Headache & Migraine

SAN DIEGO — Nearly one in three patients with migraine are reluctant to seek medical help and many blame healthcare providers, results of a recent survey showed.

Participants cited concerns that their complaints would be dismissed, a belief that healthcare providers could offer no additional help, and a prior unsuccessful clinician visit as reasons for not seeking care. Survey respondents saw an average of four clinicians before finally receiving a diagnosis.

“I was shocked that a third of patients were reluctant to seek care,” said study investigator Elizabeth K. Seng, PhD, associate professor, Ferkauf Graduate School of Psychology, Yeshiva University, and research associate professor, department of neurology, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, both in New York City. “That just shows a much higher level of medical distress than I expected from this community of people who are obviously suffering from this significant neurologic disease.”

The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society.
 

‘Significant Disease’

The study included 500 adults with migraine (mean age, 40 years) who signed up for a patient support group sponsored by Eli Lilly and completed a comprehensive survey. Respondents were mostly female, White, non-Hispanic, and well-educated individuals.

Half of participants had episodic migraines, and half had chronic migraines; 46% reported experiencing anxiety and 33% reported depression.

Almost all respondents had initiated treatment with a first calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibody.

“These are people who have significant enough disease that eventually they needed our top-tier preventive medication,” Dr. Seng said.

Participants answered a variety of questions pertaining to disease factors and treatment seeking. Just over 70% said they suspected they had migraine prior to diagnosis, “which means for almost 30%, it was a surprise when they received the diagnosis,” said Dr. Seng. 

Nearly 40% reported that a relative first suggested they may have migraine, and 33% suspected it themselves. Only 17.4% said a healthcare provider suggested they may have the condition.

Almost a third of respondents (30.5%) reported they were reluctant to seek medical help.

“Some said they didn’t think their physician could do anything more than they were already doing for themselves, or that they’d be taken seriously, or they had had talked to doctors before and this wasn’t helpful,” said Dr. Seng. 

These responses speak to the need for better public health messaging, she said. “People have this idea that migraine attacks aren’t a big deal when, in fact, these attacks area big deal and certainly deserve treatment.” 

Family and friends were participants’ most common source of information on migraine, followed by the Internet. “This highlights the importance of getting migraine-related information out there so that when people talk to their friends and family, they’re receiving accurate information,” said Dr. Seng.

When asked about the path to a diagnosis, respondents reported consulting an average of four providers before receiving an accurate diagnosis. “That’s pretty remarkable,” Dr. Seng said.

An increase in frequency or severity of migraine attacks or attacks that interfered with work or school “pushed people over the threshold to seek care,” Dr. Seng said. 

A subset of patients was asked about the factors they believed could help with migraine attacks. Of these, 80% cited diet and 70% stress reduction. Supplements, exercise, and relaxation techniques were cited much less frequently, said Dr. Seng. 

The mean age of respondents’ migraine diagnosis was 26 years, so there was about 18 years from the time of diagnosis to participation in the survey, which could introduce recall bias. Other potential limitations included the fact that the survey had no open-ended questions, and men and ethnic minorities were underrepresented. 
 

Useful Data

Commenting on the study findings, Nina Riggins, MD, PhD, president, Brain Performance Center and Research Institute, and director of the Headache Center at The Neuron Clinic, San Diego, California, said the survey findings are “very useful” and highlight “significant opportunities for improvement in migraine education for clinicians and people living with migraine disease.”

The fact that participants reported consulting an average of four healthcare providers before receiving an accurate diagnosis underscores the importance of providing clinicians with tools to identify migraine, she said.

This is especially relevant as new migraine therapies that may improve efficacy and have fewer side effects become available, she added. 

“It would be interesting to see in future studies if migraine recognition by non-headache specialists improved after CGRP-blocking medications for migraine management became available,” said Dr. Riggins, who is cochair of the AHS First Contact program which is aimed at improving headache management in primary care.

She added that she and her colleagues will keep these survey results in mind when creating future educational materials for clinicians.

The study was supported by Eli Lily. Dr. Seng is a consultant for GlaxoSmithKline, Theranica, and Abbvie, and receives research support from the National Institutes of Health, National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, Veterans Health Administration, Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, and the American Heart Association. Dr. Riggins reported no relevant conflicts.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — Nearly one in three patients with migraine are reluctant to seek medical help and many blame healthcare providers, results of a recent survey showed.

Participants cited concerns that their complaints would be dismissed, a belief that healthcare providers could offer no additional help, and a prior unsuccessful clinician visit as reasons for not seeking care. Survey respondents saw an average of four clinicians before finally receiving a diagnosis.

“I was shocked that a third of patients were reluctant to seek care,” said study investigator Elizabeth K. Seng, PhD, associate professor, Ferkauf Graduate School of Psychology, Yeshiva University, and research associate professor, department of neurology, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, both in New York City. “That just shows a much higher level of medical distress than I expected from this community of people who are obviously suffering from this significant neurologic disease.”

The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society.
 

‘Significant Disease’

The study included 500 adults with migraine (mean age, 40 years) who signed up for a patient support group sponsored by Eli Lilly and completed a comprehensive survey. Respondents were mostly female, White, non-Hispanic, and well-educated individuals.

Half of participants had episodic migraines, and half had chronic migraines; 46% reported experiencing anxiety and 33% reported depression.

Almost all respondents had initiated treatment with a first calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibody.

“These are people who have significant enough disease that eventually they needed our top-tier preventive medication,” Dr. Seng said.

Participants answered a variety of questions pertaining to disease factors and treatment seeking. Just over 70% said they suspected they had migraine prior to diagnosis, “which means for almost 30%, it was a surprise when they received the diagnosis,” said Dr. Seng. 

Nearly 40% reported that a relative first suggested they may have migraine, and 33% suspected it themselves. Only 17.4% said a healthcare provider suggested they may have the condition.

Almost a third of respondents (30.5%) reported they were reluctant to seek medical help.

“Some said they didn’t think their physician could do anything more than they were already doing for themselves, or that they’d be taken seriously, or they had had talked to doctors before and this wasn’t helpful,” said Dr. Seng. 

These responses speak to the need for better public health messaging, she said. “People have this idea that migraine attacks aren’t a big deal when, in fact, these attacks area big deal and certainly deserve treatment.” 

Family and friends were participants’ most common source of information on migraine, followed by the Internet. “This highlights the importance of getting migraine-related information out there so that when people talk to their friends and family, they’re receiving accurate information,” said Dr. Seng.

When asked about the path to a diagnosis, respondents reported consulting an average of four providers before receiving an accurate diagnosis. “That’s pretty remarkable,” Dr. Seng said.

An increase in frequency or severity of migraine attacks or attacks that interfered with work or school “pushed people over the threshold to seek care,” Dr. Seng said. 

A subset of patients was asked about the factors they believed could help with migraine attacks. Of these, 80% cited diet and 70% stress reduction. Supplements, exercise, and relaxation techniques were cited much less frequently, said Dr. Seng. 

The mean age of respondents’ migraine diagnosis was 26 years, so there was about 18 years from the time of diagnosis to participation in the survey, which could introduce recall bias. Other potential limitations included the fact that the survey had no open-ended questions, and men and ethnic minorities were underrepresented. 
 

Useful Data

Commenting on the study findings, Nina Riggins, MD, PhD, president, Brain Performance Center and Research Institute, and director of the Headache Center at The Neuron Clinic, San Diego, California, said the survey findings are “very useful” and highlight “significant opportunities for improvement in migraine education for clinicians and people living with migraine disease.”

