Citations

Objective To survey neurology residency program directors (PDs) on trainee exposure, supervision, and credentialing in procedures widely utilized in headache medicine. Background Clinic‐based procedures have assumed a prominent role in headache therapy. Headache fellows obtain procedural competence, but reliance on fellowship‐trained neurologists cannot match the population eligible for treatments. The inclusion of educational modules and mechanisms for credentialing trainees pursuing procedural competence in residency curricula at individual programs is not known. Methods A web‐based survey of US neurology residency PDs was designed by the American Headache Society (AHS) procedural special interest section in collaboration with AHS and American Academy of Neurology's Headache and Facial Pain section leadership. The survey addressed exposure, training, and credentialing in: (1) onabotulinumtoxinA (onabotA) injections, (2) extracranial peripheral nerve blocks (PNBs), and (3) trigger point injections (TPIs). Results Fifty‐five PDs (42.6%) completed the survey. Compared to noncompleters, survey completers were more likely to feature headache fellowships at their institutions (38.2% vs 10.8%, P =0.0002). High exposure (onabotA=90.9%, PNBs=80.0%, TPIs=70.9%) usually featured hands‐on patient instruction (66.2%) and lectures (55.7%). Supervised performance rates were high (onabotA=65.5%, PNBs=60.0%, TPIs=52.7%), usually in continuity clinic (60.0%) or headache elective (50.9%). Headache specialists (69.1%) or general neurology (32.7%) faculty most commonly trained residents. Formal credentialing was uncommon (16.4‐18.2%), mostly by documenting supervised procedures (25.5%). Only 27.3% of programs permitted trainees to perform procedures independently. Most PDs felt procedural exposure (80.0‐90.9%) and competence (50.9‐56.4%) by all trainees was important. Conclusions Resident exposure to procedures for headache is high, but credentialing mechanisms, while desired by most PDs, are not generally in place. Implementation of a credentialing process may ensure trainees enter practice with the ability to perform procedures safely and effectively.

Introduction The objective of this review is to provide an evidence-based discussion of different treatment strategies for medication-overuse headache (MOH). Method We searched PubMed for articles discussing the treatment and prognosis of MOH published between 2004 and August 2014. Titles, abstract and articles were reviewed systematically. The level of evidence provided by each study of the included articles was determined according to the American Academy of Neurology Clinical practice guideline manual. We discuss the level of evidence to support the early discontinuation/withdrawal of overused medications, the level of evidence to support the use of preventive treatment, the short- and long-term prognosis, and the outcome according to the class of drug overused in patients diagnosed with MOH. Results The initial search resulted in 1313 articles; 68 articles met our inclusion criteria and were discussed. The level of evidence to support early discontinuation of overused medications alone is low due to the absence of controlled studies. Adding preventive medication to early discontinuation led to a better outcome than early discontinuation alone. For patients with chronic migraine (CM) and medication overuse (MO), there are large randomized control trials supporting the use of onabotulinumtoxinA and topiramate without early discontinuation of overuse; however, the evidence is limited since data were obtained from post hoc analysis. Conclusion Considering current available evidence and the systemic toxicity of overusing acute headache medication, we suggest discontinuation of the overused medication with the addition of preventive medication. Appropriately sized, randomized controlled trials evaluating the safety and long-term efficacy of preventive medication plus early discontinuation of overuse vs preventive medication alone vs early discontinuation of overuse alone are needed.

Background Migraine, particularly chronic migraine (CM), is underdiagnosed and undertreated worldwide. Our objective was to develop and validate a self-administered tool (ID-CM) to identify migraine and CM. Methods ID-CM was developed in four stages. (1) Expert clinicians suggested candidate items from existing instruments and experience (Delphi Panel method). (2) Candidate items were reviewed by people with CM during cognitive debriefing interviews. (3) Items were administered to a Web panel of people with severe headache to assess psychometric properties and refine ID-CM. (4) Classification accuracy was assessed using an ICHD-3β gold-standard clinician diagnosis. Results Stages 1 and 2 identified 20 items selected for psychometric validation in stage 3 ( n = 1562). The 12 psychometrically robust items from stage 3 underwent validity testing in stage 4. A scoring algorithm applied to four symptom items (moderate/severe pain intensity, photophobia, phonophobia, nausea) accurately classified most migraine cases among 111 people (sensitivity = 83.5%, specificity = 88.5%). Augmenting this algorithm with eight items assessing headache frequency, disability, medication use, and planning disruption correctly classified most CM cases (sensitivity = 80.6%, specificity = 88.6%). Discussion ID-CM is a simple yet accurate tool that correctly classifies most individuals with migraine and CM. Further testing in other settings will also be valuable.

