ObjectiveThe objective is to summarize the knowledge on the epidemiology, pathophysiology and management of secondary headache attributed to SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination; as well as to... Show moreObjectiveThe objective is to summarize the knowledge on the epidemiology, pathophysiology and management of secondary headache attributed to SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination; as well as to delineate their impact on primary headache disorders.MethodsThis is a narrative review of the literature regarding primary and secondary headache disorders in the setting of COVID-19 pandemic. We conducted a literature search in 2022 on PubMed, with the keywords “COVID 19” or “vaccine” and “headache” to assess the appropriateness of all published articles for their inclusion in the review.ResultsHeadache is a common and sometimes difficult-to-treat symptom of both the acute and post-acute phase of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Different pathophysiological mechanisms may be involved, with the trigeminovascular system as a plausible target. Specific evidence-based effective therapeutic options are lacking at present. Headache attributed to SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations is also common, its pathophysiology being unclear. People with primary headache disorders experience headache in the acute phase of COVID-19 and after vaccination more commonly than the general population. Pandemic measures, forcing lifestyle changes, seemed to have had a positive impact on migraine, and changes in headache care (telemedicine) have been effectively introduced.ConclusionsThe ongoing COVID-19 pandemic is a global challenge, having an impact on the development of secondary headaches, both in people with or without primary headaches. This has created opportunities to better understand and treat headache and to potentiate strategies to manage patients and ensure care. Show less
In 1995, a committee of the International Headache Society developed and published the first edition of the Guidelines for Controlled Trials of Drugs in Cluster Headache. These have not been... Show moreIn 1995, a committee of the International Headache Society developed and published the first edition of the Guidelines for Controlled Trials of Drugs in Cluster Headache. These have not been revised. With the emergence of new medications, neuromodulation devices and trial designs, an updated version of the International Headache Society Guidelines for Controlled Clinical Trials in Cluster Headache is warranted. Given the scarcity of evidence-based data for cluster headache therapies, the update is largely consensus-based, but takes into account lessons learned from recent trials and demands by patients. It is intended to apply to both drug and neuromodulation treatments, with specific proposals for the latter when needed. The primary objective is to propose a template for designing high quality, state-of-the-art, controlled clinical trials of acute and preventive treatments in episodic and chronic cluster headache. The recommendations should not be regarded as dogma and alternative solutions to particular methodological problems should be explored in the future and scientifically validated. Show less
Migraine is a common headache disorder. This Primer by Ferrari and colleagues summarizes the epidemiology, pathophysiology, diagnosis and treatment of migraine. Moreover, quality of life issues... Show moreMigraine is a common headache disorder. This Primer by Ferrari and colleagues summarizes the epidemiology, pathophysiology, diagnosis and treatment of migraine. Moreover, quality of life issues faced by patients with migraine and future research avenues are discussed.Migraine is a common, chronic, disorder that is typically characterized by recurrent disabling attacks of headache and accompanying symptoms, including aura. The aetiology is multifactorial with rare monogenic variants. Depression, epilepsy, stroke and myocardial infarction are comorbid diseases. Spreading depolarization probably causes aura and possibly also triggers trigeminal sensory activation, the underlying mechanism for the headache. Despite earlier beliefs, vasodilation is only a secondary phenomenon and vasoconstriction is not essential for antimigraine efficacy. Management includes analgesics or NSAIDs for mild attacks, and, for moderate or severe attacks, triptans or 5HT(1B/1D) receptor agonists. Because of cardiovascular safety concerns, unreliable efficacy and tolerability issues, use of ergots to abort attacks has nearly vanished in most countries. CGRP receptor antagonists (gepants) and lasmiditan, a selective 5HT1(F) receptor agonist, have emerged as effective acute treatments. Intramuscular onabotulinumtoxinA may be helpful in chronic migraine (migraine on >= 15 days per month) and monoclonal antibodies targeting CGRP or its receptor, as well as two gepants, have proven effective and well tolerated for the preventive treatment of migraine. Several neuromodulation modalities have been approved for acute and/or preventive migraine treatment. The emergence of new treatment targets and therapies illustrates the bright future for migraine management. Show less
