understand what they perceive as the most pressing issues for themselves as new investigators and trainees in the field of headache medicine. Background The NITS and IHA are intended as platforms for mentorship, leadership training, and professional development in the field of headache medicine. Identifying and addressing pressing issues among new investigators and trainees based on their perceived needs is critical to encouraging their development and success as headache medicine clinicians and researchers. Methods Paper surveys were administered at the NITS meeting at the November 2018 Scottsdale Headache Symposium and the January 2019 IHA. Additionally an online version was sent to the NIT listserv in November of 2018. The survey queried demographic information (gender, race, age, profession, training status, and years in practice) and asked participants to identify their top 3 most pressing issues/questions among a list of options. Results Fifty‐three responses were submitted (53/255; total response rate 20.7%). Among the surveys, 18 in‐person responses were from the NITS meeting (18/20; response rate 90.0%), 23 in‐person responses were from the IHA (23/45; response rate 51.1%), and 12 responses were from the online survey (12/190; response rate 6.3%). No duplicate responses were submitted based on comparison of demographics. One respondent identified as a researcher exclusively and was excluded from further analyses; the rest identified as clinicians at various levels of medical training. Fifteen respondents were not members of the NITS (28.8%); the most common reason for nonmembership was lack of awareness of the section (92.8%). Overall the most pressing issues/questions included (% of respondents who ranked issue/question among top 3): Career planning (51.9%), Logistics of running a headache clinic (40.4%), and Opportunities for involvement (38.5%). Most pressing issues/questions differed depending on level of training. Working with industry was the most pressing issue/question identified by early career physicians (55.0%). Career planning was the most pressing issue/question among fellows (72.2%) and residents (64.3%). Conclusion Many of the most pressing issues identified by respondents are topics that are not formally addressed in medical and research training.

Objectives This proposed systematic review will identify the existing evidence on medication‐overuse headache in children and adolescents. Background A number of medications have been shown to be effective for acute treatment of migraine in children and adolescents. However, patients may find they need to use their acute medications more frequently when migraine frequency is high. This has led to concern about their potential to develop medication‐overuse headache. Methods We will search PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, PsycINFO, and Cochrane databases from their inception to present time. We will also search conference proceedings of the last 4 scientific meetings of relevant societies and scan the reference lists of studies identified through the search. Study designs will include case series, cross‐sectional, cohort, case‐control, and interventional studies. Participants will include children and adolescents under 18 years of age with primary headache disorders. We aim to determine whether frequency of acute medication use is associated with headache frequency in children and adolescents. Outcomes of interest include: (1) headache frequency; (2) change in headache frequency, with time and in relationship to use of acute medications; and (3) headache‐related disability. We will also review data addressing treatment/management of medication overuse or medication‐overuse headache in children and adolescents. Relevant comparators will be withdrawal vs reduction of acute medication, initiation of preventive therapy vs no initiation with or without withdrawal of acute medication, and initiation of preventive therapy early vs late. Outcomes of interest include (1) days of acute medication use; (2) headache frequency; (3) change in headache frequency; and (4) headache‐related disability. After screening for inclusion, 2 team members will independently review and extract relevant data, and any discrepancies will be resolved through discussion and arbitration. We will assess risk of bias using appropriate tools (Cochrane Risk of Bias for randomized controlled trials (RCT) and Newcastle‐Ottawa Score for observational studies). Data will be summarized descriptively in text and tables. Results This systematic review will provide an overview of the available evidence on medication‐overuse headache in children and adolescents. Conclusions Findings from this review will aid clinicians by clarifying for them the current state of the evidence base, and will inform design of future research on this topic.

Background The King-Devick test is a timed rapid number naming task that involves complex cerebral functions. The objective of this pilot exploratory study is to determine whether there is a difference in the King-Devick test during a migraine attack compared to the interictal phase. Methods We evaluated 29 adult subjects with migraine with aura or migraine without aura. For each participant, we performed King-Devick tests during migraine attacks and interictal phases. Subjects served as their own controls. Results The King-Devick test was slower during the migraine attack compared to the interictal baseline (median 4.6 sec slower, p < 0.001). The slowing of the King-Devick test during migraine attack was more prominent in those with migraine with aura compared to subjects with migraine without aura (median 7.5 vs. 2.8 sec, p = 0.028). Conclusions This exploratory, observational study shows changes in the King-Devick test during migraine compared to the interictal phase. Future studies are required to determine if the King-Devick test may be used as a rapid and simple tool to objectively characterize migraine-associated disability.