Background Occipital nerve (ON) injections with corticosteroids and/or local anesthetics have been employed for the acute and preventive treatment of migraine for decades. However, to date there is no randomized, placebo-controlled evidence to support the use of occipital nerve block (ONB) for the prevention of migraine. Objective The objective of this article is to determine the efficacy of ONB with local anesthetic and corticosteroid for the preventive treatment of migraine. Participants and methods Patients between 18 and 75 years old with ICHD-II-defined episodic (> 1 attack per week) or chronic migraine (modified ICHD-II as patients with > 10 days with consumption of acute medications were permitted into the study) were randomized to receive either 2.5 ml 0.5% bupivacaine plus 0.5 ml (20 mg) methylprednisolone over the ipsilateral (unilateral headache) or bilateral (bilateral headache) ON or 2.75 ml normal saline plus 0.25 ml 1% lidocaine without epinephrine (placebo). Patients completed a one-month headache diary prior to and after the double-blind injection. The primary outcome measure was defined as a 50% or greater reduction in the frequency of days with moderate or severe migraine headache in the four-week post-injection compared to the four-week pre-injection baseline period. Results Thirty-four patients received active and 35 patients received placebo treatment. Because of missing data, the full analysis of 33 patients in the active and 30 patients in the placebo group was analyzed for efficacy. In the active and placebo groups respectively, the mean frequency of at least moderate (mean 9.8 versus 9.5) and severe (3.6 versus 4.3) migraine days and acute medication days (7.9 versus 10.0) were not substantially different at baseline. The percentage of patients with at least a 50% reduction in the frequency of moderate or severe headache days was 30% for both groups (10/30 vs nine of 30, Δ 0.00, 95% CI –0.22 to 0.23). Conclusions Greater ONB does not reduce the frequency of moderate to severe migraine days in patients with episodic or chronic migraine compared to placebo. The study was registered with ClinicalTrial.gov (NCT00915473).

Background Migraine is one of the most common chronic neurological disorders. In 1980, C. Miller Fisher described late-life migraine accompaniments as transient neurological episodes in older individuals that mimic transient ischemic attacks. There has not been an update on the underlying nature and etiology of late-life migraine accompanimentsd since the original description. Purpose The purpose of this article is to provide a comprehensive and extensive review of the late-life migraine accompaniments including the epidemiology, clinical characteristics, differential diagnosis, and treatment. Methods Literature searches were performed in MEDLINE®, PubMed, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE databases for publications from 1941 to July 2014. The search terms “Migraine accompaniments,” “Late life migraine,” “Migraine with aura,” “Typical aura without headache,” “Migraine equivalents,” “Acephalic migraine,” “Elderly migraine,” and “Transient neurological episodes” were used. Conclusion Late-life onset of migraine with aura is not rare in clinical practice and can occur without headache, especially in elderly individuals. Visual symptoms are the most common presentation, followed respectively by sensory, aphasic, and motor symptoms. Gradual evolution, the march of transient neurological deficits over several minutes and serial progression from one symptom to another in succession are typical clinical features for late-life migraine accompaniments. Transient neurological disturbances in migraine aura can mimic other serious conditions and can be easily misdiagnosed. Careful clinical correlation and appropriate investigations are essential to exclude secondary causes. Treatments are limited and still inconsistent.

Objectives/HypothesisTo study differential diagnosis and efficacy of management strategies in patients presenting to an otolaryngologist for sinus pressure, pain, or headache.Study DesignRetrospective analysis at an academic medical center.MethodsPatients were seen in the clinic (2010–2012) for sinus‐related headache, pressure, pain or fullness (study symptoms) by a rhinologist. A retrospective chart review of patients with study symptoms was conducted.ResultsOf 211 patients with study symptoms, 70.62% met American Academy of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery criteria for sinusitis or had rhinologic disease. Otolaryngic therapy alone (medical or surgical) relieved study symptoms in 51.66%; combined neurology intervention helped another 15.17%. Nearly half of the patients (48.82%) were diagnosed with primary headache disorders. Comorbid rhinologic‐neurologic disease was present in 27.96% and odontogenic disease in 7%. Initial otolaryngology referral was likely unnecessary for 36.49% of the study patients. Sinus computed tomography (CT) was available for 91% of 211 patients, and 80% of scans were positive. Endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) was used in only 80/211 patients (37.69%) and was effective in 66/211 (31.28%). ESS was most successful in patients receiving concurrent neurological intervention. The Lund‐Mackay CT score did not predict outcomes from ESS. Interdisciplinary otolaryngology‐neurology efforts resulted in a positive outcome for 92.4% of patients.ConclusionsWe present the first series detailing management of patients with sinus‐headache pain in an otolaryngology practice. Such symptoms have multifactorial etiologies. Positive sinus CT results require cautious interpretation. ESS should be judiciously used. Interdisciplinary care is critical for success: approximately 50% of patients benefited from otolaryngic management, 50% needed neurological treatment, and 7% required dental disease management.Level of Evidence4 Laryngoscope, 125:303–310, 2015