Singh, Rashmi B. Halker

AbstractAcute treatments for migraine and cluster headache are necessary to abort attacks, relieve pain and associated symptoms, and restore an individual's ability to function. Acute headache treatments consist of a variety of medication and nonmedication options. In this article, we discuss the approach to acute treatment of migraine and cluster headache. We summarize the level of evidence to support each acute medication class according to recent systematic reviews and meta-analyses, as well as guideline recommendations from the American Headache Society, American Academy of Neurology, and European Federation of Neurological Society.

Abstract Background Treatment wearing‐off has been reported for calcitonin gene‐related peptide‐pathway monoclonal antibodies, including erenumab, specifically in the last week of the monthly dosing cycle. Objective We sought to determine the consistency of erenumab effect throughout the monthly treatment cycle. Methods In this post hoc analysis of four pivotal double‐blind, randomized controlled studies of erenumab in episodic and chronic migraine, we assessed wearing‐off based on change in weekly migraine days at week 4 versus average over weeks 1–3 in each monthly dosing cycle. Analyses were conducted at each monthly dosing cycle in all patients, in responders (≥50% reduction in weekly migraine days), and in consistent responders (response in ≥2monthly cycles). Results There was no evidence of wearing‐off in the full study populations of two global studies (N = 946 and N = 656) and two Japan studies (N = 475 and N = 261). In the full study population, mean change in weekly migraine days at week 4 compared with the average over week 1–3 ranged from 0.15 days improvement to 0.19 days worsening in the placebo group and 0.08 days improvement to 0.20 days worsening in the erenumab groups. A subgroup of responders experienced wearing‐off, but the extent of wearing‐off did not differ between erenumab and placebo groups. The mean change in weekly migraine days at week 4 compared with the average over weeks 1–3 ranged from 0.34 to 0.61 days worsening in the placebo group and 0.27 to 0.78 days worsening in the erenumab groups. Few patients had persistent wearing‐off in ≥2 consecutive monthly treatment cycles. For erenumab‐treated responders, serum erenumab concentrations were similar among patients experiencing wearing‐off and those maintaining response. Conclusion No systematic wearing‐off with erenumab was identified. Further research is needed to determine if wearing‐off reported for some patients in clinical practice reflects a true treatment response pattern or normal fluctuations in migraine frequency.

Background It is well recognized that underrepresented and minoritized groups do not have the same career opportunities. However, there are limited data on the range and specifics of potential barriers that withhold people in headache medicine and science from reaching their full potential. Moreover, people from different geographical regions often perceive different challenges. We aimed to identify world-wide perceived career barriers and possibilities for promoting equality amongst professionals in the headache fields. Methods A cross-sectional online survey was conducted among professionals in the field of headache globally. The questions of the survey were aimed at assessing perceived career barriers in four domains: professional recognition, opportunities in scientific societies, clinical practice, and salary and compensation. Perceived mentorship was also assessed. Results In total 580 responders completed the survey (55.3% women). Gender was the most important perceived barrier in almost all domains. Additionally, country of birth emerged as an important barrier to participation in international scientific societies. Career barriers varied across world regions. Conclusion It is essential that longstanding and ongoing disparities by gender and country of origin for professionals in the headache field are globally acknowledged and addressed in areas of recruitment, retention, opportunities, mentor- and sponsorships, and advancement.

Abstract Objective To improve the understanding of the role and utility of various neuroimaging modalities (clinical and research) for the evaluation of migraine aura (MA) and hemiplegic migraine during the ictal and interictal phases. Background MA is defined by reversible neurologic symptoms and is considered a manifestation of a primary condition. As such, most patients with MA do not require imaging. However, if there are atypical features, change in symptom pattern, or it is a first‐time presentation, neuroimaging may be used to evaluate for secondary conditions. Neuroimaging includes many modalities, and it is important to consider what information is being captured by these modalities (i.e., structural vs. functional). Imaging abnormalities may be noted both during (ictal) and between (interictal) MA attacks, and it is important for clinicians to be familiar with neuroimaging findings reported in migraine with aura (MWA) compared with other conditions. Methods With the assistance of a medical librarian, we performed a review of the literature pertaining to MWA and neuroimaging in PubMed. Search terms included were magnetic resonance imaging, positron‐emission tomography, single photon‐emission computed tomography, functional magnetic resonance imaging, and migraine with aura. We hand‐searched these references to inform our subsequent literature review. Results Acute MA can be associated with several unique neuroimaging findings—reversible cortical diffusion restriction, cortical venous engorgement, and a “biphasic” transition from hypoperfusion to hyperperfusion. Imaging findings during MA tend to span more than one vascular territory. Between acute attacks, neuroimaging in people with MWA can resemble migraine without aura in terms of white matter abnormalities and “infarct‐like lesions.” Research imaging modalities such as volumetric analysis and functional imaging have demonstrated unique findings in migraine with aura. Conclusion Although migraine is a clinical diagnosis, understanding of neuroimaging findings in MWA can help clinicians interpret imaging findings and improve patient care.