The fact that participants reported consulting an average of four healthcare providers before receiving an accurate diagnosis underscores the importance of providing clinicians with tools to identify migraine, she said.

This is especially relevant as new migraine therapies that may improve efficacy and have fewer side effects become available, she added. 

“It would be interesting to see in future studies if migraine recognition by non-headache specialists improved after CGRP-blocking medications for migraine management became available,” said Dr. Riggins, who is cochair of the AHS First Contact program which is aimed at improving headache management in primary care.

She added that she and her colleagues will keep these survey results in mind when creating future educational materials for clinicians.

The study was supported by Eli Lily. Dr. Seng is a consultant for GlaxoSmithKline, Theranica, and Abbvie, and receives research support from the National Institutes of Health, National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, Veterans Health Administration, Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, and the American Heart Association. Dr. Riggins reported no relevant conflicts.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — Nearly one in three patients with migraine are reluctant to seek medical help and many blame healthcare providers, results of a recent survey showed.

Participants cited concerns that their complaints would be dismissed, a belief that healthcare providers could offer no additional help, and a prior unsuccessful clinician visit as reasons for not seeking care. Survey respondents saw an average of four clinicians before finally receiving a diagnosis.

“I was shocked that a third of patients were reluctant to seek care,” said study investigator Elizabeth K. Seng, PhD, associate professor, Ferkauf Graduate School of Psychology, Yeshiva University, and research associate professor, department of neurology, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, both in New York City. “That just shows a much higher level of medical distress than I expected from this community of people who are obviously suffering from this significant neurologic disease.”

The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society.
 

‘Significant Disease’

The study included 500 adults with migraine (mean age, 40 years) who signed up for a patient support group sponsored by Eli Lilly and completed a comprehensive survey. Respondents were mostly female, White, non-Hispanic, and well-educated individuals.

Half of participants had episodic migraines, and half had chronic migraines; 46% reported experiencing anxiety and 33% reported depression.

Almost all respondents had initiated treatment with a first calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibody.

“These are people who have significant enough disease that eventually they needed our top-tier preventive medication,” Dr. Seng said.

Participants answered a variety of questions pertaining to disease factors and treatment seeking. Just over 70% said they suspected they had migraine prior to diagnosis, “which means for almost 30%, it was a surprise when they received the diagnosis,” said Dr. Seng. 

Nearly 40% reported that a relative first suggested they may have migraine, and 33% suspected it themselves. Only 17.4% said a healthcare provider suggested they may have the condition.

Almost a third of respondents (30.5%) reported they were reluctant to seek medical help.

“Some said they didn’t think their physician could do anything more than they were already doing for themselves, or that they’d be taken seriously, or they had had talked to doctors before and this wasn’t helpful,” said Dr. Seng. 

These responses speak to the need for better public health messaging, she said. “People have this idea that migraine attacks aren’t a big deal when, in fact, these attacks area big deal and certainly deserve treatment.” 

Family and friends were participants’ most common source of information on migraine, followed by the Internet. “This highlights the importance of getting migraine-related information out there so that when people talk to their friends and family, they’re receiving accurate information,” said Dr. Seng.

When asked about the path to a diagnosis, respondents reported consulting an average of four providers before receiving an accurate diagnosis. “That’s pretty remarkable,” Dr. Seng said.

An increase in frequency or severity of migraine attacks or attacks that interfered with work or school “pushed people over the threshold to seek care,” Dr. Seng said. 

A subset of patients was asked about the factors they believed could help with migraine attacks. Of these, 80% cited diet and 70% stress reduction. Supplements, exercise, and relaxation techniques were cited much less frequently, said Dr. Seng. 

The mean age of respondents’ migraine diagnosis was 26 years, so there was about 18 years from the time of diagnosis to participation in the survey, which could introduce recall bias. Other potential limitations included the fact that the survey had no open-ended questions, and men and ethnic minorities were underrepresented. 
 

Useful Data

Commenting on the study findings, Nina Riggins, MD, PhD, president, Brain Performance Center and Research Institute, and director of the Headache Center at The Neuron Clinic, San Diego, California, said the survey findings are “very useful” and highlight “significant opportunities for improvement in migraine education for clinicians and people living with migraine disease.”

The fact that participants reported consulting an average of four healthcare providers before receiving an accurate diagnosis underscores the importance of providing clinicians with tools to identify migraine, she said.

This is especially relevant as new migraine therapies that may improve efficacy and have fewer side effects become available, she added. 

“It would be interesting to see in future studies if migraine recognition by non-headache specialists improved after CGRP-blocking medications for migraine management became available,” said Dr. Riggins, who is cochair of the AHS First Contact program which is aimed at improving headache management in primary care.

She added that she and her colleagues will keep these survey results in mind when creating future educational materials for clinicians.

The study was supported by Eli Lily. Dr. Seng is a consultant for GlaxoSmithKline, Theranica, and Abbvie, and receives research support from the National Institutes of Health, National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, Veterans Health Administration, Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, and the American Heart Association. Dr. Riggins reported no relevant conflicts.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — In a randomized, controlled trial, lidocaine injections to the greater occipital nerve were effective in controlling migraine symptoms among adolescents. The treatment has long been used in adults, and frequently in children on the strength of observational evidence.

Prior Research

Most of the studies have been conducted in adults, and these were often in specific settings like the emergency department for status migrainosus, while outpatient studies were generally conducted in chronic migraine, according to presenting author Christina Szperka, MD. “The assumptions were a little bit different,” Dr. Szperka, director of the pediatric headache program at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said in an interview.

Retrospective studies are also fraught with bias. “We’ve tried to look at retrospective data. People don’t necessarily report how they’re doing unless they come back, and so you lose a huge portion of kids,” said Dr. Szperka, who presented the research at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society.

“From a clinical perspective, I think it gives us additional evidence that what we’re doing makes a difference, and I think that will help us in terms of insurance coverage, because that’s really been a major barrier,” said Dr. Szperka.

The study also opens other avenues for research. “Just doing the greater occipital nerves only reduces the pain so much. So what’s the next step? Do I study additional injections? Do I do a study where I compare different medications?”

She previously conducted a study of how providers were using lidocaine injections, and “there was a large amount of variability, both in terms of what nerves are being injected, what medications they were using, the patient population, et cetera,” said Dr. Szperka. Previous observational studies have suggested efficacy in pediatric populations for transition and prevention of migraine, new daily persistent headache, posttraumatic headache, and post-shunt occipital neuralgia.
 

A Randomized, Controlled Trial

In the new study, 58 adolescents aged 7 to 21 (mean age, 16.0 years; 44 female) were initially treated with lidocaine cream. The patients were “relatively refractory,” said Dr. Szperka, with 25 having received intravenous medications and 6 having been inpatients. After 30 minutes, if they still had pain and consented to further treatment, Dr. Szperka performed bilateral greater occipital nerve injections with lidocaine or a saline placebo, and did additional injections after 30 minutes if there wasn’t sufficient improvement.

There was no significant change in pain after the lidocaine cream treatment, and all patients proceeded to be randomized to lidocaine or placebo injections. The primary outcome of 30-minute reduction in pain score ranked 0-10 favored the lidocaine group (2.3 vs 1.1; P = .013). There was a 2-point reduction in pain scores in 69% of the lidocaine group and 34% of the saline group (P = .009) and a higher frequency of pain relief from moderate/severe to no pain or mild (52% versus 24%; P = .03). There was no significant difference in pain freedom.

