Citations

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.

AbstractIntroductionCatheter ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF) is frequently studied in randomized trials, observational and registry studies. The aim of this expert opinion is to provide guidance for clinicians and industry regarding the development of future clinical studies on catheter ablation of AF, implement lessons learned from previous studies, and promote a higher degree of consistency across studies.BackgroundStudies on catheter ablation of AF may benefit from well‐described definitions of endpoints and consistent methodology and documentation of outcomes related to efficacy, safety and cost‐effectiveness. The availably of new, innovative technologies warrants further consideration about their application and impact on study design and the choice of endpoints. Moreover, recent insights gained from AF ablation studies suggest a reconsideration of some methodological aspects.MethodsA panel of clinical experts on catheter ablation of AF and designing and conducting clinical studies developed an expert opinion on the design and endpoints for studies on catheter ablation of AF. Discussions within the expert panel with the aim to reach consensus on predefined topics were based on outcomes reported in the literature and experiences from recent clinical trials.ResultsA comprehensive set of recommendations is presented. Key elements include the documentation of clinical AF, medication during the study, repeated ablations and their effect on endpoint assessments, postablation blanking and the choice of rhythm‐related and other endpoints.ConclusionThis expert opinion provides guidance and promotes consistency regarding design of AF catheter ablation studies and identified aspects requiring further research to optimize study design and methodology.CONDENSED ABSTRACTRecent insights from studies on catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF) and the availability of new innovative technologies warrant reconsideration of methodological aspects related to study design and the choice and assessment of endpoints. This expert opinion, developed by clinical experts on catheter ablation of AF provides a comprehensive set of recommendations related to these methodological aspects. The aim of this expert opinion is to provide guidance for clinicians and industry regarding the development of clinical studies, implement lessons learned from previous studies, and promote a higher degree of consistency across studies.

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.

Abstract Objective To characterize the long‐term (56‐week) benefits of continuous onabotulinumtoxinA treatment response in individuals with chronic migraine (CM) who achieved reduction to <15 headache days/month with treatment. Background There are limited data exploring reductions in monthly headache days to levels consistent with episodic migraine among those experiencing CM. Understanding the impact of sustained preventive treatment response in CM can provide important information about the impact of successful therapy. Methods The two Phase 3 REsearch Evaluating Migraine Prophylaxis Therapy trials of onabotulinumtoxinA in adults included a 24‐week, randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled phase and a 32‐week open‐label phase. Data were pooled to determine proportions of individuals with <15 headache days/month while on treatment during several time periods in the double‐blind phase (Weeks 21–24; any 12 consecutive weeks; Weeks 13–24) and the entire study (Weeks 53–56; any 12 consecutive weeks; any 4‐week period). We assessed the long‐term impact on mean monthly headache days and changes from baseline on the six‐item Headache Impact Test (HIT‐6) and Migraine‐Specific Quality of Life questionnaire version 2.1 (MSQv2.1). Results We analyzed 1384 participants with chronic migraine (double‐blind: onabotulinumtoxinA, n = 688; placebo, n = 696; open‐label: n = 688 [onabotulinumtoxinA]). The discontinuation rates prior to the completion of the full 56‐week treatment period for onabotulinumtoxinA and placebo were 25.4% ( n = 175) and 29.3% ( n = 204), respectively. During Weeks 13–24 of the double‐blind phase, significantly more onabotulinumtoxinA‐treated (386/688 [56.1%]) than placebo‐treated (342/696 [49.1%]) individuals had <15 headache days/month ( p = 0.010), with fewer monthly headache days for onabotulinumtoxinA versus placebo responders. The proportions of participants achieving <15 monthly headache days with onabotulinumtoxinA were 60.9% (419/688) at Weeks 25–56, 81.1% (558/688) at Weeks 53–56, and 79.4% (546/688) during any consecutive 12‐week period. Mean changes from baseline on the HIT‐6 and MSQv2.1 questionnaire surpassed within‐group minimal important difference thresholds in all periods. At Week 24, onabotulinumtoxinA‐treated participants who achieved <15 monthly headache days during Weeks 21–24 had a greater mean HIT‐6 score reduction (−6.5 vs. −1.4) and greater mean MSQv2.1 Role‐Function Restrictive score improvements (21.3 vs. 6.4) than those who did not achieve <15 monthly headache days during the same period. Conclusions Participants who achieved <15 monthly headache days with onabotulinumtoxinA treatment achieved meaningful benefits in headache‐related disability and migraine‐specific quality of life compared with those who remained at or above the 15–monthly headache days threshold. Sustained benefits observed over 56 weeks support long‐term onabotulinumtoxinA use for the prevention of CM.

Background Persistent headache attributed to traumatic injury to the head is divided into two subtypes, one attributed to moderate or severe traumatic injury and another attributed to mild traumatic injury (i.e., concussion). The latter is much more prevalent, in part because more than 90% of cases with traumatic brain injury are classified as mild. The pathophysiology of persistent post-traumatic headache is poorly understood and the underlying mechanisms are likely multifactorial. There is currently no approved treatment specifically for persistent post-traumatic headache, and management strategies rely on medications used for migraine or tension-type headache. Therefore, high-quality trials are urgently needed to support clinical decision-making and optimize management strategies. International guidelines can facilitate appropriate trial design and ensure the acquisition of high-quality data evaluating the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of available and novel pharmacological therapies for the preventive treatment of persistent post-traumatic headache. Methods The development of this guideline was based on a literature review of available studies in MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, along with a review of previously published guidelines for controlled trials of preventive treatment for episodic and chronic migraine. The identified literature was critically appraised, and due to the scarcity of scientific evidence, recommendations were primarily based on the consensus of experts in the field. Objective To provide guidelines for designing state-of-the-art controlled clinical trials aimed at evaluating the effectiveness of preventive treatments for persistent post-traumatic headache attributed to mild traumatic brain injury.