Headache & Migraine

Key clinical point: Galcanezumab is safe and effective in the prophylactic treatment of adult migraine.

Major finding: Compared with placebo, galcanezumab at doses of 120, 150, 240, and 300 mg significantly reduced monthly migraine days (mean difference [MD], −1.79, −1.20, −1.85, and –0.62, respectively). Reduction in migraine-specific medication days was statistically significant for galcanezumab doses of 120 and 240 mg vs. placebo. Total adverse events did not differ significantly between galcanezumab and placebo.

Study details: Meta-analysis of 5 studies evaluated the safety and efficacy of galcanezumab in the prophylactic treatment of adult migraine. 

Disclosures: No study sponsor was identified. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Citation: Zhao X et al. J Neurol. 2020 Jan 31. doi: 10.1007/s00415-020-09707-5. 

Key clinical point: Galcanezumab is safe and effective in the prophylactic treatment of adult migraine.

Major finding: Compared with placebo, galcanezumab at doses of 120, 150, 240, and 300 mg significantly reduced monthly migraine days (mean difference [MD], −1.79, −1.20, −1.85, and –0.62, respectively). Reduction in migraine-specific medication days was statistically significant for galcanezumab doses of 120 and 240 mg vs. placebo. Total adverse events did not differ significantly between galcanezumab and placebo.

Study details: Meta-analysis of 5 studies evaluated the safety and efficacy of galcanezumab in the prophylactic treatment of adult migraine. 

Disclosures: No study sponsor was identified. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Citation: Zhao X et al. J Neurol. 2020 Jan 31. doi: 10.1007/s00415-020-09707-5. 

Key clinical point: Galcanezumab is safe and effective in the prophylactic treatment of adult migraine.

Major finding: Compared with placebo, galcanezumab at doses of 120, 150, 240, and 300 mg significantly reduced monthly migraine days (mean difference [MD], −1.79, −1.20, −1.85, and –0.62, respectively). Reduction in migraine-specific medication days was statistically significant for galcanezumab doses of 120 and 240 mg vs. placebo. Total adverse events did not differ significantly between galcanezumab and placebo.

Study details: Meta-analysis of 5 studies evaluated the safety and efficacy of galcanezumab in the prophylactic treatment of adult migraine. 

Disclosures: No study sponsor was identified. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Citation: Zhao X et al. J Neurol. 2020 Jan 31. doi: 10.1007/s00415-020-09707-5. 

Key clinical point: Intravenous (IV) eptinezumab could be a safe and effective preventive therapy for adult patients with episodic migraine.

Main finding: Eptinezumab 100 and 300 mg significantly reduced monthly migraine days across weeks 1-12 compared with the placebo (difference from placebo for 100 and 300 mg: –0.69; P = .0182 and –1.11; P = .0001, respectively). Safety and tolerability of eptinezumab across doses were acceptable compared with placebo, with no dose-related trend in the nature, frequency, or severity of treatment-related adverse events.

Study details: In phase 3, multicenter, double-blind, parallel-group study, 888 patients were randomly assigned to IV eptinezumab (30, 100, and 300 mg) or placebo administered every 12 weeks. 

Disclosures: The study was funded by H. Lundbeck A/S, Copenhagen, Denmark. Some of the authors were full-time employees of or contracted to Lundbeck Seattle BioPharmaceuticals, Inc. (previously known as Alder BioPharmaceuticals, Inc.), a subsidiary H. Lundbeck A/S. Some also were stockholders of Lundbeck Seattle BioPharmaceuticals, Inc.

Citation: Ashina M et al. Cephalalgia. 2020 Feb 19. doi: 10.1177/0333102420905132.

Key clinical point: Intravenous (IV) eptinezumab could be a safe and effective preventive therapy for adult patients with episodic migraine.

Main finding: Eptinezumab 100 and 300 mg significantly reduced monthly migraine days across weeks 1-12 compared with the placebo (difference from placebo for 100 and 300 mg: –0.69; P = .0182 and –1.11; P = .0001, respectively). Safety and tolerability of eptinezumab across doses were acceptable compared with placebo, with no dose-related trend in the nature, frequency, or severity of treatment-related adverse events.