After 24 hours, the treatment group was more likely to experience pain relief from moderate/severe to no pain or mild (24% vs 3%; P = .05) and to be free from associated symptoms (48% vs 21%; P = .027). Pain at the injection site was significantly higher in the placebo group (5.4 vs 3.2), prompting a change in plans for future trials. “I don’t think I would do saline again, because I think it hurt them, and I don’t want to cause them harm,” said Dr. Szperka.

Adverse events were common, with all but one patient in the study experiencing at least one. “I think this is a couple of things: One, kids don’t like needles in their head. Nerve blocks hurt. And so it was not surprising in some ways that we had a very high rate of adverse events. We also consented them, and that had a long wait period, and there’s a lot of anxiety in the room. However, most of the adverse events were mild,” said Dr. Szperka.
 

Important Research in an Understudied Population

Laine Greene, MD, who moderated the session, was asked for comment. “I think it’s an important study. Occipital nerve blocks have been used for a long period of time in management of migraine and other headache disorders. The quality of the evidence has always been brought into question, especially from payers, but also a very important aspect to this is that a lot of clinical trials over time have not specifically been done in children or adolescents, so any work that is done in that age category is significantly helpful to advancing therapeutics,” said Dr. Greene, associate professor of neurology at Mayo Clinic Arizona.

Dr. Szperka has consulted for AbbVie and Teva, and serves on data safety and monitoring boards for Eli Lilly and Upsher-Smith. She has been a principal investigator in trials sponsored by Abbvie, Amgen, Biohaven/Pfizer, Teva, and Theranica. Dr. Greene has no relevant financial disclosures.

SAN DIEGO — In a randomized, controlled trial, lidocaine injections to the greater occipital nerve were effective in controlling migraine symptoms among adolescents. The treatment has long been used in adults, and frequently in children on the strength of observational evidence.

Prior Research

Most of the studies have been conducted in adults, and these were often in specific settings like the emergency department for status migrainosus, while outpatient studies were generally conducted in chronic migraine, according to presenting author Christina Szperka, MD. “The assumptions were a little bit different,” Dr. Szperka, director of the pediatric headache program at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said in an interview.

Retrospective studies are also fraught with bias. “We’ve tried to look at retrospective data. People don’t necessarily report how they’re doing unless they come back, and so you lose a huge portion of kids,” said Dr. Szperka, who presented the research at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society.

“From a clinical perspective, I think it gives us additional evidence that what we’re doing makes a difference, and I think that will help us in terms of insurance coverage, because that’s really been a major barrier,” said Dr. Szperka.

The study also opens other avenues for research. “Just doing the greater occipital nerves only reduces the pain so much. So what’s the next step? Do I study additional injections? Do I do a study where I compare different medications?”

She previously conducted a study of how providers were using lidocaine injections, and “there was a large amount of variability, both in terms of what nerves are being injected, what medications they were using, the patient population, et cetera,” said Dr. Szperka. Previous observational studies have suggested efficacy in pediatric populations for transition and prevention of migraine, new daily persistent headache, posttraumatic headache, and post-shunt occipital neuralgia.
 

A Randomized, Controlled Trial

In the new study, 58 adolescents aged 7 to 21 (mean age, 16.0 years; 44 female) were initially treated with lidocaine cream. The patients were “relatively refractory,” said Dr. Szperka, with 25 having received intravenous medications and 6 having been inpatients. After 30 minutes, if they still had pain and consented to further treatment, Dr. Szperka performed bilateral greater occipital nerve injections with lidocaine or a saline placebo, and did additional injections after 30 minutes if there wasn’t sufficient improvement.

There was no significant change in pain after the lidocaine cream treatment, and all patients proceeded to be randomized to lidocaine or placebo injections. The primary outcome of 30-minute reduction in pain score ranked 0-10 favored the lidocaine group (2.3 vs 1.1; P = .013). There was a 2-point reduction in pain scores in 69% of the lidocaine group and 34% of the saline group (P = .009) and a higher frequency of pain relief from moderate/severe to no pain or mild (52% versus 24%; P = .03). There was no significant difference in pain freedom.

After 24 hours, the treatment group was more likely to experience pain relief from moderate/severe to no pain or mild (24% vs 3%; P = .05) and to be free from associated symptoms (48% vs 21%; P = .027). Pain at the injection site was significantly higher in the placebo group (5.4 vs 3.2), prompting a change in plans for future trials. “I don’t think I would do saline again, because I think it hurt them, and I don’t want to cause them harm,” said Dr. Szperka.

Adverse events were common, with all but one patient in the study experiencing at least one. “I think this is a couple of things: One, kids don’t like needles in their head. Nerve blocks hurt. And so it was not surprising in some ways that we had a very high rate of adverse events. We also consented them, and that had a long wait period, and there’s a lot of anxiety in the room. However, most of the adverse events were mild,” said Dr. Szperka.
 

Important Research in an Understudied Population

Laine Greene, MD, who moderated the session, was asked for comment. “I think it’s an important study. Occipital nerve blocks have been used for a long period of time in management of migraine and other headache disorders. The quality of the evidence has always been brought into question, especially from payers, but also a very important aspect to this is that a lot of clinical trials over time have not specifically been done in children or adolescents, so any work that is done in that age category is significantly helpful to advancing therapeutics,” said Dr. Greene, associate professor of neurology at Mayo Clinic Arizona.

Dr. Szperka has consulted for AbbVie and Teva, and serves on data safety and monitoring boards for Eli Lilly and Upsher-Smith. She has been a principal investigator in trials sponsored by Abbvie, Amgen, Biohaven/Pfizer, Teva, and Theranica. Dr. Greene has no relevant financial disclosures.

SAN DIEGO — In a randomized, controlled trial, lidocaine injections to the greater occipital nerve were effective in controlling migraine symptoms among adolescents. The treatment has long been used in adults, and frequently in children on the strength of observational evidence.

Prior Research

Most of the studies have been conducted in adults, and these were often in specific settings like the emergency department for status migrainosus, while outpatient studies were generally conducted in chronic migraine, according to presenting author Christina Szperka, MD. “The assumptions were a little bit different,” Dr. Szperka, director of the pediatric headache program at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said in an interview.

Retrospective studies are also fraught with bias. “We’ve tried to look at retrospective data. People don’t necessarily report how they’re doing unless they come back, and so you lose a huge portion of kids,” said Dr. Szperka, who presented the research at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society.

“From a clinical perspective, I think it gives us additional evidence that what we’re doing makes a difference, and I think that will help us in terms of insurance coverage, because that’s really been a major barrier,” said Dr. Szperka.

The study also opens other avenues for research. “Just doing the greater occipital nerves only reduces the pain so much. So what’s the next step? Do I study additional injections? Do I do a study where I compare different medications?”

She previously conducted a study of how providers were using lidocaine injections, and “there was a large amount of variability, both in terms of what nerves are being injected, what medications they were using, the patient population, et cetera,” said Dr. Szperka. Previous observational studies have suggested efficacy in pediatric populations for transition and prevention of migraine, new daily persistent headache, posttraumatic headache, and post-shunt occipital neuralgia.
 

A Randomized, Controlled Trial

In the new study, 58 adolescents aged 7 to 21 (mean age, 16.0 years; 44 female) were initially treated with lidocaine cream. The patients were “relatively refractory,” said Dr. Szperka, with 25 having received intravenous medications and 6 having been inpatients. After 30 minutes, if they still had pain and consented to further treatment, Dr. Szperka performed bilateral greater occipital nerve injections with lidocaine or a saline placebo, and did additional injections after 30 minutes if there wasn’t sufficient improvement.

