Citations

Introduction YouTube is the most widely used video hosting website in the world; however, the quality and reliability of information is unknown. The aim of this study is to evaluate the content and distribution of the most popular videos on YouTube about migraine. Methods We searched for migraine-related videos on the online video hosting resource YouTube ( http://youtube.com/ ). Two authors screened the titles and video descriptions independently for all videos with a view count of ≥ 10,000 views. For each video we recorded descriptive data, the source/author and the primary purpose/content. Results We identified 351 eligible videos. In total, there was more than 3 days of content viewed more than 163 million times. Only 9% of these videos were authored by healthcare professionals. The majority (44%) of videos focused on complementary and alternative medicine. Discussion YouTube provides a wide array of easily accessible information on migraine, ranging from authoritative sources to potentially questionable content. If used uncritically, this may result in inadequate clinical management. Peer-reviewed information on migraine mechanisms and treatment is needed to provide the best available evidence for the public and patients. Ideally, a professional society or foundation such as the International Headache Society would develop, curate, and distribute content.

Introduction Health information is one of the most frequently searched topics on the internet. In this observational cross-sectional study, we evaluated the content of the highest indexed Google search results related to migraine management. Methods We identified the five most used search terms related to migraine management via Google Trends in the time period 1 January 2004 to 2 October 2019. We entered each search term into Google’s search engine and retrieved the search results from the first three pages from each search query. We stratified the recommended treatment options and evaluated the websites using the DISCERN tool. Results In total, 73 unique websites recommended a total of 77 different migraine treatment options, consisting of 35 (45%) acute and 42 (55%) preventive treatments. For acute treatments, pharmacological options were more frequently recommended (88% of websites), whereas non-pharmacological options were more frequent among preventive treatments (67%). Evaluation of the consumer health information using the DISCERN tool showed that non-governmental organizations had the highest mean total score with 3.8 (±0.19). Conclusions Googling when looking for migraine treatments reveals a multitude of management proposals of varying quality. Non-governmental organizations provide the overall highest quality of written consumer health information on migraine treatments among search results. We encourage stakeholders to optimize and distribute high-quality and peer-reviewed information on migraine management.

Clinical trials are a key component of the evidence base for the treatment of headache disorders. In 1991, the International Headache Society Clinical Trials Standing Committee developed and published the first edition of the Guidelines for Controlled Trials of Drugs in Migraine. Advances in drugs, devices, and biologicals, as well as novel trial designs, have prompted several updates over the nearly 30 years since, including most recently the Guidelines for controlled trials of preventive treatment of chronic migraine (2018), the Guidelines for controlled trials of acute treatment of migraine attacks in adults (2019), and Guidelines for controlled trials of preventive treatment of migraine in children and adolescents (2019). The present update incorporates findings from new research and is intended to optimize the design of controlled trials of preventive pharmacological treatment of episodic migraine in adults. A guideline for clinical trials with devices will be published separately.

Background Ubrogepant, a small-molecule calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonist, was recently approved as an oral medication for the acute treatment of migraine. This study aimed to determine whether ubrogepant shows efficacy in a preclinical model of migraine-like pain and whether repeated oral administration of ubrogepant induces latent sensitization relevant to medication overuse headache in rats. Methods A “two-hit” priming model of medication overuse headache was used. Female Sprague-Dawley rats received six oral doses of sumatriptan 10 mg/kg over 2 weeks to induce latent sensitization (i.e. “priming”). Cutaneous allodynia was measured periodically over 20 days in the periorbital and hindpaw regions using von Frey filaments. The rats were then subjected to a 1-hour bright light stress challenge on two consecutive days. At the start of the second bright light stress exposure, oral sumatriptan 10 mg/kg, oral ubrogepant 25, 50, or 100 mg/kg, or vehicle was administered; thereafter, cephalic and hindpaw sensory thresholds were monitored hourly over 5 hours to determine the efficacy of ubrogepant in reversing bright light stress-induced cutaneous allodynia. A dose of ubrogepant effective in the medication overuse headache model (100 mg/kg) was then selected to determine if repeated administration would produce latent sensitization. Rats were administered six oral doses of ubrogepant 100 mg/kg, sumatriptan 10 mg/kg (positive control), or vehicle over 2 weeks, and cutaneous allodynia was evaluated regularly. Testing continued until mechanosensitivity returned to baseline levels. Rats were then challenged with bright light stress on days 20 and 21, and periorbital and hindpaw cutaneous allodynia was measured. On days 28 to 32, the same groups received a nitric oxide donor (sodium nitroprusside 3 mg/kg, i.p.), and cutaneous allodynia was assessed hourly over 5 hours. Results Sumatriptan elicited cutaneous allodynia in both cephalic and hindpaw regions; cutaneous allodynia resolved to baseline levels after cessation of drug administration (14 days). Sumatriptan priming resulted in generalized and delayed cutaneous allodynia, evoked by either bright light stress (day 21) or nitric oxide donor (day 28). Ubrogepant dose-dependently blocked both stress- and nitric oxide donor-induced cephalic and hindpaw allodynia in the sumatriptan-induced medication overuse headache model with a 50% effective dose of ∼50 mg/kg. Unlike sumatriptan, ubrogepant 100 mg/kg in repeated effective doses did not produce cutaneous allodynia or latent sensitization. Conclusions Both ubrogepant and sumatriptan demonstrated efficacy as acute medications for stress- and nitric oxide donor-evoked cephalic allodynia in a preclinical model of medication overuse headache, consistent with their clinical efficacy in the acute treatment of migraine. However, in contrast to sumatriptan, repeated treatment with ubrogepant did not induce cutaneous allodynia or latent sensitization. These studies suggest ubrogepant may offer an effective acute treatment of migraine without risk of medication overuse headache. Trial Registration Number: Not applicable

