Association of intronic variants of the KCNAB1 gene with lateral temporal epilepsy.

The KCNAB1 gene is a candidate susceptibility factor for lateral temporal epilepsy (LTE) because of its functional interaction with LGI1, the gene responsible for the autosomal dominant form of LTE. We investigated association between polymorphic variants across the KCNAB1 gene and LTE. The allele and genotype frequencies of 14 KCNAB1 intronic SNPs were determined in 142 Italian LTE patients and 104 healthy controls and statistically evaluated. Single SNP analysis revealed one SNP (rs992353) located near the 3'end of KCNAB1 slightly associated with LTE after multiple testing correction (odds ratio=2.25; 95% confidence interval 1.26-4.04; P=0.0058). Haplotype analysis revealed two haplotypes with frequencies higher in cases than in controls, and these differences were statistically significant after permutation tests (Psim=0.047 and 0.034). One of these haplotypes was shown to confer a high risk for the syndrome (odds ratio=12.24; 95% confidence interval 1.32-113.05) by logistic regression analysis. These results support KCNAB1 as a susceptibility gene for LTE, in agreement with previous studies showing that this gene may alter susceptibility to focal epilepsy

Practical and clinical utility of non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation (nVNS) for the acute treatment of migraine. A post hoc analysis of the randomized, sham-controlled, double-blind PRESTO trial

Background: The PRESTO study of non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation (nVNS; gammaCore®) featured key primary and secondary end points recommended by the International Headache Society to provide Class I evidence that for patients with an episodic migraine, nVNS significantly increases the probability of having mild pain or being pain-free 2 h post stimulation. Here, we examined additional data from PRESTO to provide further insights into the practical utility of nVNS by evaluating its ability to consistently deliver clinically meaningful improvements in pain intensity while reducing the need for rescue medication. Methods: Patients recorded pain intensity for treated migraine attacks on a 4-point scale. Data were examined to compare nVNS and sham with regard to the percentage of patients who benefited by at least 1 point in pain intensity. We also assessed the percentage of attacks that required rescue medication and pain-free rates stratified by pain intensity at treatment initiation. Results: A significantly higher percentage of patients who used acute nVNS treatment (n = 120) vs sham (n = 123) reported a ≥ 1-point decrease in pain intensity at 30 min (nVNS, 32.2%; sham, 18.5%; P = 0.020), 60 min (nVNS, 38.8%; sham, 24.0%; P = 0.017), and 120 min (nVNS, 46.8%; sham, 26.2%; P = 0.002) after the first attack. Similar significant results were seen when assessing the benefit in all attacks. The proportion of patients who did not require rescue medication was significantly higher with nVNS than with sham for the first attack (nVNS, 59.3%; sham, 41.9%; P = 0.013) and all attacks (nVNS, 52.3%; sham, 37.3%; P = 0.008). When initial pain intensity was mild, the percentage of patients with no pain after treatment was significantly higher with nVNS than with sham at 60 min (all attacks: nVNS, 37.0%; sham, 21.2%; P = 0.025) and 120 min (first attack: nVNS, 50.0%; sham, 25.0%; P = 0.018; all attacks: nVNS, 46.7%; sham, 30.1%; P = 0.037). Conclusions: This post hoc analysis demonstrated that acute nVNS treatment quickly and consistently reduced pain intensity while decreasing rescue medication use. These clinical benefits provide guidance in the optimal use of nVNS in everyday practice, which can potentially reduce use of acute pharmacologic medications and their associated adverse events. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02686034

Trigeminal-Targeted Treatments in Migraine: Is 60% the Magic Number?

Trigeminal-targeted treatments (TTTs), the most specific and selective therapeutic migraine approach to date, are effective in approximately 60% of patients regardless of treatment type or mechanism, at least if used alone. Sixty percent is also the proportion of migraineurs who develop migraine-like episodes following experimental intravenous administration of trigeminal neuropeptides and roughly 60% is the percentage of patients with a unilateral migraine tracing the area of cutaneous distribution of the trigeminal ophthalmic branch. Hence, mechanisms other than the trigeminovascular activation are probably involved in the 40% of migraineurs who do not respond to TTTs. A closer cooperation between clinical and basic neuroscientists is needed to explore migraine models because only a careful appraisal of migraine endophenotypes may help to unravel their underlying multifaceted pathophysiological machinery. © 2019 American Headache Societ

Migraine as a Cortical Brain Disorder

Purpose: Migraine is an exclusively human chronic disorder with ictal manifestations characterized by a multifaceted clinical complexity pointing to a cerebral cortical involvement. The present review is aimed to cover the clinical, neuroimaging, and neurophysiological literature on the role of the cerebral cortex in migraine pathophysiology. Overview: Converging clinical scenarios, advanced neuroimaging data, and experimental neurophysiological findings, indicate that fluctuating excitability, plasticity, and metabolism of cortical neurons represent the pathophysiological substrate of the migraine cycle. Abnormal cortical responsivity and sensory processing coupled to a mismatch between the brain’s energy reserve and workload may ignite the trigeminovascular system, leading to the migraine attack through the activation of subcortical brain trigeminal and extra-trigeminal structures, and driving its propagation and maintenance. Discussion: The brain cortex emerges as the crucial player in migraine, a disorder lying at the intersection between neuroscience and daily life. Migraine disorder stems from an imbalance in inhibitory/excitatory cortical circuits, responsible for functional changes in the activity of different cortical brain regions encompassing the neurolimbic-pain network, and secondarily allowing a demodulation of subcortical areas, such as hypothalamus, amygdala, and brainstem nuclei, in a continuous mutual crosstalk