There was no significant change in pain after the lidocaine cream treatment, and all patients proceeded to be randomized to lidocaine or placebo injections. The primary outcome of 30-minute reduction in pain score ranked 0-10 favored the lidocaine group (2.3 vs 1.1; P = .013). There was a 2-point reduction in pain scores in 69% of the lidocaine group and 34% of the saline group (P = .009) and a higher frequency of pain relief from moderate/severe to no pain or mild (52% versus 24%; P = .03). There was no significant difference in pain freedom.

After 24 hours, the treatment group was more likely to experience pain relief from moderate/severe to no pain or mild (24% vs 3%; P = .05) and to be free from associated symptoms (48% vs 21%; P = .027). Pain at the injection site was significantly higher in the placebo group (5.4 vs 3.2), prompting a change in plans for future trials. “I don’t think I would do saline again, because I think it hurt them, and I don’t want to cause them harm,” said Dr. Szperka.

Adverse events were common, with all but one patient in the study experiencing at least one. “I think this is a couple of things: One, kids don’t like needles in their head. Nerve blocks hurt. And so it was not surprising in some ways that we had a very high rate of adverse events. We also consented them, and that had a long wait period, and there’s a lot of anxiety in the room. However, most of the adverse events were mild,” said Dr. Szperka.
 

Important Research in an Understudied Population

Laine Greene, MD, who moderated the session, was asked for comment. “I think it’s an important study. Occipital nerve blocks have been used for a long period of time in management of migraine and other headache disorders. The quality of the evidence has always been brought into question, especially from payers, but also a very important aspect to this is that a lot of clinical trials over time have not specifically been done in children or adolescents, so any work that is done in that age category is significantly helpful to advancing therapeutics,” said Dr. Greene, associate professor of neurology at Mayo Clinic Arizona.

Dr. Szperka has consulted for AbbVie and Teva, and serves on data safety and monitoring boards for Eli Lilly and Upsher-Smith. She has been a principal investigator in trials sponsored by Abbvie, Amgen, Biohaven/Pfizer, Teva, and Theranica. Dr. Greene has no relevant financial disclosures.

SAN DIEGO — Susceptibility to post-traumatic headache could be linked to mutations in ion channel and ion transporter genes, according to results from a preliminary study.

Post-traumatic headache is a common symptom of traumatic brain injury (TBI).

There is evidence that genetic mutations could play a role in both TBI development and response. In particular, the S213L mutation for familial hemiplegic migraine-1 (FHM1), found in the CACNA1A gene, can cause individuals carrying it to be highly sensitive to otherwise trivial head impacts, according to Lyn Griffiths, PhD.

The consequences can be post-traumatic headache, but also seizures, cerebral edema, coma, or worse. Another form of FHM is associated with mutations in ATP1A2.

“This stimulated our interest in looking at genes that relate to TBI with a particular focus on ion channel genes,” said Dr. Griffiths, during a presentation of the study at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society.

The researchers analyzed data from 117 participants who had at least one concussion with a post-traumatic headache, and recruited family members when possible. There were 15 participants who developed severe reactions to trivial head trauma, 13 who had been diagnosed with concussion and underwent imaging related to TBI-associated symptoms, 54 who had been recruited through local sporting groups campuses, and 35 recruited through a medical research foundation. Blood or saliva samples were used to perform whole exome sequencing.

The researchers looked for gene candidates within different tiers. Tier 1 included genes that had already been implicated in severe migraine. The second tier included 353 ion channel and iron transporter genes. Tier 3 comprised neurotransmission-related genes.

After sequencing, the researchers filtered genetic mutations to include only those that affected amino acid composition of the protein, were predicted by two or more in silico analysis tools to be damaging, and were identified in multiple, unrelated patients.

In tier 2, the greatest number of potential damaging variants were found in the SCN9A gene, which is involved in pain perception and processing. There were six variants found in eight cases. Of these eight individuals, three had suffered severe reactions to relatively minor head trauma.

In tier 3, the researchers identified mutations in eight neurotransmitter-related genes.

Through comparison with a general population control group, the researchers identified 43 different rare, amino acid–changing variants that occurred within 16 ion channel and ion channel transporter genes. These mutations were found in 53 individuals, at an approximately fivefold higher frequency than the control group (odds ratio, 5.6; P < .0001).

“We identified a number of rare genetic variants implicated in migraine — ion channel and other neurologically associated genes — in those suffering from post-traumatic headache,” said Dr. Griffiths. She also noted that the whole genomes they collected will allow for further analysis of other gene candidates in the future.

During the Q&A period, Dr. Griffiths was asked if the research group tracked the severity of the TBIs suffered by participants. She responded that they had not, and this was a limitation of the study.

Another questioner asked if parents should consider genetic testing for susceptibility mutations when considering whether to allow a child to participate in sports or activities with elevated risk of TBI. “I don’t necessarily think this is a bad thing,” she said, though she conceded that the work is still immature. “It’s probably a bit early because we haven’t identified all the genes that are involved or all the specific mutations ... but I think down the track, that makes perfect sense. Why would you not do some sensible preventive screening to aid with things like maybe you wear more headgear or you consider what’s the appropriate sport for that person?”

Laine Green, MD, assistant professor of neurology at Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, who moderated the session, was asked for comment. “I think the idea of potentially identifying people that have more genetic susceptibility to injuries is very intriguing, because post-traumatic headache and symptoms is always a difficult area to treat, potentially identifying those that with more genetic susceptibility might be helpful. It may also potentially allow us to target specific treatments, especially in this case, looking at different ion channels. There are medications that may work better at ion channel targets than other targets,” said Dr. Green.

He also endorsed the potential value of screening. “Speaking as a parent, I might like to know my child is at higher risk if they’re going to participate in contact sports or other high risk activities,” he said.

Dr. Griffiths and Dr. Green have no relevant financial disclosures.

SAN DIEGO — Susceptibility to post-traumatic headache could be linked to mutations in ion channel and ion transporter genes, according to results from a preliminary study.

Post-traumatic headache is a common symptom of traumatic brain injury (TBI).

There is evidence that genetic mutations could play a role in both TBI development and response. In particular, the S213L mutation for familial hemiplegic migraine-1 (FHM1), found in the CACNA1A gene, can cause individuals carrying it to be highly sensitive to otherwise trivial head impacts, according to Lyn Griffiths, PhD.

The consequences can be post-traumatic headache, but also seizures, cerebral edema, coma, or worse. Another form of FHM is associated with mutations in ATP1A2.

“This stimulated our interest in looking at genes that relate to TBI with a particular focus on ion channel genes,” said Dr. Griffiths, during a presentation of the study at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society.

The researchers analyzed data from 117 participants who had at least one concussion with a post-traumatic headache, and recruited family members when possible. There were 15 participants who developed severe reactions to trivial head trauma, 13 who had been diagnosed with concussion and underwent imaging related to TBI-associated symptoms, 54 who had been recruited through local sporting groups campuses, and 35 recruited through a medical research foundation. Blood or saliva samples were used to perform whole exome sequencing.

The researchers looked for gene candidates within different tiers. Tier 1 included genes that had already been implicated in severe migraine. The second tier included 353 ion channel and iron transporter genes. Tier 3 comprised neurotransmission-related genes.

After sequencing, the researchers filtered genetic mutations to include only those that affected amino acid composition of the protein, were predicted by two or more in silico analysis tools to be damaging, and were identified in multiple, unrelated patients.

In tier 2, the greatest number of potential damaging variants were found in the SCN9A gene, which is involved in pain perception and processing. There were six variants found in eight cases. Of these eight individuals, three had suffered severe reactions to relatively minor head trauma.