Study details: In phase 3, multicenter, double-blind, parallel-group study, 888 patients were randomly assigned to IV eptinezumab (30, 100, and 300 mg) or placebo administered every 12 weeks. 

Disclosures: The study was funded by H. Lundbeck A/S, Copenhagen, Denmark. Some of the authors were full-time employees of or contracted to Lundbeck Seattle BioPharmaceuticals, Inc. (previously known as Alder BioPharmaceuticals, Inc.), a subsidiary H. Lundbeck A/S. Some also were stockholders of Lundbeck Seattle BioPharmaceuticals, Inc.

Citation: Ashina M et al. Cephalalgia. 2020 Feb 19. doi: 10.1177/0333102420905132.

Key clinical point: Intravenous (IV) eptinezumab could be a safe and effective preventive therapy for adult patients with episodic migraine.

Main finding: Eptinezumab 100 and 300 mg significantly reduced monthly migraine days across weeks 1-12 compared with the placebo (difference from placebo for 100 and 300 mg: –0.69; P = .0182 and –1.11; P = .0001, respectively). Safety and tolerability of eptinezumab across doses were acceptable compared with placebo, with no dose-related trend in the nature, frequency, or severity of treatment-related adverse events.

Study details: In phase 3, multicenter, double-blind, parallel-group study, 888 patients were randomly assigned to IV eptinezumab (30, 100, and 300 mg) or placebo administered every 12 weeks. 

Disclosures: The study was funded by H. Lundbeck A/S, Copenhagen, Denmark. Some of the authors were full-time employees of or contracted to Lundbeck Seattle BioPharmaceuticals, Inc. (previously known as Alder BioPharmaceuticals, Inc.), a subsidiary H. Lundbeck A/S. Some also were stockholders of Lundbeck Seattle BioPharmaceuticals, Inc.

Citation: Ashina M et al. Cephalalgia. 2020 Feb 19. doi: 10.1177/0333102420905132.

Key clinical point: Migraineurs with aura are more likely to show a higher anger response, but not impulsivity, compared with migraineurs without aura and healthy control individuals.

Main finding: Scores of anger symptoms were significantly higher migraineurs with aura than those without aura and control individuals (P less than .001); however, there was no significant difference in total Barratt impulsiveness scale-11 score, attentional impulsiveness, motor impulsiveness, and nonplanning impulsiveness between the 3 groups (P greater than .05).

Study details: The prospective cross-sectional study included 55 patients aged 18-55 years with episodic migraine (31 with aura and 24 without aura) and 40 healthy control individuals.

Disclosures: The authors declared no conflict of interest.

Citation: Tanik N et al. Neurol Res. 2020 Feb 5. doi: 10.1080/01616412.2020.1723974.

Key clinical point: Migraineurs with aura are more likely to show a higher anger response, but not impulsivity, compared with migraineurs without aura and healthy control individuals.

Main finding: Scores of anger symptoms were significantly higher migraineurs with aura than those without aura and control individuals (P less than .001); however, there was no significant difference in total Barratt impulsiveness scale-11 score, attentional impulsiveness, motor impulsiveness, and nonplanning impulsiveness between the 3 groups (P greater than .05).

Study details: The prospective cross-sectional study included 55 patients aged 18-55 years with episodic migraine (31 with aura and 24 without aura) and 40 healthy control individuals.

Disclosures: The authors declared no conflict of interest.

Citation: Tanik N et al. Neurol Res. 2020 Feb 5. doi: 10.1080/01616412.2020.1723974.

Key clinical point: Migraineurs with aura are more likely to show a higher anger response, but not impulsivity, compared with migraineurs without aura and healthy control individuals.

Main finding: Scores of anger symptoms were significantly higher migraineurs with aura than those without aura and control individuals (P less than .001); however, there was no significant difference in total Barratt impulsiveness scale-11 score, attentional impulsiveness, motor impulsiveness, and nonplanning impulsiveness between the 3 groups (P greater than .05).

Study details: The prospective cross-sectional study included 55 patients aged 18-55 years with episodic migraine (31 with aura and 24 without aura) and 40 healthy control individuals.

Disclosures: The authors declared no conflict of interest.