Background The otic ganglion (OG) provides parasympathetic innervation to the cerebral circulation and cranial structures and may be involved in the pathophysiology of trigeminal autonomic headaches. This structure has never been targeted in any headache disorder. Objective To investigate the safety of injecting onabotulinumtoxin A (BTA) toward the OG in 10 patients with intractable chronic cluster headache and to collect efficacy data. Methods A total of 10 patients with chronic cluster headache were enrolled in this open‐label, multi‐dose pilot safety study. All patients were recruited and treated on an out‐patient basis at St Olav's University Hospital (Norway). In 5 patients each, the OG was the injection target with 12.5 IU of BTA or 25 IU, respectively. The primary outcome measure was adverse events (AEs) and the main secondary outcome was the number of attacks per week measured at baseline and in the second month following injection. Results For the primary endpoint, we analyzed data for all 10 patients. There were a total of 17 AEs in 6 of the 10 patients. All AEs were considered mild and disappeared by the end of follow‐up. The median number of attacks per week at baseline was 17.0 [7.8 to 25.8] vs 14.0 [7.3 to 20.0] in the second month following injection; difference: 3 (95%CI: −0.3 to 7.9), P = .063. Conclusions Injection with BTA toward the OG appears to be safe. We did not find a statistically significant reduction in the number of attacks per week at month 2 after injection compared to the baseline. This study suggests that the OG is not an important target for the treatment of chronic cluster headache. A future study employing more precise targeting of the OG may be indicated.

Background Medication overuse is a significant issue that complicates the treatment of headache disorders. The most effective medications for the acute treatment of migraine all have the capacity to induce medication overuse headache (MOH). Novel acute migraine-specific treatments are being developed. However, because the mechanism(s) underlying medication overuse headache are not well understood, it is difficult to predict whether any particular acute medication will induce MOH in susceptible individuals. LY573144 (lasmiditan), a 5-HT 1F receptor agonist, has recently been shown to be effective in the acute treatment of migraine in phase 3 trials. The aim of this study is to determine whether frequent administration of lasmiditan induces behaviors consistent with MOH in a pre-clinical rat model. Methods Sprague Dawley rats were administered six doses of lasmiditan (10 mg/kg), sumatriptan (10 mg/kg), or sterile water orally over 2 weeks and cutaneous allodynia was evaluated regularly in the periorbital and hindpaw regions using von Frey filaments. Testing continued until mechanosensitivity returned to baseline levels. Rats were then submitted to bright light stress (BLS) or nitric oxide (NO) donor administration and were again evaluated for cutaneous allodynia in the periorbital and hindpaw regions hourly for 5 hours. Results Both lasmiditan and sumatriptan exhibited comparable levels of drug-induced cutaneous allodynia in both the periorbital and hindpaw regions, which resolved after cessation of drug administration. Both lasmiditan and sumatriptan pre-treatment resulted in cutaneous allodynia that was evoked by either BLS or NO donor. Conclusions In a pre-clinical rat model of MOH, oral lasmiditan, like sumatriptan, induced acute transient cutaneous allodynia in the periorbital and hindpaw regions that after resolution could be re-evoked by putative migraine triggers. These results suggest that lasmiditan has the capacity to induce MOH through persistent latent peripheral and central sensitization mechanisms.