In tier 3, the researchers identified mutations in eight neurotransmitter-related genes.

Through comparison with a general population control group, the researchers identified 43 different rare, amino acid–changing variants that occurred within 16 ion channel and ion channel transporter genes. These mutations were found in 53 individuals, at an approximately fivefold higher frequency than the control group (odds ratio, 5.6; P < .0001).

“We identified a number of rare genetic variants implicated in migraine — ion channel and other neurologically associated genes — in those suffering from post-traumatic headache,” said Dr. Griffiths. She also noted that the whole genomes they collected will allow for further analysis of other gene candidates in the future.

During the Q&A period, Dr. Griffiths was asked if the research group tracked the severity of the TBIs suffered by participants. She responded that they had not, and this was a limitation of the study.

Another questioner asked if parents should consider genetic testing for susceptibility mutations when considering whether to allow a child to participate in sports or activities with elevated risk of TBI. “I don’t necessarily think this is a bad thing,” she said, though she conceded that the work is still immature. “It’s probably a bit early because we haven’t identified all the genes that are involved or all the specific mutations ... but I think down the track, that makes perfect sense. Why would you not do some sensible preventive screening to aid with things like maybe you wear more headgear or you consider what’s the appropriate sport for that person?”

Laine Green, MD, assistant professor of neurology at Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, who moderated the session, was asked for comment. “I think the idea of potentially identifying people that have more genetic susceptibility to injuries is very intriguing, because post-traumatic headache and symptoms is always a difficult area to treat, potentially identifying those that with more genetic susceptibility might be helpful. It may also potentially allow us to target specific treatments, especially in this case, looking at different ion channels. There are medications that may work better at ion channel targets than other targets,” said Dr. Green.

He also endorsed the potential value of screening. “Speaking as a parent, I might like to know my child is at higher risk if they’re going to participate in contact sports or other high risk activities,” he said.

Dr. Griffiths and Dr. Green have no relevant financial disclosures.

SAN DIEGO — Susceptibility to post-traumatic headache could be linked to mutations in ion channel and ion transporter genes, according to results from a preliminary study.

Post-traumatic headache is a common symptom of traumatic brain injury (TBI).

There is evidence that genetic mutations could play a role in both TBI development and response. In particular, the S213L mutation for familial hemiplegic migraine-1 (FHM1), found in the CACNA1A gene, can cause individuals carrying it to be highly sensitive to otherwise trivial head impacts, according to Lyn Griffiths, PhD.

The consequences can be post-traumatic headache, but also seizures, cerebral edema, coma, or worse. Another form of FHM is associated with mutations in ATP1A2.

“This stimulated our interest in looking at genes that relate to TBI with a particular focus on ion channel genes,” said Dr. Griffiths, during a presentation of the study at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society.

The researchers analyzed data from 117 participants who had at least one concussion with a post-traumatic headache, and recruited family members when possible. There were 15 participants who developed severe reactions to trivial head trauma, 13 who had been diagnosed with concussion and underwent imaging related to TBI-associated symptoms, 54 who had been recruited through local sporting groups campuses, and 35 recruited through a medical research foundation. Blood or saliva samples were used to perform whole exome sequencing.

The researchers looked for gene candidates within different tiers. Tier 1 included genes that had already been implicated in severe migraine. The second tier included 353 ion channel and iron transporter genes. Tier 3 comprised neurotransmission-related genes.

After sequencing, the researchers filtered genetic mutations to include only those that affected amino acid composition of the protein, were predicted by two or more in silico analysis tools to be damaging, and were identified in multiple, unrelated patients.

In tier 2, the greatest number of potential damaging variants were found in the SCN9A gene, which is involved in pain perception and processing. There were six variants found in eight cases. Of these eight individuals, three had suffered severe reactions to relatively minor head trauma.

In tier 3, the researchers identified mutations in eight neurotransmitter-related genes.

Through comparison with a general population control group, the researchers identified 43 different rare, amino acid–changing variants that occurred within 16 ion channel and ion channel transporter genes. These mutations were found in 53 individuals, at an approximately fivefold higher frequency than the control group (odds ratio, 5.6; P < .0001).

“We identified a number of rare genetic variants implicated in migraine — ion channel and other neurologically associated genes — in those suffering from post-traumatic headache,” said Dr. Griffiths. She also noted that the whole genomes they collected will allow for further analysis of other gene candidates in the future.

During the Q&A period, Dr. Griffiths was asked if the research group tracked the severity of the TBIs suffered by participants. She responded that they had not, and this was a limitation of the study.

Another questioner asked if parents should consider genetic testing for susceptibility mutations when considering whether to allow a child to participate in sports or activities with elevated risk of TBI. “I don’t necessarily think this is a bad thing,” she said, though she conceded that the work is still immature. “It’s probably a bit early because we haven’t identified all the genes that are involved or all the specific mutations ... but I think down the track, that makes perfect sense. Why would you not do some sensible preventive screening to aid with things like maybe you wear more headgear or you consider what’s the appropriate sport for that person?”

Laine Green, MD, assistant professor of neurology at Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, who moderated the session, was asked for comment. “I think the idea of potentially identifying people that have more genetic susceptibility to injuries is very intriguing, because post-traumatic headache and symptoms is always a difficult area to treat, potentially identifying those that with more genetic susceptibility might be helpful. It may also potentially allow us to target specific treatments, especially in this case, looking at different ion channels. There are medications that may work better at ion channel targets than other targets,” said Dr. Green.

He also endorsed the potential value of screening. “Speaking as a parent, I might like to know my child is at higher risk if they’re going to participate in contact sports or other high risk activities,” he said.

Dr. Griffiths and Dr. Green have no relevant financial disclosures.

Key clinical point: High adherence to the carbohydrate quality index (CQI) was associated with a significant reduction in headache severity and duration in women with migraine.

Major finding: High CQI adherence was associated with low odds of moderate pain (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.37; P = .01), severe pain (aOR 0.22; P = .001), and prolonged headache duration (aOR 0.54; P = .03). Moreover, there was no significant correlation between CQI and migraine disability assessment scores (P > .05).

Study details: This cross-sectional study assessed the association of CQI with headache severity, disability, and duration in 266 women with migraine using a 147-item semiquantitative food frequency questionnaire.

Disclosures: The authors did not disclose any source of funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Jebraeili H, Mirzababaei A, Abaj F, Mirzaei K. The association between carbohydrate quality index and headache severity, disability and duration among women with migraine: A cross-sectional study. Nutr Neurosci. 2024 (May 28). doi: 10.1080/1028415X.2024.2310880 Source

Key clinical point: High adherence to the carbohydrate quality index (CQI) was associated with a significant reduction in headache severity and duration in women with migraine.

Major finding: High CQI adherence was associated with low odds of moderate pain (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.37; P = .01), severe pain (aOR 0.22; P = .001), and prolonged headache duration (aOR 0.54; P = .03). Moreover, there was no significant correlation between CQI and migraine disability assessment scores (P > .05).

Study details: This cross-sectional study assessed the association of CQI with headache severity, disability, and duration in 266 women with migraine using a 147-item semiquantitative food frequency questionnaire.

Disclosures: The authors did not disclose any source of funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Jebraeili H, Mirzababaei A, Abaj F, Mirzaei K. The association between carbohydrate quality index and headache severity, disability and duration among women with migraine: A cross-sectional study. Nutr Neurosci. 2024 (May 28). doi: 10.1080/1028415X.2024.2310880 Source

Key clinical point: High adherence to the carbohydrate quality index (CQI) was associated with a significant reduction in headache severity and duration in women with migraine.