Citation: Tanik N et al. Neurol Res. 2020 Feb 5. doi: 10.1080/01616412.2020.1723974.

Key clinical point: Plasma glucose level increases during spontaneous migraine attacks, and the increase is independent of the presence of aura symptoms and pain intensity.

Main finding: Plasma glucose levels were higher in the ictal phase than in the interictal phase of migraine (mean, 98.83 vs. 88.63 mg/dL; P = .0014) after adjusting for diurnal variation. The attack-related elevation in plasma glucose level was not influenced by pain intensity or the presence of aura symptoms.

Study details: In this study, plasma glucose levels were measured during and outside of spontaneous attacks of migraine in 31 patients (13 with aura and 18 without aura).

Disclosures: The study was funded by the Lundbeck Foundation, the Novo Nordisk Foundation, the University of Copenhagen, the Research Foundation of the Capital Region of Denmark, and the Danish Council for Independent Research-Medical Sciences. Faisal Mohammad Amin and Anders Hougaard reported receiving personal fees and/or honoraria from multiple pharmaceutical companies. Messoud Ashina reported consultancy/advisory for multiple pharmaceutical companies. Other authors declared no disclosures. 

Citation: Zhang DG et al. Headache. 2020 Feb 7. doi: 10.1111/head.13760.

Key clinical point: Plasma glucose level increases during spontaneous migraine attacks, and the increase is independent of the presence of aura symptoms and pain intensity.

Main finding: Plasma glucose levels were higher in the ictal phase than in the interictal phase of migraine (mean, 98.83 vs. 88.63 mg/dL; P = .0014) after adjusting for diurnal variation. The attack-related elevation in plasma glucose level was not influenced by pain intensity or the presence of aura symptoms.

Study details: In this study, plasma glucose levels were measured during and outside of spontaneous attacks of migraine in 31 patients (13 with aura and 18 without aura).

Disclosures: The study was funded by the Lundbeck Foundation, the Novo Nordisk Foundation, the University of Copenhagen, the Research Foundation of the Capital Region of Denmark, and the Danish Council for Independent Research-Medical Sciences. Faisal Mohammad Amin and Anders Hougaard reported receiving personal fees and/or honoraria from multiple pharmaceutical companies. Messoud Ashina reported consultancy/advisory for multiple pharmaceutical companies. Other authors declared no disclosures. 

Citation: Zhang DG et al. Headache. 2020 Feb 7. doi: 10.1111/head.13760.

Key clinical point: Plasma glucose level increases during spontaneous migraine attacks, and the increase is independent of the presence of aura symptoms and pain intensity.

Main finding: Plasma glucose levels were higher in the ictal phase than in the interictal phase of migraine (mean, 98.83 vs. 88.63 mg/dL; P = .0014) after adjusting for diurnal variation. The attack-related elevation in plasma glucose level was not influenced by pain intensity or the presence of aura symptoms.

Study details: In this study, plasma glucose levels were measured during and outside of spontaneous attacks of migraine in 31 patients (13 with aura and 18 without aura).

Disclosures: The study was funded by the Lundbeck Foundation, the Novo Nordisk Foundation, the University of Copenhagen, the Research Foundation of the Capital Region of Denmark, and the Danish Council for Independent Research-Medical Sciences. Faisal Mohammad Amin and Anders Hougaard reported receiving personal fees and/or honoraria from multiple pharmaceutical companies. Messoud Ashina reported consultancy/advisory for multiple pharmaceutical companies. Other authors declared no disclosures. 

Citation: Zhang DG et al. Headache. 2020 Feb 7. doi: 10.1111/head.13760.

Key clinical point: Quarterly treatment with OnabotulinumtoxinA (BoNT-A) up to 4 years can provide long-lasting prevention of chronic migraine in real-life settings.

Main finding: From baseline to 48 months, there was a significant reduction in the mean number of monthly headache days and hours, consumption of analgesics, and latency time (P less than .001 for all). With repeated BoNT-A treatment, a progressive shift toward lower degrees of disability was seen at each subsequent timepoint (P less than .001 for trend). Six patients experienced transitory neck pain. 