Objective To evaluate individual and group long-term efficacy and safety of erenumab in individuals with episodic migraine (EM) for whom 2-4 prior preventatives had failed.Methods Participants... Show moreObjective To evaluate individual and group long-term efficacy and safety of erenumab in individuals with episodic migraine (EM) for whom 2-4 prior preventatives had failed.Methods Participants completing the 12-week double-blind treatment phase (DBTP) of the LIBERTY study could continue into an open-label extension phase (OLEP) receiving erenumab 140 mg monthly for up to 3 years. Main outcomes assessed at week 112 were: >= 50%, >= 75% and 100% reduction in monthly migraine days (MMD) as group responder rate and individual responder rates, MMD change from baseline, safety and tolerability.Results Overall 240/246 (97.6%) entered the OLEP (118 continuing erenumab, 122 switching from placebo). In total 181/240 (75.4%) reached 112 weeks, 24.6% discontinued, mainly due to lack of efficacy (44.0%), participant decision (37.0%) and adverse events (AEs; 12.0%). The >= 50% responder rate was 57.2% (99/173) at 112 weeks. Of >= 50% responders at the end of the DBTP, 36/52 (69.2%) remained responders at >= 50% and 22/52 (42.3%) at >80% of visits. Of the non-responders at the end of the DBTP, 60/185 (32.4%) converted to a50% responders in at least half the visits and 24/185 (13.0%) converted to >= 50% responders in >80% of visits. Change from baseline at 112 weeks in mean (SD) MMD was -4.2 (5.0) days. Common AEs (>= 10%) were nasopharyngitis, influenza and back pain.Conclusions Efficacy was sustained over 112 weeks in individuals with difficult-to-treat EM for whom 2-4 prior migraine preventives had failed. Erenumab treatment was safe and well tolerated, in-line with previous studies. Show less
Goadsby, P.J.; Reuter, U.; Lanteri-Minet, M.; Lima, G.P.D.; Hours-Zesiger, P.; Fernandes, C.; ... ; Klatt, J. 2021
ObjectiveTo report the efficacy and safety of erenumab among patients with episodic migraine (EM) whowere unsuccessful on 2 to 4 preventive treatments observed at week 64 of the open-label... Show moreObjectiveTo report the efficacy and safety of erenumab among patients with episodic migraine (EM) whowere unsuccessful on 2 to 4 preventive treatments observed at week 64 of the open-label extension phase (OLEP) of A Study Evaluating the Effectiveness of AMG 334 Injection in Preventing Migraines in Adults Having Failed Other Therapies (LIBERTY) study (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03096834).MethodsTheOLEP, evaluatingmonthly erenumab 140 mg for 3 years, enrolled 240 patients who completed the double-blind treatment phase (DBTP) of 12 weeks during which they received placebo or erenumab 140 mg subcutaneous injections every 4 weeks as monotherapy. Efficacy outcomes were evaluated through the initial 52weeks ofOLEP (fromDBTP baseline to total 64weeks) in the overall population, patients receiving erenumab in DBTP, and patients from the DBTP placebo arm who switched to erenumab in OLEP. Endpoints included reduction of >= 50% in monthly migraine days (MMD) from DBTP baseline and change inMMDfrom DBTP baseline, Headache Impact Test score, and Migraine Physical Function Impact Diary score (Physical Impairment and Everyday Activities).ResultsAltogether, the week 52 visit of theOLEP was completed by 204 of 240 (85.0%) patients. Among patients continuing erenumab, the 50% responder rate increased from 29.9% at weeks 9 to 12 to 44.3% at weeks 61 to 64. The 50% responder rate in patientswho initiated erenumab in theOLEP remained higher in the OLEP (50.0% at week 61-64) than during DBTP (14.2% at weeks 9-12) compared to patients in continuous erenumab arm. In the OLEP, the 50% responder rate for the overall population increased from weeks 13 to 16 until weeks 37 to 40 and then remained stable through weeks 61 to 64. Patients treated with erenumab in DBTP showed sustained effects on all efficacy outcomes; those initiating erenumab in theOLEP demonstrated continued improvement from week 13 onward. Adverse events (AEs) were reported, considering both treatment groups, by approximate to 80.8% (serious AEs by 6.7%), 76.3% (5.9%) in the continuing erenumab arm, and 85.2% (7.4%) in those starting erenumab in OLEP. No deaths were reported.ConclusionsIn patients with EM who were unsuccessful on 2 to 4 prior preventive treatments, the LIBERTY study demonstrated sustained efficacy on erenumab monotherapy treatment through 64 weeks in both treatment arms. Safety of erenumab was consistent with that observed in previous clinical trials. Show less