Major finding: High CQI adherence was associated with low odds of moderate pain (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.37; P = .01), severe pain (aOR 0.22; P = .001), and prolonged headache duration (aOR 0.54; P = .03). Moreover, there was no significant correlation between CQI and migraine disability assessment scores (P > .05).

Study details: This cross-sectional study assessed the association of CQI with headache severity, disability, and duration in 266 women with migraine using a 147-item semiquantitative food frequency questionnaire.

Disclosures: The authors did not disclose any source of funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Jebraeili H, Mirzababaei A, Abaj F, Mirzaei K. The association between carbohydrate quality index and headache severity, disability and duration among women with migraine: A cross-sectional study. Nutr Neurosci. 2024 (May 28). doi: 10.1080/1028415X.2024.2310880 Source

Key clinical point: Calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibodies (mAb) were more effective than onabotulinumtoxinA in patients with chronic migraine (CM), even in those who were difficult-to-treat (DTT) and did not respond to ≥3 preventive treatments.

Major finding: At 6 months, CGRP mAb vs onabotulinumtoxinA significantly reduced monthly migraine days (−13.0 vs −8.7 days/month; P < .001) in overall populations, with a similar reduction observed in those who were DTT (−13.0 vs −9.1 days/month; P < .001). Both treatments were well tolerated, with no treatment discontinuation being observed because of adverse events.

Study details: This multicenter, real-world study included 316 and 333 patients with CM who received ≥1 dose of CGRP mAb and onabotulinumtoxinA, respectively, and of whom 544 were DTT and had failed to respond ≥3 preventive treatments.

Disclosures: This study was funded by Taiwan National Science and Technology Council and others. Three authors declared receiving research grants, personal fees as advisors or speakers, or honoraria as speakers from various sources.

Source: Wang Y-F, Yang F-C, Chen L-A, et al. Comparative effectiveness and tolerability of calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibodies and onabotulinumtoxinA in chronic migraine: A multicenter, real-world study in Taiwan. Eur J Neurol. 2024 :e16372 (Jun 5). doi: 10.1111/ene.16372 Source

Key clinical point: Calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibodies (mAb) were more effective than onabotulinumtoxinA in patients with chronic migraine (CM), even in those who were difficult-to-treat (DTT) and did not respond to ≥3 preventive treatments.

Major finding: At 6 months, CGRP mAb vs onabotulinumtoxinA significantly reduced monthly migraine days (−13.0 vs −8.7 days/month; P < .001) in overall populations, with a similar reduction observed in those who were DTT (−13.0 vs −9.1 days/month; P < .001). Both treatments were well tolerated, with no treatment discontinuation being observed because of adverse events.

Study details: This multicenter, real-world study included 316 and 333 patients with CM who received ≥1 dose of CGRP mAb and onabotulinumtoxinA, respectively, and of whom 544 were DTT and had failed to respond ≥3 preventive treatments.

Disclosures: This study was funded by Taiwan National Science and Technology Council and others. Three authors declared receiving research grants, personal fees as advisors or speakers, or honoraria as speakers from various sources.

Source: Wang Y-F, Yang F-C, Chen L-A, et al. Comparative effectiveness and tolerability of calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibodies and onabotulinumtoxinA in chronic migraine: A multicenter, real-world study in Taiwan. Eur J Neurol. 2024 :e16372 (Jun 5). doi: 10.1111/ene.16372 Source

Key clinical point: Calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibodies (mAb) were more effective than onabotulinumtoxinA in patients with chronic migraine (CM), even in those who were difficult-to-treat (DTT) and did not respond to ≥3 preventive treatments.

Major finding: At 6 months, CGRP mAb vs onabotulinumtoxinA significantly reduced monthly migraine days (−13.0 vs −8.7 days/month; P < .001) in overall populations, with a similar reduction observed in those who were DTT (−13.0 vs −9.1 days/month; P < .001). Both treatments were well tolerated, with no treatment discontinuation being observed because of adverse events.

Study details: This multicenter, real-world study included 316 and 333 patients with CM who received ≥1 dose of CGRP mAb and onabotulinumtoxinA, respectively, and of whom 544 were DTT and had failed to respond ≥3 preventive treatments.

Disclosures: This study was funded by Taiwan National Science and Technology Council and others. Three authors declared receiving research grants, personal fees as advisors or speakers, or honoraria as speakers from various sources.

Source: Wang Y-F, Yang F-C, Chen L-A, et al. Comparative effectiveness and tolerability of calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibodies and onabotulinumtoxinA in chronic migraine: A multicenter, real-world study in Taiwan. Eur J Neurol. 2024 :e16372 (Jun 5). doi: 10.1111/ene.16372 Source

Key clinical point: Patients with migraine who switched one or multiple times among available anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibody (mAb) treatments showed lower treatment response and higher disease burden than those who adhered to one anti-CGRP mAb treatment.

Major finding: Overall, 73.1% patients did not switch their anti-CGRP mAb, while 20.6% switched once, 5.4% switched twice, and 0.9% switched three or more times. The ≥50% response rate for monthly migraine days was 64.7% in patients who did not switch among anti-CGRP mAb, but it worsened in those who switched once (50.7%) or twice (25.0%) during their last treatment cycle.

Study details: This real-world retrospective study used data from the Neuro TransData registry and included 655 patients with migraine who received at least one anti-CGRP mAb.

Disclosures: The authors did not disclose any source of funding. The authors declared no competing interests.

Source: Hong JB, Israel-Willner H, Peikert A, et al, and the NTD Study Group. Therapeutic patterns and migraine disease burden in switchers of CGRP-targeted monoclonal antibodies — insights from the German NeuroTransData registry. J Headache Pain. 2024;25:90 (Jun 3). doi: 10.1186/s10194-024-01790-7 Source

Key clinical point: Patients with migraine who switched one or multiple times among available anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibody (mAb) treatments showed lower treatment response and higher disease burden than those who adhered to one anti-CGRP mAb treatment.

Major finding: Overall, 73.1% patients did not switch their anti-CGRP mAb, while 20.6% switched once, 5.4% switched twice, and 0.9% switched three or more times. The ≥50% response rate for monthly migraine days was 64.7% in patients who did not switch among anti-CGRP mAb, but it worsened in those who switched once (50.7%) or twice (25.0%) during their last treatment cycle.

Study details: This real-world retrospective study used data from the Neuro TransData registry and included 655 patients with migraine who received at least one anti-CGRP mAb.

Disclosures: The authors did not disclose any source of funding. The authors declared no competing interests.

Source: Hong JB, Israel-Willner H, Peikert A, et al, and the NTD Study Group. Therapeutic patterns and migraine disease burden in switchers of CGRP-targeted monoclonal antibodies — insights from the German NeuroTransData registry. J Headache Pain. 2024;25:90 (Jun 3). doi: 10.1186/s10194-024-01790-7 Source

Key clinical point: Patients with migraine who switched one or multiple times among available anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibody (mAb) treatments showed lower treatment response and higher disease burden than those who adhered to one anti-CGRP mAb treatment.

Major finding: Overall, 73.1% patients did not switch their anti-CGRP mAb, while 20.6% switched once, 5.4% switched twice, and 0.9% switched three or more times. The ≥50% response rate for monthly migraine days was 64.7% in patients who did not switch among anti-CGRP mAb, but it worsened in those who switched once (50.7%) or twice (25.0%) during their last treatment cycle.

