Levin, Morris

Migraine is one of the most disabling diseases worldwide, especially when it transforms into chronic migraine, which is often associated with medication overuse and can become resistant or even refractory to treatments. Molecular, neuroimaging and neurophysiological changes have been described in chronic migraine, some of which might not be fully reversible with preventive treatment. For these reasons, we should aim to prevent this transition, and initiate preventive treatment before disease becomes refractory and burden increases. Preventive migraine treatments are often delayed because of access to care, stigma leading to undertreatment and patients’ reluctance as a result of fear of side effects and, in some cases, fear of being labeled as chronically ill. With the availability of effective and well-tolerated preventive treatments, we must shift our mindset and take advantage of new opportunities to initiate preventive treatment earlier. In this International Headache Society position statement, we propose a migraine preventive strategy under the idea of shifting from reactive treatment once disability is established (prevention of attacks), to proactive, individualized prevention initiated early with safe, effective and tolerable therapies (prevention of disease progression). This approach is based on 1) promoting the early initiation of effective and tolerable preventive therapies, starting from two to four monthly migraine days in line with the majority of current guidelines and recommendations and 2) fostering longitudinal studies to gather more evidence on the potential benefit of early prevention, with the final goal of improving patient outcomes, promoting excellent migraine care, enhancing individual and social well-being, and, ultimately, preventing migraine progression and preserving brain health.

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.

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 Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation 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.

Background Optimism and pessimism are related to several mental health and brain disorders, are significant predictors of physical and psychological health outcomes, and implicated as psychosocial determinants of the pain experience. Despite this promising evidence, limited information is available on optimism and pessimism in headache disorders. Objective To evaluate the influence of optimism and pessimism in meeting criteria for migraine and related disability in a population‐based sample. Methods This is an observational, cross‐sectional study. The sample population was selected through a stratified, multi‐stage area probability sample of households, as used by the last Brazilian Census. A validated questionnaire eliciting data on demographics, headache features, migraine‐related disability, depression (PHQ‐9), anxiety (GAD‐7), optimism, and pessimism (life orientation test – revised) was administered to people with migraine and headache‐free control participants from the general population in São Paulo, Brazil via trained interviewers. Six hundred individuals were contacted. The odds for having migraine/no headache diagnosis were calculated by binary logistic regression, and ordinal regression was performed to check associations between migraine‐related disability and optimism. Results A total of 302 individuals (mean ± SD age: 39.7 ± 12.7; BMI: 26.5 ± 5.9) met inclusion criteria and were included, 140 controls (with no history of headache disorders) and 162 people meeting criteria for migraine (29 with chronic migraine, that is, 15 or more headache days/month). People with migraine were less optimistic and more pessimistic than controls, and endorsed higher levels of anxious and depressive symptoms. Pessimism (OR 95% CI = 1.16 [1.05–1.28], P = .005) and anxiety (OR 95% CI = 1.19 [1.10–1.29], P < .001) were predictors of meeting criteria for migraine, while optimism (β 95% CI = −0.915 [−1.643, −0.188], P = .01) was inversely associated with migraine‐related disability. Conclusions Optimism and pessimism are associated with migraine and migraine‐related disability. These concepts should be further explored in people with migraine with regard to their potential influences on clinical research outcomes and treatments.

Objective To survey neurology residency program directors (PDs) on trainee exposure, supervision, and credentialing in procedures widely utilized in headache medicine. Background Clinic‐based procedures have assumed a prominent role in headache therapy. Headache fellows obtain procedural competence, but reliance on fellowship‐trained neurologists cannot match the population eligible for treatments. The inclusion of educational modules and mechanisms for credentialing trainees pursuing procedural competence in residency curricula at individual programs is not known. Methods A web‐based survey of US neurology residency PDs was designed by the American Headache Society (AHS) procedural special interest section in collaboration with AHS and American Academy of Neurology's Headache and Facial Pain section leadership. The survey addressed exposure, training, and credentialing in: (1) onabotulinumtoxinA (onabotA) injections, (2) extracranial peripheral nerve blocks (PNBs), and (3) trigger point injections (TPIs). Results Fifty‐five PDs (42.6%) completed the survey. Compared to noncompleters, survey completers were more likely to feature headache fellowships at their institutions (38.2% vs 10.8%, P =0.0002). High exposure (onabotA=90.9%, PNBs=80.0%, TPIs=70.9%) usually featured hands‐on patient instruction (66.2%) and lectures (55.7%). Supervised performance rates were high (onabotA=65.5%, PNBs=60.0%, TPIs=52.7%), usually in continuity clinic (60.0%) or headache elective (50.9%). Headache specialists (69.1%) or general neurology (32.7%) faculty most commonly trained residents. Formal credentialing was uncommon (16.4‐18.2%), mostly by documenting supervised procedures (25.5%). Only 27.3% of programs permitted trainees to perform procedures independently. Most PDs felt procedural exposure (80.0‐90.9%) and competence (50.9‐56.4%) by all trainees was important. Conclusions Resident exposure to procedures for headache is high, but credentialing mechanisms, while desired by most PDs, are not generally in place. Implementation of a credentialing process may ensure trainees enter practice with the ability to perform procedures safely and effectively.