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.

Background This systematic review and meta-analysis synthesized migraine-related disability outcomes according to headache frequency subclassifications, including low-frequency episodic migraine (LFEM), high-frequency episodic migraine (HFEM) and chronic migraine (CM). Methods We searched the PubMed and Cochrane Library (CENTRAL) up to 16 October 2024 for peer-reviewed non-interventional studies reporting migraine-related disability outcomes in CM and subclassifications of episodic migraine (e.g. LFEM and HFEM). Eligible studies with an HFEM subgroup were grouped by headache frequency measure (monthly migraine days [MMD] or monthly headache days [MHD]), HFEM subgroup, disability parameter and study setting. Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted on groups with three or more studies, with the results presented in forest plots. Risk of bias was assessed using Joanna Briggs Institute tools. Results Of the 32 included studies, 27 were grouped, yielding five meta-analysis groups containing three or more studies. All five groups had an HFEM subgroup of 8–14 MHD. Accordingly, we classified LFEM as 0–7 MHD and CM as ≥15 MHD. Ten studies contributed data to the five meta-analysis groups. Estimated pooled values are reported by headache frequency subgroup for each meta-analysis group: LFEM (95% confidence interval [CI]), HFEM (95% CI) and CM (95% CI). For meta-analysis group 1, four population-based studies reported Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) Grade IV proportions, with pooled values of 11.1% (7.1–17.1), 43.9% (31.8–56.9) and 57.5% (42.7–71.1), respectively. For meta-analysis group 2, five population-based studies documented Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI) outcomes. Pooled mean overall work productivity impairment (OWPI) scores were 36.9% (30.8–43.1), 44.7% (38.4–51.0) and 52.0% (47.7–56.3), respectively. Pooled mean activity impairment (AI) scores were 36.4% (33.7–39.1), 46.4% (42.8–50.0) and 53.5% (52.1–54.8), respectively. For meta-analysis group 3, three clinic-based studies presented MIDAS Grade IV proportions. Pooled values were 15.0% (4.4–40.5), 42.4% (17.1–72.4) and 65.7% (30.3–89.4), respectively. For meta-analysis group 4, three clinic-based studies reported WPAI outcomes. Pooled mean OWPI scores were 28.8% (21.6–35.9), 40.2% (36.2–44.2) and 49.6% (46.3–52.9), respectively. Pooled mean AI scores were 29.4% (21.9–36.9), 43.5% (39.0–48.1) and 51.6% (48.8–54.4), respectively. For meta-analysis group 5, three clinic-based studies detailed MIDAS scores. Pooled mean scores were 10.7 (3.9–17.5), 23.9 (9.4–38.4) and 49.6 (15.8–83.3), respectively. Conclusions This study showed a pattern of increasing migraine-related disability with rising headache frequency. Regardless of study setting, our meta-analyses also suggested a severe level of disability in many individuals (42%–44%) with HFEM, highlighting an unmet need for more effective migraine management. Disability burden and headache frequency should both be considered when determining treatment needs and therapy access, particularly for patients with HFEM. Study Registration: INPLASY2024120039.

Abstract Objective The objective of this study was to summarize the available evidence regarding the clinical value and trend over time of lumbar cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) opening pressure utilization to diagnose spontaneous intracranial hypotension (SIH). Background CSF opening pressure obtained via lumbar puncture is one of the diagnostic criteria for SIH based on the International Criteria for Headache Disorders, 3rd Edition (ICHD‐3), but it has questionable utility as an initial investigation for diagnosing SIH. Methods The authors performed a systematic literature review and meta‐analysis. PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and Cochrane Library were searched from inception to October 2022. Original studies and case series in English reporting three or more patients with suspected or known SIH and CSF pressure measurement were included. Meta‐analyses and meta‐regression were used to calculate pooled estimates and examine the impact of age, sex, and publication year on outcomes, including CSF pressure < 60 mm CSF, orthostatic headache, and positive findings on brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), spinal imaging, and radionuclide studies. Results For every 1‐year increase in the year of publication, the odds of reporting low CSF pressure decreased by 6.20% (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 0.94, aOR 95% confidence interval [CI] = [0.90, 0.97], p = 0.001), the odds of reporting a positive brain MRI increased by 4.67% (aOR = 1.05, aOR 95% CI = [1.01, 1.09], p = 0.026), and the odds of reporting orthostatic headache increased by 9.13% (aOR = 1.09, aOR 95% CI = [1.03, 1.15], p = 0.002). Each 1% increase in the percentage of patients with orthostatic headache was associated with a 3.13% increase in the odds of low CSF pressure (aOR = 1.03, aOR 95% CI = [1.01, 1.05], p = 0.003). Similarly, as the percentage of patients with low CSF pressure increased by 1%, there was a 2.53% increase in the odds of orthostatic headache (aOR = 1.03, aOR 95% CI = [1.01, 1.04], p = 0.005). It was estimated that 31.9% of patients with SIH had normal opening pressure (95% CI = [24.0%, 40.8%], prediction interval = [5.0%, 80.5%]). Every 1% increase in the percentage of patients with positive brain MRI was associated with a 5.25% increase in the odds of positive spinal imaging (aOR = 1.05, aOR 95% CI = [1.00, 1.11], p = 0.047). Age and positive radionuclide study did not significantly impact the outcomes measured. The corresponding I 2 for each outcome was reduced by controlling for study‐wide covariates believed to impact the prevalence of each outcome. Sensitivity analyses did not reveal discrepancies in results when studies requiring outcomes of interest were removed. Conclusion Our analysis found that recent studies indicate a reduced reliance on opening pressure for diagnosing SIH. Rather, results suggest an increasing reliance on contrast‐enhanced brain MRI, spine imaging, and clinical features for SIH diagnosis.