Study details: This real-world retrospective study used data from the Neuro TransData registry and included 655 patients with migraine who received at least one anti-CGRP mAb.

Disclosures: The authors did not disclose any source of funding. The authors declared no competing interests.

Source: Hong JB, Israel-Willner H, Peikert A, et al, and the NTD Study Group. Therapeutic patterns and migraine disease burden in switchers of CGRP-targeted monoclonal antibodies — insights from the German NeuroTransData registry. J Headache Pain. 2024;25:90 (Jun 3). doi: 10.1186/s10194-024-01790-7 Source

Key clinical point: A meta-analysis of real-world studies provided strong evidence that erenumab was effective and safe in patients with migraine.

Major finding: At 3 months, erenumab significantly reduced monthly migraine days (mean difference [MD] −7.18 days), monthly headache days (MD −6.89 days), headache impact test-6 scores (MD −6.97), medication days (MD −6.22 days), acute monthly intake (MD −15.75), and pain intensity (MD −1.71), and the results were consistent at 6 and 12 months. The proportion change difference of any adverse event was 0.34 and 0.43 at 6 and 12 months, respectively, with constipation being the most common adverse event (0.19 and 0.20 at 6 and 12 months, respectively).

Study details: Findings are from a meta-analysis of 53 real-world studies including 6509 patients with migraine who were treated with erenumab.

Disclosures: This study was funded by the University of Castilla – La Mancha, Spain. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Fernández-Bravo-Rodrigo J, Cavero-Redondo I, Lucerón-Lucas-Torres M, et al. Real-world effectiveness and safety of erenumab for the treatment of migraine: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Pharmacol. 2024;975:176702 (May 31). doi: 10.1016/j.ejphar.2024.17670 Source

Key clinical point: A meta-analysis of real-world studies provided strong evidence that erenumab was effective and safe in patients with migraine.

Major finding: At 3 months, erenumab significantly reduced monthly migraine days (mean difference [MD] −7.18 days), monthly headache days (MD −6.89 days), headache impact test-6 scores (MD −6.97), medication days (MD −6.22 days), acute monthly intake (MD −15.75), and pain intensity (MD −1.71), and the results were consistent at 6 and 12 months. The proportion change difference of any adverse event was 0.34 and 0.43 at 6 and 12 months, respectively, with constipation being the most common adverse event (0.19 and 0.20 at 6 and 12 months, respectively).

Study details: Findings are from a meta-analysis of 53 real-world studies including 6509 patients with migraine who were treated with erenumab.

Disclosures: This study was funded by the University of Castilla – La Mancha, Spain. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Fernández-Bravo-Rodrigo J, Cavero-Redondo I, Lucerón-Lucas-Torres M, et al. Real-world effectiveness and safety of erenumab for the treatment of migraine: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Pharmacol. 2024;975:176702 (May 31). doi: 10.1016/j.ejphar.2024.17670 Source

Key clinical point: A meta-analysis of real-world studies provided strong evidence that erenumab was effective and safe in patients with migraine.

Major finding: At 3 months, erenumab significantly reduced monthly migraine days (mean difference [MD] −7.18 days), monthly headache days (MD −6.89 days), headache impact test-6 scores (MD −6.97), medication days (MD −6.22 days), acute monthly intake (MD −15.75), and pain intensity (MD −1.71), and the results were consistent at 6 and 12 months. The proportion change difference of any adverse event was 0.34 and 0.43 at 6 and 12 months, respectively, with constipation being the most common adverse event (0.19 and 0.20 at 6 and 12 months, respectively).

Study details: Findings are from a meta-analysis of 53 real-world studies including 6509 patients with migraine who were treated with erenumab.

Disclosures: This study was funded by the University of Castilla – La Mancha, Spain. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Fernández-Bravo-Rodrigo J, Cavero-Redondo I, Lucerón-Lucas-Torres M, et al. Real-world effectiveness and safety of erenumab for the treatment of migraine: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Pharmacol. 2024;975:176702 (May 31). doi: 10.1016/j.ejphar.2024.17670 Source

Key clinical point: Migraine, migraine with aura (MA), and migraine without aura (MO) were not associated with a higher risk for atrial fibrillation (AF), with migraine and its subtypes serving as a protective factor for AF in individuals age ≥ 55 years with migraine.

Major finding: No significant association was found between migraine (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.76; 95% CI 0.48-1.18), MA (aHR 1.00; 95% CI 0.59-1.70), or MO (aHR 0.50; 95% CI 0.23-1.06) and the risk for AF. However, among patients age ≥ 55 years, the risk for AF was significantly lower in those with migraine (aHR 0.53; 95% CI 0.39-0.73), MA (aHR 0.58; 95% CI 0.38-0.87), or MO (aHR 0.48; 95% CI 0.30-0.78) than in those without headache.

Study details: This prospective, population-based 9-year follow-up study included 39,340 individuals (age ≥ 20 years) without AF who answered the headache questionnaire during the Trøndelag Health Study; of these, 1524 (3.8%) developed AF.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any specific funding from any sources. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Giri S, Tronvik E, Dalen H, et al. Migraine and risk of atrial fibrillation: A 9-year follow-up based on the Trøndelag Health Study. Cephalalgia. 2024 (May 29). doi: 10.1177/03331024241254517 Source

Key clinical point: Migraine, migraine with aura (MA), and migraine without aura (MO) were not associated with a higher risk for atrial fibrillation (AF), with migraine and its subtypes serving as a protective factor for AF in individuals age ≥ 55 years with migraine.

Major finding: No significant association was found between migraine (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.76; 95% CI 0.48-1.18), MA (aHR 1.00; 95% CI 0.59-1.70), or MO (aHR 0.50; 95% CI 0.23-1.06) and the risk for AF. However, among patients age ≥ 55 years, the risk for AF was significantly lower in those with migraine (aHR 0.53; 95% CI 0.39-0.73), MA (aHR 0.58; 95% CI 0.38-0.87), or MO (aHR 0.48; 95% CI 0.30-0.78) than in those without headache.

Study details: This prospective, population-based 9-year follow-up study included 39,340 individuals (age ≥ 20 years) without AF who answered the headache questionnaire during the Trøndelag Health Study; of these, 1524 (3.8%) developed AF.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any specific funding from any sources. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Giri S, Tronvik E, Dalen H, et al. Migraine and risk of atrial fibrillation: A 9-year follow-up based on the Trøndelag Health Study. Cephalalgia. 2024 (May 29). doi: 10.1177/03331024241254517 Source

Key clinical point: Migraine, migraine with aura (MA), and migraine without aura (MO) were not associated with a higher risk for atrial fibrillation (AF), with migraine and its subtypes serving as a protective factor for AF in individuals age ≥ 55 years with migraine.

Major finding: No significant association was found between migraine (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.76; 95% CI 0.48-1.18), MA (aHR 1.00; 95% CI 0.59-1.70), or MO (aHR 0.50; 95% CI 0.23-1.06) and the risk for AF. However, among patients age ≥ 55 years, the risk for AF was significantly lower in those with migraine (aHR 0.53; 95% CI 0.39-0.73), MA (aHR 0.58; 95% CI 0.38-0.87), or MO (aHR 0.48; 95% CI 0.30-0.78) than in those without headache.