BackgroundAlthough the European Medicines Agency and the US Food and Drug Administration have cleared several devices that use neuromodulation to provide clinical benefits in the acute or... Show moreBackgroundAlthough the European Medicines Agency and the US Food and Drug Administration have cleared several devices that use neuromodulation to provide clinical benefits in the acute or preventive treatment of migraine, the Clinical Trials Committee of the International Headache Society has not developed guidelines specifically for clinical trials of neuromodulation devices. In recognition of the distinct needs and challenges associated with their assessment in controlled trials, the Committee provides these recommendations for optimizing the design and conduct of controlled trials of neuromodulation devices for the acute and/or preventive treatment of migraine.MethodsAn international group of headache scientists and clinicians with expertise in neuromodulation evaluated clinical trials involving neuromodulation devices that have been published since 2000. The Clinical Trials Committee incorporated findings from this expert analysis into a new guideline for clinical trials of neuromodulation devices for the treatment of migraine.ResultsKey terms were defined and recommendations provided relative to the assessment of neuromodulation devices for acute treatment in adults, preventive treatment in adults, and acute and preventive treatment in children and adolescents. Ethical and administrative responsibilities were outlined, and a bibliography of previous research involving neuromodulation devices was created.ConclusionsAdoption of these recommendations will improve the quality of evidence regarding this important area in migraine treatment. Show less
Lanteri-Minet, M.; Goadsby, P.J.; Reuter, U.; Wen, S.H.; Hours-Zesiger, P.; Ferrari, M.D.; Klatt, J. 2021
Objective To evaluate the effect of erenumab on patient-reported, functional outcomes in patients with episodic migraine (EM) in whom 2-4 preventives were not useful from the Phase 3b LIBERTY study... Show moreObjective To evaluate the effect of erenumab on patient-reported, functional outcomes in patients with episodic migraine (EM) in whom 2-4 preventives were not useful from the Phase 3b LIBERTY study.MethodsAs previously reported, 246 patients with EM with 2-4 prior failed preventives were randomised 1:1 to subcutaneous erenumab 140 mg or placebo every 4 weeks for 12 weeks. This analysis evaluated Migraine Physical Function Impact Diary (MPFID), Headache Impact Test (HIT-6) and Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI) scores at Week 12. P values were nominal without multiplicity adjustment.ResultsErenumab significantly improved MPFID-Physical Impairment (PI) and Everyday Activities (EA) scores versus placebo (treatment difference (TD) (95% CI) MPFID-PI: -3.5 (-5.7 to -1.2) (p=0.003); MPFID-EA: -3.9 (-6.1 to -1.7)) (p<0.001) at 12 weeks. Patients on erenumab were more likely to have a >= 5-point reduction in MPFID score (OR vs placebo (95% CI) MPFID-EA: 2.1 (1.2 to 3.6); MPFID-PI: 2.5 (1.4 to 4.5)). A similar trend was observed for HIT-6 (TD: -3.0; p<0.001); significantly higher proportions of patients on erenumab reported a >= 5-point reduction (OR (95% CI): 2.4 (1.4 to 4.1)). In three out of four WPAI domains, erenumab showed improvement versus placebo.ConclusionAt 12 weeks, erenumab was efficacious on functional outcomes in patients with EM in whom 2-4 preventives were not useful. Show less
Ashina, M.; Terwindt, G.M.; Al-Karagholi, M.A.M.; Boer, I. de; Lee, M.J.; Hay, D.L.; ... ; Goadsby, P.J. 2021
Migraine is a disabling neurological disorder, diagnosis of which is based on clinical criteria. A shortcoming of these criteria is that they do not fully capture the heterogeneity of migraine,... Show moreMigraine is a disabling neurological disorder, diagnosis of which is based on clinical criteria. A shortcoming of these criteria is that they do not fully capture the heterogeneity of migraine, including the underlying genetic and neurobiological factors. This complexity has generated momentum for biomarker research to improve disease characterisation and identify novel drug targets. In this Series paper, we present the progress that has been made in the search for biomarkers of migraine within genetics, provocation modelling, biochemistry, and neuroimaging research. Additionally, we outline challenges and future directions for each biomarker modality. We also discuss the advances made in combining and integrating data from multiple biomarker modalities. These efforts contribute to developing precision medicine that can be applied to future patients with migraine. Show less
Diener, H.C.; Tassorelli, C.; Dodick, D.W.; Silberstein, S.D.; Lipton, R.B.; Ashina, M.; ... ; Int Headache Soc Clinical Trials C 2020
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... Show moreClinical 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 theGuidelines 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 theGuidelines for controlled trials of preventive treatment of chronic migraine(2018), theGuidelines for controlled trials of acute treatment of migraine attacks in adults(2019), andGuidelines 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. Show less