Introduction Patients hospitalized for headache treatment pose unique challenges to the healthcare system. Currently, there is a lack of evidence-based guidance on management. This practice advisory aims to fill this critical gap by systematically reviewing the existing literature and providing comprehensive, evidence-based recommendations for managing headache patients during hospitalization. Methods In February 2023, the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine approved this practice advisory proposal. The steering committee selected committee members based on clinical and research expertise in the field of headache medicine. Nine questions were formulated by the committee, and each question was assigned to a group composed of 3–4 members. A systematic literature search for each question was performed in Medline, Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Web of Science on June 21, 2023. The results from each search were imported into separate Covidence projects for screening, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment. Additionally, relevant systematic reviews (SR) were screened. Each group submitted a structured narrative review along with statements and recommendations based on the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) format for grading of evidence. While the USPSTF framework was used, including the language in the recommendations, the formal USPSTF methodology, including the SR with meta-analysis and summary tables with forest plots, was not followed because of low overall evidence quality. The interim draft was shared electronically with each collaborator, who was requested to vote anonymously using two rounds of the modified Delphi approach. A consensus recommendation required >75% agreement. Results The panel generated 12 statements and 17 recommendations, along with their strength and certainty of evidence. Following two rounds of Delphi voting, a high consensus was achieved for all statements and recommendations. Most statements received a low-to-moderate level of certainty, and all but one recommendation received grade B or C, which was consistent with the lack of randomized controlled trials supporting most of the drugs in this document. Conclusions This evidence-based practice advisory provides a foundational step toward standardizing inpatient headache care and highlights existing gaps in the literature that should be addressed through rigorous prospective randomized studies.

AbstractIntroductionOlder adults are at high risk of adverse health outcomes in the post–emergency department (ED) discharge period. Prior work has shown that discharged older adults have variable understanding of their discharge instructions which may contribute to these outcomes. To identify discharge comprehension gaps amenable to future interventions, we utilize meta‐analysis to determine patient comprehension across five domains of discharge instructions: diagnosis, medications, self‐care, routine follow‐up, and return precautions.MethodsUsing Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses guidelines, two reviewers sourced evidence from databases including Medline (PubMed), EMBASE, Web of Science, CINAHL, and Google Scholar (for gray literature). Publications or preprints appearing before April 2024 were included if they focused on geriatric ED discharge instructions and reported a proportion of patients with comprehension of at least one of five predefined discharge components. Meta‐analysis of eligible studies for each component was executed using random‐effects modeling to describe the proportion of geriatric ED cases understanding the discharge instructions; where appropriate we calculated pooled estimates, reported as percentages with 95% confidence interval (CI).ResultsOf initial records returned (N = 2898), exclusions based on title or abstract assessment left 51 studies for full‐text review; of these, seven constituted the study set. Acceptable heterogeneity and absence of indication of publication bias supported pooled estimates for proportions comprehending instructions on medications (41%, 95% CI 31%–50%, I2 = 43%), self‐care (81%, 95% CI 76%–85%, I2 = 43%), and routine follow‐up (76%, 95% CI 72%–79%, I2 = 25%). Key findings included marked heterogeneity with respect to comprehending two discharge parameters: diagnosis (I2 = 73%) and return precautions (I2 = 95%).ConclusionsOlder patients discharged from the ED had greater comprehension of self‐care and follow‐up instructions than about their medications. These findings suggest that medication instructions may be a priority domain for future interventions.

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.