Study details: This prospective, population-based 9-year follow-up study included 39,340 individuals (age ≥ 20 years) without AF who answered the headache questionnaire during the Trøndelag Health Study; of these, 1524 (3.8%) developed AF.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any specific funding from any sources. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Giri S, Tronvik E, Dalen H, et al. Migraine and risk of atrial fibrillation: A 9-year follow-up based on the Trøndelag Health Study. Cephalalgia. 2024 (May 29). doi: 10.1177/03331024241254517 Source

Key clinical point: Anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibodies (mAb) were well tolerated and effective in treating high-frequency episodic or chronic migraine, with factors such as unilateral pain, fewer migraine days, and lower disability associated with good and excellent responses to anti-CGRP mAb treatment.

Major finding: At 6 months, 56.5% and 26.7% patients receiving anti-CGRP mAb showed good and excellent responses (≥50% vs ≥75% reduction in monthly headache days), respectively. The presence of unilateral pain, fewer monthly migraine days, and a low Migraine Disability Assessment Score were independent predictors of good (area under the curve [AUC] 0.648; 95% CI 0.616-0.680) and excellent (AUC 0.691; 95% CI 0.651-0.731) responses to anti-CGRP mAb treatment.

Study details: This prospective multicenter real-world study included 4963 patients with high-frequency episodic or chronic migraine who received anti-CGRP mAb treatment with a 6-month follow-up.

Disclosures: This study did not receive specific funding from any sources. Several authors declared receiving speaker honoraria, travel grants, or honoraria from or having other ties with various sources.

Source: Caronna E, Gallardo VJ, Egeo G, et al, for the EUREkA study group. Redefining migraine prevention: Early treatment with anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies enhances response in the real world. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2024 (May 22). doi: 10.1136/jnnp-2023-333295 Source

Key clinical point: Anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibodies (mAb) were well tolerated and effective in treating high-frequency episodic or chronic migraine, with factors such as unilateral pain, fewer migraine days, and lower disability associated with good and excellent responses to anti-CGRP mAb treatment.

Major finding: At 6 months, 56.5% and 26.7% patients receiving anti-CGRP mAb showed good and excellent responses (≥50% vs ≥75% reduction in monthly headache days), respectively. The presence of unilateral pain, fewer monthly migraine days, and a low Migraine Disability Assessment Score were independent predictors of good (area under the curve [AUC] 0.648; 95% CI 0.616-0.680) and excellent (AUC 0.691; 95% CI 0.651-0.731) responses to anti-CGRP mAb treatment.

Study details: This prospective multicenter real-world study included 4963 patients with high-frequency episodic or chronic migraine who received anti-CGRP mAb treatment with a 6-month follow-up.

Disclosures: This study did not receive specific funding from any sources. Several authors declared receiving speaker honoraria, travel grants, or honoraria from or having other ties with various sources.

Source: Caronna E, Gallardo VJ, Egeo G, et al, for the EUREkA study group. Redefining migraine prevention: Early treatment with anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies enhances response in the real world. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2024 (May 22). doi: 10.1136/jnnp-2023-333295 Source

Key clinical point: Anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibodies (mAb) were well tolerated and effective in treating high-frequency episodic or chronic migraine, with factors such as unilateral pain, fewer migraine days, and lower disability associated with good and excellent responses to anti-CGRP mAb treatment.

Major finding: At 6 months, 56.5% and 26.7% patients receiving anti-CGRP mAb showed good and excellent responses (≥50% vs ≥75% reduction in monthly headache days), respectively. The presence of unilateral pain, fewer monthly migraine days, and a low Migraine Disability Assessment Score were independent predictors of good (area under the curve [AUC] 0.648; 95% CI 0.616-0.680) and excellent (AUC 0.691; 95% CI 0.651-0.731) responses to anti-CGRP mAb treatment.

Study details: This prospective multicenter real-world study included 4963 patients with high-frequency episodic or chronic migraine who received anti-CGRP mAb treatment with a 6-month follow-up.

Disclosures: This study did not receive specific funding from any sources. Several authors declared receiving speaker honoraria, travel grants, or honoraria from or having other ties with various sources.

Source: Caronna E, Gallardo VJ, Egeo G, et al, for the EUREkA study group. Redefining migraine prevention: Early treatment with anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies enhances response in the real world. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2024 (May 22). doi: 10.1136/jnnp-2023-333295 Source

Key clinical point: A high proportion of patients with episodic migraine (EM) who achieved an initial response to atogepant showed a sustained response with continued treatment.

Major finding: In the ADVANCE trial, over 70% of participants who achieved an initial ≥50% response with atogepant during the first month sustained their response over 12 weeks. Similarly, in the long-term safety (LTS) trial, 84.7% of those who achieved an initial ≥50% response with atogepant during the first 12 weeks sustained their response through weeks 24-48.

Study details: Findings are from a post hoc analysis of the ADVANCE trial (n = 659) and open-label LTS trial (n = 521) that included patients with EM who were randomly assigned to receive atogepant or placebo once daily for 12 weeks and atogepant or standard care once daily for 52 weeks, respectively.

Disclosures: The study was funded by AbbVie. Some authors declared being full-time employees of or holding stocks in AbbVie or having other ties with various sources.

Source: Lipton RB, Nahas SJ, Pozo-Rosich P, et al. Sustained response to atogepant in episodic migraine: Post hoc analyses of a 12-week randomized trial and a 52-week long-term safety trial. J Headache Pain. 2024;25:83 (May 21). doi: 10.1186/s10194-024-01783-6 Source

Key clinical point: A high proportion of patients with episodic migraine (EM) who achieved an initial response to atogepant showed a sustained response with continued treatment.

Major finding: In the ADVANCE trial, over 70% of participants who achieved an initial ≥50% response with atogepant during the first month sustained their response over 12 weeks. Similarly, in the long-term safety (LTS) trial, 84.7% of those who achieved an initial ≥50% response with atogepant during the first 12 weeks sustained their response through weeks 24-48.

Study details: Findings are from a post hoc analysis of the ADVANCE trial (n = 659) and open-label LTS trial (n = 521) that included patients with EM who were randomly assigned to receive atogepant or placebo once daily for 12 weeks and atogepant or standard care once daily for 52 weeks, respectively.

Disclosures: The study was funded by AbbVie. Some authors declared being full-time employees of or holding stocks in AbbVie or having other ties with various sources.

Source: Lipton RB, Nahas SJ, Pozo-Rosich P, et al. Sustained response to atogepant in episodic migraine: Post hoc analyses of a 12-week randomized trial and a 52-week long-term safety trial. J Headache Pain. 2024;25:83 (May 21). doi: 10.1186/s10194-024-01783-6 Source

Key clinical point: A high proportion of patients with episodic migraine (EM) who achieved an initial response to atogepant showed a sustained response with continued treatment.

Major finding: In the ADVANCE trial, over 70% of participants who achieved an initial ≥50% response with atogepant during the first month sustained their response over 12 weeks. Similarly, in the long-term safety (LTS) trial, 84.7% of those who achieved an initial ≥50% response with atogepant during the first 12 weeks sustained their response through weeks 24-48.

Study details: Findings are from a post hoc analysis of the ADVANCE trial (n = 659) and open-label LTS trial (n = 521) that included patients with EM who were randomly assigned to receive atogepant or placebo once daily for 12 weeks and atogepant or standard care once daily for 52 weeks, respectively.

Disclosures: The study was funded by AbbVie. Some authors declared being full-time employees of or holding stocks in AbbVie or having other ties with various sources.

Source: Lipton RB, Nahas SJ, Pozo-Rosich P, et al. Sustained response to atogepant in episodic migraine: Post hoc analyses of a 12-week randomized trial and a 52-week long-term safety trial. J Headache Pain. 2024;25:83 (May 21). doi: 10.1186/s10194-024-01783-6 Source