Smith, Jonathan H.

Background Migraine is associated with obesity. These analyses evaluated weight change with atogepant used as a preventive migraine treatment. Methods Five atogepant clinical trials in adults with migraine (one phase 2b/3; four phase 3) were included: Three 12-week, randomized, placebo-controlled trials (episodic migraine: two; chronic migraine: one); one 40-week, open-label extension trial and one 52-week, standard care, randomized, long-term safety trial in episodic migraine. Change from baseline in body weight was measured. Results Mean baseline body mass indexes were 30.0–30.7 kg/m 2 (pooled episodic migraine [United States only]) and 25.0–25.5 kg/m 2 (chronic migraine [East Asia, Europe, and North America]). More participants treated with atogepant 60 mg once-daily compared to placebo experienced ≥7% weight loss at any time in the pooled episodic migraine placebo-controlled trials (4.9% vs. 2.8%), chronic migraine placebo-controlled trial (5.8% vs. 2.0%), and pooled open-label extension and long-term safety trials (24.0% vs.14.7% in standard care [long-term safety only]). In the placebo-controlled trials, weight loss with atogepant 60 mg once-daily was observed at week 2 (pooled episodic migraine: −0.32%; chronic migraine: −0.39%), increasing at week 12 (pooled episodic migraine: −1.02%; chronic migraine: −1.50%); compared to weight gain with placebo at week 12 (pooled episodic migraine: +0.49%; chronic migraine: +0.10%). In the long-term episodic migraine studies, weight loss with atogepant 60 mg once-daily was observed at week 4 (long-term safety: −0.42%; open-label extension: −0.76%), increasing at week 40 (long-term safety: −2.38%; open-label extension: −2.09%). Conclusion Atogepant was associated with modest dose- and duration-dependent weight loss. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT02848326 (CGP-MD-01); NCT03777059 (3101-301-002); NCT03700320 (long-term safety trial); NCT03939312 (open-label extension trial); NCT03855137 (3101-303-002).

Abstract Objectives To empirically address how thunderclap headache (TCH) is described in a relevant real‐world setting. Background TCH refers to a highly recognizable description of a severe headache that reaches maximum severity within 1 minute and endures for at least 5 minutes. The use of a numerical rating scale (NRS) to appraise TCH severity, as well as assessment of TCH progression in patients with pre‐existing headache at the time of TCH onset has not been previously evaluated. Methods This was a retrospective case series of adults with a diagnosis of reversible cerebral vasoconstriction syndrome (RCVS), identified through a search of the electronic health record. Individuals meeting International Classification of Headache Disorders, 3rd Edition criteria for acute headache attributed to RCVS were included. Attacks described using a verbal descriptor scale (VDS), NRS, or both were recorded to evaluate acute headache characteristics. Results In all, 56 individuals with available descriptions of 120 acute headaches were included in the study analysis. Patients were female (35, 62.5%) with a median age of 46 (range: 19–67). The majority of patients reported a RCVS trigger (39, 69.6%). Acute headaches were characterized using a VDS (52, 43.3%), NRS (51, 42.5%), or both (17, 14.1%). Acute headaches were always described as severe when a VDS was utilized, and with a median NRS of 10 (range: 4–10). Four patients (7%) did not have a single headache characterized as either severe or with a NRS 8 or greater. In the 10 cases for which there was a pre‐TCH baseline headache, it was either rated as mild or with a median NRS of 3 (range: 2–6). Conclusions TCH in RCVS can be recognized using either VDS or NRS, with a broader range of peak intensities than previously recognized. TCH remains recognizable despite pre‐existing baseline headache.

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.

Introduction: Older adults presenting with a new or changed headache pattern in the setting of a diagnosis of polymyalgia rheumatica (PMR) are at risk for incident giant cell arteritis. However, the differential diagnosis of headache has not been evaluated in patients with a negative temporal artery biopsy (TAB). Headache has not been described as a symptom of PMR. Methods: After prospectively identifying an individual felt to have headache attributed to PMR, we performed a chart review to identify additional cases. As a secondary outcome, we summarized alternative headache diagnoses in patients with PMR, headache and a negative TAB. Results: A 75-year-old woman presented with a subacute history of radiating cervical pain in the setting of a 3 month history of lower back stiffness at rest and fatigue. Clinical examination was suggestive of a cervicogenic headache. Following treatment with low-dose corticosteroid for PMR, headaches, cervical mobility and systemic findings resolved with treatment of PMR with low-dose corticosteroid. In our cohort of 36 patients, we identified a single additional patient meeting our study criteria for headache attributed to PMR. Three additional patients met all but 1 diagnostic criterion. The retrospective case was a 73-year-old woman with a subacute history of both morning-predominant headaches and muscle stiffness, diagnosed with PMR. Headaches remitted with low-dose corticosteroid and relapsed with corticosteroid taper. Conclusions: Headache attributed to PMR is a steroid-responsive syndrome which should be considered in an older adult presenting with features of PMR, when the TAB is negative. Diagnostic criteria for headache attributed to PMR are proposed.

Objectives (1) To perform a systematic literature review to evaluate associations between post‐dural puncture headache (PDPH) and opening pressure (OP), closing pressure (CP), and volume of cerebrospinal fluid (V) removed. (2) To perform a case‐control study to evaluate pressure‐volume index (PVI) as a novel risk factor for PDPH. Background According to the International Classification of Headache Diagnoses, 3rd Edition (ICHD‐3), the diagnosis of PDPH requires documentation of intracranial hypotension. However, this remains an unproven concept. Methods A systematic literature review was conducted, searching Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Ovid EMBASE, OVID MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science. Study inclusion required a comparison of headache incidence following a LP as a function of OP, CP, and/or V. A retrospective, case‐control study with 1:1 matching was conducted utilizing ICHD‐3 criteria. Patients with factors that could influence CSF pressure were excluded. Results In our case‐control study, we did not identify a paired difference in either median (95% CI) elastance (0.05 [−0.09, 0.11], P = .503) or PVI (4.53 [−7.98, 19.97], P = .678). We identified 22 references, evaluating V (n = 14), OP (n = 11), and/or CP (n = 4). There was no convincing evidence for an association of PDPH with either OP or CP. A minority of studies documenting an association with V included patients with high‐volume CSF removal, and/or stratified patients by the timing of the headache onset. Conclusions The overall risk of PDPH does not appear to be influenced by OP, CP, V or PVI. PDPH may be related to V in instances of high‐volume removal, and depend on the timing of outcome assessment. Future revision of criteria should consider the existence of immediate and delayed PDPH subtypes, and not presume intracranial hypotension as a mandatory feature.