Pozo‐Rosich, Patricia

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.

Objective To develop evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for non-invasive neuromodulation devices in acute and preventive migraine treatment. Methods A systematic review was conducted across six databases from 1946 to April 2025. Randomized controlled trials evaluating Food and Drug Administration-cleared or Conformité Européenne (CE)-marked non-invasive neuromodulation devices were included. The quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology, and recommendations were developed through consensus following GRADE Evidence-to-Decision frameworks. The working group comprised 15 senior members and six junior members. Results From 1536 initial records, 15 studies met the inclusion criteria and were finally used to develop evidence-based recommendations. Evidence quality ranged from very low to moderate. Weak recommendations were issued for SAVI Dual, Cefaly, Relivion, and Nerivio in the treatment of acute migraine attacks, and for gammaCore Sapphire, Cefaly, and Nerivio in the preventive migraine treatment. Other cleared devices received no recommendations or have no eligible studies for the GRADE assessment. The primary limitations across studies included imprecision due to small sample sizes and various methodological concerns. Additionally, expert consensus recommendations were developed for devices and clinical scenarios not adequately covered by randomized controlled trials, including potential applications in pediatric populations, vestibular migraine, chronic migraine, menstrual migraine, and medication overuse headache. Conclusion Non-invasive neuromodulation devices offer promising alternatives to drug treatment for migraine management. These devices are safe and generally well tolerated and devoid of drug interactions. While current evidence quality varies, ongoing research and technological advancements show encouraging potential. Future studies should adhere to International Headache Society guidelines for neuromodulation device trials, address proper sham controls and blinding assessment, and account for patient adherence challenges in device use. Expanded insurance coverage would enhance cost-effectiveness and device accessibility. These guidelines provide a framework for clinical decision-making while highlighting areas requiring further research.

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.

Migraine is one of the most prevalent and disabling neurological diseases, significantly affecting quality of life and productivity, as well as contributing to substantial societal costs. Recent innovations, including calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) pathway inhibitors and onabotulinumtoxinA, have transformed migraine prevention by offering high efficacy and excellent tolerability, thus improving adherence. Clinical trials and real-world studies show that significant reductions in migraine frequency and, in some cases, complete migraine freedom is achievable. In this Position Statement, we advocate for raising the standards of migraine prevention by setting ambitious treatment goals aimed at optimal outcomes, such as migraine freedom or very low number of days with migraine or moderate/severe headache. We emphasize the importance of addressing residual migraine burden, highlighting that achieving a ≥50% reduction in monthly migraine days, although often considered a successful response, may not fully restore quality of life. Relying solely on percentage-based improvements can obscure the persisting impact of residual burden. This Position Statement does not want to change the standards for clinical trials but aims primarily at real-world clinical practice and proposes a shift from percentage-based measures of success to absolute goals while on treatment. We outline a framework that categorizes outcomes into four tiers: migraine freedom (no days with migraine or moderate-to-severe headache), optimal control (less than four days with migraine or moderate-to-severe headache), modest control (four to six days with migraine or moderate-to-severe headache) and insufficient control (more than days with migraine or moderate-to-severe headache). Focusing on residual burden while on treatment aims to further improve patient quality of life and drive innovation in preventive therapies and non-pharmacological approaches. By advocating for higher standards, this Position Statement, is not aimed primarily to drive reimbursement policies for migraine preventive treatments, but seeks to inspire clinicians, researchers and policymakers to prioritize ambitious goals in migraine prevention, ultimately enhancing patient outcomes and reducing the broader societal and economic impact of this debilitating condition.

Background To evaluate the benefit-risk assessment of atogepant and calcitonin gene–related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) vs. placebo based on the number needed to treat (NNT) and the number needed to harm (NNH) in a blended episodic migraine and chronic migraine (EM + CM) population. Methods The NNT was calculated based on achievement of a ≥ 50% reduction in mean monthly migraine days (MMDs) from baseline across 12 weeks. The NNH was calculated using the proportion of participants reporting a discontinuation due to adverse events (AEs). The primary analysis included data from studies of atogepant, erenumab, galcanezumab, eptinezumab and fremanezumab. Results In the primary analysis, the calculated NNT for atogepant 60 mg vs. placebo was 4.2 (95% credible interval (CrI) = 3.1–6.7), which was the lowest relative to the CGRP mAbs in the blended EM + CM population. Participants who received atogepant 60 mg or fremanezumab showed the most favorable NNH values (−1010 (95% Crl = 44 to ∞ to number needed to benefit 80) for atogepant) resulting from lower rates of discontinuation due to AEs compared with those receiving placebo. Conclusions Atogepant demonstrated a favorable benefit-risk profile, with NNT and NNH values comparable (not statistically significant) with those of CGRP mAbs across all analyses.