Chronicling the June conundrum

[No abstract available

The definitive position of headache among the major public health challenges. An end to the slippery slope of disregard

[No abstract available

The Global Campaign, World Health Organization and Lifting The Burden: collaboration in action

[No abstract available

Dispute settlement understanding on the use of BOTOX® in chronic migraine

[No abstract available

Cost of chronic and episodic migraine patients in continuous treatment for two years in a tertiary level headache centre

Abstract: Background: Migraine is one of the most common neurological diseases and an estimated 1.04 billion people worldwide have been diagnosed with migraine. Available data suggest that migraine is world widely associated with a high economic burden, but there is great variability in estimated costs that depends on the geographical, methodological and temporal differences between the studies. The purpose of this study was to quantify the annual direct cost of episodic migraine (EM) and chronic migraine (CM), both for the patient and for the National Health System (NHS), using data from subjects who attended an Italian tertiary headache centre. Furthermore, we evaluated comparatively the impact of gender and age on the economic burden of migraine. Methods: We conducted a retrospective and non-interventional observational analysis of the electronic medical records of subjects with EM and CM who consecutively attended the Regional Referral Headache Centre of Rome and undergoing continuous treatment in the 2 years prior to 31 January 2019. This approach was intended to prevent distorsions due to natural fluctuations in migraine status over time. The collected data included demographic characteristics, number of specialist visits, consumption of medications, diagnostic tests, accesses in the emergency department (ED) and days of hospitalization due to the pathology. Results: Our sample consisted of 548 patients (85.4% women and 14.6% men): 65.5% had CM and 34.5% had EM. The average annual expenditure per patient was €1482. 82.8% of the total cost (€1227) was covered by the NHS. The main item of expenditure were medications that represented 86.8% (€1286), followed by specialist visits (10.2%), hospitalizations for (1.9%), diagnostic tests for (1%) and ED visits for (0.1%). Costs were significantly higher for women than men (€1517 vs. €1274, p = 0.013) and increased with age (p = 0.002). The annual direct cost of CM was 4.8-fold higher than that of EM (€2037 vs. €427, p = 0.001). Conclusion: Our results provide a valuable estimate of the annual direct cost of CM and EM patients in the specific setting of a tertiary headache centre and confirm the high economic impact of migraine on both the NHS and patients

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

Persistent post-traumatic headache: A migrainous loop or not? The clinical evidence

Background: Headache is a common complication of traumatic brain injury. The International Headache Society defines post-traumatic headache as a secondary headache attributed to trauma or injury to the head that develops within seven days following trauma. Acute post-traumatic headache resolves after 3 months, but persistent post-traumatic headache usually lasts much longer and accounts for 4% of all secondary headache disorders. Main body: The clinical features of post-traumatic headache after traumatic brain injury resemble various types of primary headaches and the most frequent are migraine-like or tension-type-like phenotypes. The neuroimaging studies that have compared persistent post-traumatic headache and migraine found different structural and functional brain changes, although migraine and post-traumatic headache may be clinically similar. Therapy of various clinical phenotypes of post-traumatic headache almost entirely mirrors the therapy of the corresponding primary headache and are currently based on expert opinion rather than scientific evidence. Pharmacologic therapies include both abortive and prophylactic agents with prophylaxis targeting comorbidities, especially impaired sleep and post-traumatic disorder. There are also effective options for non-pharmacologic therapy of post-traumatic headache, including cognitive-behavioral approaches, onabotulinum toxin injections, life-style considerations, etc. Conclusion: Notwithstanding some phenotypic similarities, persistent post-traumatic headache after traumatic brain injury, is considered a separate phenomenon from migraine but available data is inconclusive. High-quality studies are further required to investigate the pathophysiological mechanisms of this secondary headache, in order to identify new targets for treatment and to prevent disability

Genetics of migraine and pharmacogenomics: some considerations

Migraine is a complex disorder caused by a combination of genetic and environmental factors

Persistent post-traumatic headache: a migrainous loop or not? The preclinical evidence

BACKGROUND: According to the International Classification of Headache Disorders 3, post-traumatic headache (PTH) attributed to traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a secondary headache reported to have developed within 7 days from head injury, regaining consciousness following the head injury, or discontinuation of medication(s) impairing the ability to sense or report headache following the head injury. It is one of the most common secondary headache disorders, and it is defined as persistent when it lasts more than 3 months. MAIN BODY: Currently, due to the high prevalence of this disorder, several preclinical studies have been conducted using different animal models of mild TBI to reproduce conditions that engender PTH. Despite representing a simplification of a complex disorder and displaying different limitations concerning the human condition, animal models are still a mainstay to study in vivo the mechanisms of PTH and have provided valuable insight into the pathophysiology and possible treatment strategies. Different models reproduce different types of trauma and have been ideated in order to ensure maximal proximity to the human condition and optimal experimental reproducibility. CONCLUSION: At present, despite its high prevalence, PTH is not entirely understood, and the differential contribution of pathophysiological mechanisms, also observed in other conditions like migraine, has to be clarified. Although facing limitations, animal models are needed to improve understanding of PTH. The knowledge of currently available models is necessary to all researchers who want to investigate PTH and contribute to unravel its mechanisms