In 2017, the International Headache Society convened a Global Patient Advocacy Summit (GPAS-1) to begin a collaborative effort involving patients, patient advocates, patient advocacy organizations, healthcare professionals, scientists, professional pain, neurology, and headache societies, pharmaceutical manufacturers, and regulatory agencies to advance issues of importance to patients affected by headache worldwide. In September 2019, the second Global Patient Advocacy Summit (GPAS-2) was convened to revisit issues from the inaugural meeting, assess the progress of the International Headache Society Global Patient Advocacy Coalition (IHS-GPAC) in meeting the goals set forth therein, and discuss strategies for achieving established goals and supporting future development. Short- and long-term mandates from the first Summit were realized, including publishing the Vancouver Declaration on Global Headache Patient Advocacy 2018, determining the governing and operational structures of the IHS-GPAC, and helping to facilitate the first World Federation of Neurology World Brain Day dedicated to migraine. Another short-term mandate, creating a unified advocacy strategy, was fulfilled by the Coalition’s decision to focus on encouraging support from employers and implementing employee support programs for people with migraine. To help execute the strategy, the Coalition is developing an employer engagement toolkit that will educate employers and employees about the impact of migraine in the workplace, reduce stigma directed toward employees with migraine, and facilitate the care of employees with migraine to reduce the burden of illness and improve workplace productivity. Coalition members will disseminate the toolkit and encourage the adoption of migraine workplace programs by employers worldwide. The Coalition has established an alliance with two global, multinational employers to expand migraine awareness and support among policy makers and other stakeholders around the world. The IHS-GPAC met many of the goals established at GPAS-1, and it has initiated a global strategy focused on the psychosocial and economic toll of headache disorders, especially migraine, in the workplace. Ongoing and future activities will explore a range of opportunities with employers and across the full spectrum of advocacy goals.

Background Triptans are the most commonly used acute treatment for migraine. This study evaluated real-world treatment patterns following an initial triptan prescription to understand refill rates and use of non-triptan medications for the acute treatment of migraine. Methods Commercially-insured adult patients over 18 years of age with a triptan prescription between 1/1/2013 to 31/12/2013 were identified from the Optum Clinformatics™ Data Mart database, with date of the first triptan fill designated as index date. Inclusion was limited to those with no fills for a triptan in the 12 months prior to index date (i.e. new users or initiators of triptans) and continuous enrollment in the 12 months pre- and 24 months post-index date. Fills for index triptan, non-index triptan, and other acute treatments for migraine were assessed for up to 24 months post-index. Results Among 10,509 patients, 50.8% did not refill the initial triptan within 12 months and 43.6% did not refill within 24 months. In the 12 months post-index, 90.5% of patients used only one type of triptan, 8.4% used two different triptans, and 1.0% used three or more triptans. Among patients with and without a triptan refill, use of opioids (39% vs. 42%), non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (22% vs. 22%), and butalbital-containing products (9% vs. 10%) were similar. Conclusion More than half of those who newly initiated a triptan did not refill their initial prescription, and less than 1 in 10 used two or more triptans within 12 months. High rates of non-triptan acute medication use were found over 12 and 24 months of follow-up, most commonly opioids.

