Citations

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.

Abstract Objective To identify and disseminate research priorities for the headache field that should be areas of research focus during the next 10 years. Background Establishing research priorities helps focus and synergize the work of headache investigators, allowing them to reach the most important research goals more efficiently and completely. Methods The Headache Research Priorities organizing and executive committees and working group chairs led a multistakeholder and international group of experts to develop headache research priorities. The research priorities were developed and reviewed by clinicians, scientists, people with headache, representatives from headache organizations, health‐care industry representatives, and the public. Priorities were revised and finalized after receiving feedback from members of the research priorities working groups and after a public comment period. Results Twenty‐five research priorities across eight categories were identified: human models, animal models, pathophysiology, diagnosis and management, treatment, inequities and disparities, research workforce development, and quality of life. The priorities address research models and methods, development and optimization of outcome measures and endpoints, pain and non‐pain symptoms of primary and secondary headaches, investigations into mechanisms underlying headache attacks and chronification of headache disorders, treatment optimization, research workforce recruitment, development, expansion, and support, and inequities and disparities in the headache field. The priorities are focused enough that they help to guide headache research and broad enough that they are widely applicable to multiple headache types and various research methods. Conclusions These research priorities serve as guidance for headache investigators when planning their research studies and as benchmarks by which the headache field can measure its progress over time. These priorities will need updating as research goals are met and new priorities arise.

Background In an effort to improve migraine management around the world, the International Headache Society (IHS) has here developed a list of practical recommendations for the acute pharmacological treatment of migraine. The recommendations are categorized into optimal and essential, in order to provide treatment options for all possible settings, including those with limited access to migraine medications. Methods An IHS steering committee developed a list of clinical questions based on practical issues in the management of migraine. A selected group of international senior and junior headache experts developed the recommendations, following expert consensus and the review of available national and international headache guidelines and guidance documents. Following the initial search, a bibliography of twenty-one national and international guidelines was created and reviewed by the working group. Results A total of seventeen questions addressing different aspects of acute migraine treatment have been outlined. For each of them we provide an optimal recommendation, to be used whenever possible, and an essential recommendation to be used when the optimal level cannot be attained. Conclusion Adoption of these international recommendations will improve the quality of acute migraine treatment around the world, even where pharmacological options remain limited.

Objective To investigate whether levcromakalim (a K ATP channel opener) induces migraine-like headache in people with persistent post-traumatic headache who had no known history of migraine. Methods In a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 2-way crossover trial, participants were randomly assigned to receive a 20-minute continuous intravenous infusion of levcromakalim (50 µg/mL) or placebo (isotonic saline) on two separate experimental days with a 1-week wash-out period in between. The primary endpoint was the difference in incidence of migraine-like headache between levcromakalim and placebo during a 12-hour observational period after infusion start. The secondary endpoint was the difference in area under the curve for baseline-corrected median headache intensity scores between levcromakalim and placebo during the 12-hour observational period. Results A total of 21 participants with persistent post-traumatic headache were randomized and completed the trial. During the 12-hour observational period, 12 (57%) of 21 participants reported experiencing migraine-like headache following the levcromakalim infusion, compared with three after placebo ( P = 0.013). Moreover, the baseline-corrected median headache intensity scores were higher following the levcromakalim infusion than after placebo ( P = 0.003). Conclusion Our findings suggest that K ATP channels play an important role in the pathogenesis of migraine-like headache in people with persistent post-traumatic headache. This implies that K ATP channel blockers might represent a promising avenue for drug development. Further research is warranted to explore the potential therapeutic benefits of K ATP channel blockers in managing post-traumatic headache. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05243953

Abstract Pituitary adenylate cyclase-activating polypeptide-38 (PACAP-38), known for its role in migraine pathogenesis, has been identified as a novel drug target. Given the clinical parallels between post-traumatic headache (PTH) and migraine, we explored the possible role of PACAP-38 in the pathogenesis of PTH. To this end, we conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, two-way crossover trial involving adult participants diagnosed with persistent PTH resulting from mild traumatic brain injury. Participants were randomly assigned to receive a 20-min continuous intravenous infusion of either PACAP-38 (10 pmol/kg/min) or placebo (isotonic saline) on two separate experimental days, with a 1-week washout period in between. The primary outcome was the difference in incidence of migraine-like headache between PACAP-38 and placebo during a 12-h observational period post-infusion. The secondary outcome was the difference in the area under the curve (AUC) for baseline-corrected median headache intensity scores during the same 12-h observational period. Of 49 individuals assessed for eligibility, 21 were enrolled and completed the trial. The participants had a mean age of 35.2 years, and 16 (76%) were female. Most [19 of 21 (90%)] had a migraine-like phenotype. During the 12-h observational period, 20 of 21 (95%) participants developed migraine-like headache after intravenous infusion of PACAP-38, compared with two (10%) participants after placebo (P < 0.001). Furthermore, the baseline-corrected AUC values for median headache intensity scores during the 12-h observational period was higher after PACAP-38 than placebo (P < 0.001). These compelling results demonstrate that PACAP-38 is potent inducer of migraine-like headache in people with persistent PTH. Thus, targeting PACAP-38 signalling might be a promising avenue for the treatment of PTH.

Background Anatomical and experimental data indicate that onabotulinimtoxin A could be more efficient and cost-effective for treating chronic migraine with injections targeting the cranial sutures, where collaterals from the meninges penetrate the skull. Methods A new injection paradigm (FollowTheSutures) was tested for safety, tolerability and feasibility in a Phase II, open-label, non-controlled, single-center pilot study. Ninety units of onabotulinimtoxin A (Botox®), were injected in 18 sites over the area of the cranial sutures. Adverse events and potential beneficial effects were recorded in a headache diary at least 4 weeks before, and for 12 weeks after the injections. A higher dilution than normal of onabotulinimtoxin A was used to get better diffusion. Results Nineteen (of 20 included) women with chronic migraine received the injections and were evaluable. There was only one treatment-related adverse event (reduced power of chewing for some weeks). Otherwise, the procedure was overall well tolerated. Patients improved on most efficacy parameters after the injections. There was little or no effect on glabellar or forehead lines. Conclusions The protocol was safe and well tolerated. Lower risk of unblinding due to the absence of cosmetic effects should make the injection procedure well suited for a large, randomized, placebo-controlled study. If efficacy is confirmed, it will be markedly less costly than the standard procedure. Trial registration: EUDRACT (2017-002516-13), ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03543254).