Citations

Background High-quality research studies on therapeutic approaches for migraine management in pediatrics are scarce. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review of current clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of migraine in children and adolescents to identify areas of consensus and disagreement, as well as critical gaps, paving the way for future updates and improvements. Methods We searched PubMed, WOS, and SCOPUS for guidelines published in the English language in the last 10 years focused on the diagnosis and management of migraine in children and adolescents. Results Following a systematic search, eight eligible guidelines were identified. These guidelines were authored by the American Academy of Neurology (AAN), the European Headache Federation/European Academy of Neurology (EHF/EAN), the International Headache Society (IHS), National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), the Danish Headache Society, and the German Migraine and Headache Society and the German Society of Neurology. There was a broad consensus on considering the International Classification of Headache Disorders-3rd edition as the diagnostic reference. As regards management, paracetamol and ibuprofen were considered first line in the acute management of migraine, with sumatriptan and zolmitriptan nasal sprays rated as second line. Injectable medications for acute management were overlooked in most guidelines. On the other hand, targeted age groups, dosing, and preventive treatment choices showed areas of variability. Various non-pharmacological measures gained attention in all guidelines. Notably, CGRP antagonists and non-invasive neuromodulation techniques were identified as major gaps. Conclusion The current systematic review highlights areas of agreement and disagreement between existing guidelines on the management of childhood and adolescent migraine and emphasizes the current gaps and opportunities, thus offering a solid foundation for future studies and guidelines.

ABSTRACT Background This post hoc analysis examined the reduction in monthly headache days ( MHDs ) by frequency category shifts and associated improvements following eptinezumab treatment. Methods The DELIVER trial evaluated eptinezumab in adults with migraine for whom 2–4 previous preventive treatments failed. During a 24‐week, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled period followed by a 48‐week extension period, participants received IV eptinezumab 100 mg, 300 mg, or placebo every 12 weeks, with all receiving eptinezumab beginning Week 25 (dose‐blinded). Participants were categorized by MHD frequency: > 14, 8–14, 4 to < 8, 1 to < 4, 0. MHD category shifts were evaluated in the total population and several subgroups (including participants with > 14 baseline MHDs and early ≥ 50% responders). In participants reporting < 8 MHDs after all doses, the associated changes in headache intensity and disease status were evaluated. Results Of randomized participants, 88% (782/890) completed the trial. The percentage of participants randomized initially to eptinezumab who reported < 4 MHDs was 23% (138/592) over Weeks 1–12 and 47% (236/498) over Weeks 61–72; 9% reported 0 MHDs after the final dose. Of participants randomized initially to eptinezumab who shifted from ≥ 8 MHDs at baseline to < 8 over Weeks 1–12, 71% (170/241) reported < 8 MHDs for the rest of the trial; of those who shifted from > 14 to < 8 MHDs, 66% (49/74) reported < 8 MHDs for the rest of the trial. Reduction to < 8 MHDs was associated with robust improvements in headache intensity and disease burden. Conclusions Eptinezumab was associated with sustained reduction in MHD category, with some achieving headache/migraine freedom in patients with a history of preventive treatments that failed. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier: NCT04418765; https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04418765 ) and EudraCT (identifier: 2019‐004497‐25; https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/ctr‐search/search?query=2019‐004497‐25 )

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.

Abstract Objective To evaluate the effect of erenumab treatment beyond monthly migraine days in patients with high‐frequency episodic migraine who did not respond to at least one previous migraine preventive treatment. Background Reduction in monthly migraine days has been the efficacy standard for migraine preventive treatments; however, it does not fully capture the holistic benefit of the therapy. Erenumab, a monoclonal antibody targeting the calcitonin gene–related peptide pathway, has demonstrated reduction in monthly migraine days and improvement in function in patients with episodic and chronic migraine. Methods In this phase 4, interventional, double‐blind, randomized, placebo‐controlled, multicenter, global study, treatment with erenumab was assessed over 4 months in adults with high‐frequency episodic migraine. The study was conducted at 61 sites located across North America and Europe between September 2020 and October 2023. Patients with ≥1 qualifying oral triptan‐treated migraine attack at baseline were randomized to receive erenumab 140 mg or placebo subcutaneously once monthly. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in mean monthly hours of at least moderate headache pain intensity over months 1, 2, and 3; secondary endpoints included change from baseline in mean monthly function, mean monthly duration of at least moderate pain intensity in migraine attacks, and mean monthly peak migraine pain intensity. Safety outcomes were also assessed. Results Of 512 randomized patients, 510 received erenumab 140 mg ( n = 254) or placebo ( n = 256) once monthly. Demographics and baseline characteristics were balanced between the two treatment arms. Erenumab 140 mg was superior to placebo in reducing duration of moderate or severe headache pain intensity over months 1, 2, and 3 (least squares mean [95% confidence interval {CI}] difference, −7.95 [−11.45, −4.46]; p < 0.001). Compared with placebo, erenumab significantly reduced migraine functional impact as assessed by the four domains of the Migraine Functional Impact Questionnaire, with a least squares mean (95% CI) difference of −7.36 (−10.80, −3.92) for physical functioning, −7.10 (−10.34, −3.87) for usual activities, −6.82 (−10.37, −3.27) for social functioning, and − 7.05 (−10.76, −3.34) for emotional functioning ( p < 0.001 for all domains). Significant reductions with erenumab compared with placebo were also observed in duration of at least moderate pain intensity in residual or break‐through migraine attacks (least squares mean [95% CI] difference, −1.07 [−1.92, −0.22]; p = 0.013) and peak migraine pain intensity (−0.48 [−0.85, −0.11]; p = 0.011). Incidence of grade 3 adverse events was 1.6% with erenumab and 1.2% with placebo; no grade 4 or fatal adverse events were reported in either treatment arm. Conclusion Findings from the EMBRACE study demonstrated that treatment with erenumab in patients with high‐frequency episodic migraine can provide positive therapeutic effects on ictal burden and pain, with residual migraine attacks tending to be shorter and less painful, with less overall impact.

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.