Objective To evaluate the efficacy of ubrogepant on patient‐reported functional disability, satisfaction with study medication, and global impression of change. Background Ubrogepant is a small‐molecule, oral calcitonin gene‐related peptide receptor antagonist indicated for the acute treatment of migraine. In 2 phase 3 trials (ACHIEVE I and II), ubrogepant demonstrated efficacy vs placebo on the 2 co‐primary endpoints of headache pain freedom and absence of the most bothersome migraine‐associated symptom at 2 hours post dose for the 50 and 100 mg doses. Patient‐reported outcomes, such as functional disability, satisfaction, and patient global impression of change, can provide additional evidence of the efficacy of an acute treatment for migraine on clinically meaningful and patient‐relevant outcomes. Methods ACHIEVE I and ACHIEVE II were multicenter, randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled, parallel‐group, single‐attack trials in adults (18‐75 years) with migraine. In ACHIEVE I, participants were randomized 1:1:1 to placebo or ubrogepant 50 or 100 mg; in ACHIEVE II, participants were randomized 1:1:1 to placebo or ubrogepant 25 or 50 mg to treat a migraine attack with moderate or severe headache pain. Participants rated ability to perform daily activities on the Functional Disability Scale, before dosing and at 1, 2, 4, and 8 hours after the initial dose; satisfaction with study medication at 2 and 24 hours; and impression of overall change in migraine on the Patient Global Impression of Change scale at 2 hours. In prespecified analyses for each trial, each outcome was compared between each ubrogepant dose group and the relevant placebo group. Data were pooled from the ubrogepant 50 mg and placebo groups of the 2 trials in a post hoc analysis. Results In ACHIEVE I, 559 participants were randomized to placebo, 556 to ubrogepant 50 mg, and 557 to ubrogepant 100 mg; in ACHIEVE II, 563 were randomized to placebo, 561 to ubrogepant 25 mg, and 562 to ubrogepant 50 mg. At 2 hours post dose, significantly higher proportions of ubrogepant‐treated participants vs placebo‐treated participants reported being able to function normally (ACHIEVE I: ubrogepant 50 mg, 40.6% [171/421], P = .0012 vs placebo; ubrogepant 100 mg, 42.9% [192/448], P < .0001 vs placebo; placebo, 29.8% [136/456]; ACHIEVE II: ubrogepant 25 mg, 42.6% [185/434], P = .0015 vs placebo; ubrogepant 50 mg, 40.5% [188/464], P = .0118 vs placebo; placebo, 34.2% [156/456]; pooled 50 mg, 40.6% [359/885], vs pooled placebo, 32.0% [292/912]; P < .0001), were satisfied/extremely satisfied with study medication (ACHIEVE I: 50 mg, 36.3% [147/405], P < .0001 vs placebo; 100 mg, 35.8% [149/416], P = .0002 vs placebo; placebo, 24.1% [104/432]; ACHIEVE II: 25 mg, 35.1% [141/402], P = .0018 vs placebo; 50 mg, 37.8% [163/431], P < .0001 vs placebo; placebo, 24.8% [106/427]; pooled ubrogepant 50 mg, 37.1% [310/836], vs pooled placebo, 24.5% [210/859]; P < .0001), and indicated that their migraine was much/very much better on the Patient Global Impression of Change scale (ACHIEVE I: 50 mg, 34.4% [103/299], P = .0006 vs placebo; 100 mg, 34.3% [102/297], P = .0009 vs placebo; placebo, 22.0% [69/313]; ACHIEVE II: 25 mg, 34.1% [124/364], P < .0001 vs placebo; 50 mg, 33.4% [131/392], P = .0002 vs placebo; placebo, 20.7% [78/376]; pooled 50 mg, 33.9% [234/691], vs pooled placebo, 21.3% [147/689]; P < .0001). Conclusions A significantly higher proportion of participants treated with ubrogepant were able to function normally, were satisfied with the study medication, and reported clinically meaningful improvement compared with those receiving placebo. The results reinforce the potential benefits of ubrogepant on patient‐centered outcomes in the acute treatment of migraine.

Objective To report efficacy and safety of galcanezumab in adults with chronic cluster headache. Background Galcanezumab is a humanized monoclonal antibody that binds to calcitonin gene-related peptide and inhibits its biological activity. Methods This study comprised a prospective baseline period, a 12-week double-blind, placebo-controlled treatment period, and a 52-week open-label period. Up to six protocol-specified concomitant preventive medications were allowed if patients were on a stable dose for 2 months prior to the prospective baseline period. Patients were randomized 1:1 to monthly subcutaneous galcanezumab (300 mg) or placebo. The primary endpoint was overall mean change from baseline in weekly attack frequency with galcanezumab compared to placebo. Key secondary endpoints were ≥50% response rate and percentage of patients meeting sustained response. Results from the double-blind treatment period are reported. Results A total of 237 patients were randomized and treated (120 placebo; 117 galcanezumab). At baseline, the mean age was 45 years and 63% were using ≥1 preventive drug. The primary endpoint was not met; mean change in weekly attack frequency was −4.6 placebo versus −5.4 galcanezumab ( p = 0.334). Key secondary endpoints also were not met. Injection site-related treatment-emergent adverse events were more common in the galcanezumab than the placebo group, with significantly more injection site erythema. Conclusion Treatment with galcanezumab 300 mg did not achieve its primary and key secondary endpoints. This study underscores the potential distinct biology of cCH as well as the significant unmet need for safe, effective, and well-tolerated preventive treatment. The safety profile of galcanezumab in cCH is consistent with that observed in trials of episodic CH and migraine. Trial registration NCT02438826; https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02438826 .