Burstein, Rami

Background Ictal cutaneous allodynia, common in chronic migraine, is associated with reduced responses to acute treatment with triptans. Allodynia’s impact on the efficacy of newer preventive treatments such as erenumab is unknown. Methods Post-hoc subgroup analysis of a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled 12-week study of erenumab in chronic migraine, contrasting those with no allodynia with those with moderate-severe allodynia assessed with the Allodynia Symptom Checklist-12, was undertaken. Results Of 648 randomized individuals with baseline Allodynia Symptom Checklist-12 scores, 386 (59.6%) had no allodynia and 153 (23.6%) had moderate-to-severe allodynia. Mean (standard deviation) baseline monthly migraine days were 17.6 (4.8) and 18.9 (4.3), respectively. Compared to placebo, the erenumab group had greater reductions in monthly migraine days and monthly acute migraine-specific medication days in both no allodynia and allodynia subgroups. Mean (95% confidence interval) treatment differences in change from baseline for monthly migraine days at week 12 were −2.5 (−3.7, −1.4) in the no allodynia subgroup and −3.3 (−5.3, −1.3) in the moderate-severe allodynia subgroup. Change in acute migraine-specific medication days were −3.3 (−4.3, −2.3) and −2.5 (−4.3, −0.8), respectively. Conclusions Erenumab’s efficacy in reducing monthly migraine days and acute migraine-specific medication days in chronic migraine was not impacted by the presence of moderate-severe ictal allodynia. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02066415

Objective To assess the efficacy and safety of a remote electrical neuromodulation (REN) device for the acute treatment of migraine. Background There is a significant unmet need for novel effective well‐tolerated acute migraine treatments. REN is a novel acute migraine treatment that stimulates upper arm peripheral nerves to induce conditioned pain modulation – an endogenous analgesic mechanism in which conditioning stimulation inhibits pain in remote body regions. A recent pilot study showed that REN can significantly reduce headache. We have conducted a randomized, double‐blind, sham‐controlled study to further evaluate the efficacy and safety of REN for the acute treatment of migraine. Methods This was a randomized, double‐blind, sham‐controlled, multicenter study conducted at 7 sites in the United States and 5 sites in Israel. Two hundred and fifty‐two adults meeting the International Classification of Headache Disorders criteria for migraine with 2‐8 migraine headaches per month were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to active or sham stimulation. A smartphone‐controlled wireless device was applied for 30‐45 minutes on the upper arm within 1 hour of attack onset; electrical stimulation was at a perceptible but non‐painful intensity level. Migraine pain levels were recorded at baseline, 2, and 48 hours post‐treatment. Most bothersome symptoms (MBS) were also recorded. The primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of participants achieving pain relief at 2 hours post‐treatment (improvement from severe or moderate pain to mild or none, or from mild pain to none). Relief of MBS and pain‐free at 2 hours were key secondary endpoints. Results Active stimulation was more effective than sham stimulation in achieving pain relief (66.7% [66/99] vs 38.8% [40/103]; therapeutic gain of 27.9% [CI 95% , 15.6‐40.2]; P < .0001), pain‐free (37.4% vs 18.4%, P = .003), and MBS relief (46.3% vs 22.2%, P = .0008) at 2 hours post‐treatment. The pain relief and pain‐free superiority of the active treatment was sustained 48 hours post‐treatment. The incidence of device‐related adverse events was low and similar between treatment groups (4.8% [6/126] vs 2.4% [3/126], P = .499). Conclusions REN provides superior clinically meaningful relief of migraine pain and MBS compared to placebo, offering a safe and effective non‐pharmacological alternative for acute migraine treatment.

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.