Study details: The data come from a retrospective real-life study of patients with chronic migraine who received quarterly treatment with BoNT-A up to 16 cycles (n = 109).

Disclosures: The authors declared no conflict of interest.

Citation: Santoro A et al. Neurol Sci. 2020 Feb 12. doi: 10.1007/s10072-020-04283-y.

Key clinical point: Quarterly treatment with OnabotulinumtoxinA (BoNT-A) up to 4 years can provide long-lasting prevention of chronic migraine in real-life settings.

Main finding: From baseline to 48 months, there was a significant reduction in the mean number of monthly headache days and hours, consumption of analgesics, and latency time (P less than .001 for all). With repeated BoNT-A treatment, a progressive shift toward lower degrees of disability was seen at each subsequent timepoint (P less than .001 for trend). Six patients experienced transitory neck pain. 

Study details: The data come from a retrospective real-life study of patients with chronic migraine who received quarterly treatment with BoNT-A up to 16 cycles (n = 109).

Disclosures: The authors declared no conflict of interest.

Citation: Santoro A et al. Neurol Sci. 2020 Feb 12. doi: 10.1007/s10072-020-04283-y.

Key clinical point: Quarterly treatment with OnabotulinumtoxinA (BoNT-A) up to 4 years can provide long-lasting prevention of chronic migraine in real-life settings.

Main finding: From baseline to 48 months, there was a significant reduction in the mean number of monthly headache days and hours, consumption of analgesics, and latency time (P less than .001 for all). With repeated BoNT-A treatment, a progressive shift toward lower degrees of disability was seen at each subsequent timepoint (P less than .001 for trend). Six patients experienced transitory neck pain. 

Study details: The data come from a retrospective real-life study of patients with chronic migraine who received quarterly treatment with BoNT-A up to 16 cycles (n = 109).

Disclosures: The authors declared no conflict of interest.

Citation: Santoro A et al. Neurol Sci. 2020 Feb 12. doi: 10.1007/s10072-020-04283-y.

Key clinical point: Rimegepant 75 mg demonstrates favorable efficacy and safety for the treatment of acute migraine compared with the placebo.

Main finding: Rimegepant 75 mg resulted in a significant freedom from pain (20.6% vs. 12.5%; relative risk [RR], 1.70; P less than .001), pain relief (58.6% vs. 44.6%; RR, 1.34; P less than .001), and freedom from the most bothersome symptoms (36.0% vs. 25.1%; RR, 1.44; P less than .001) at 2 hours after dosing compared with the placebo. There was no significant increase in adverse events compared with the placebo.

Study details: A meta-analysis of 4 randomized controlled trials including 3,827 patients with acute migraine.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the Suzhou Health Talents Training Project. The authors declared no conflict of interest.

Citation: Gao B et al. Front Pharmacol. 2020 Jan 24. doi: 10.3389/fphar.2019.01577.

Key clinical point: Rimegepant 75 mg demonstrates favorable efficacy and safety for the treatment of acute migraine compared with the placebo.

Main finding: Rimegepant 75 mg resulted in a significant freedom from pain (20.6% vs. 12.5%; relative risk [RR], 1.70; P less than .001), pain relief (58.6% vs. 44.6%; RR, 1.34; P less than .001), and freedom from the most bothersome symptoms (36.0% vs. 25.1%; RR, 1.44; P less than .001) at 2 hours after dosing compared with the placebo. There was no significant increase in adverse events compared with the placebo.

Study details: A meta-analysis of 4 randomized controlled trials including 3,827 patients with acute migraine.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the Suzhou Health Talents Training Project. The authors declared no conflict of interest.

Citation: Gao B et al. Front Pharmacol. 2020 Jan 24. doi: 10.3389/fphar.2019.01577.

Key clinical point: Rimegepant 75 mg demonstrates favorable efficacy and safety for the treatment of acute migraine compared with the placebo.

Main finding: Rimegepant 75 mg resulted in a significant freedom from pain (20.6% vs. 12.5%; relative risk [RR], 1.70; P less than .001), pain relief (58.6% vs. 44.6%; RR, 1.34; P less than .001), and freedom from the most bothersome symptoms (36.0% vs. 25.1%; RR, 1.44; P less than .001) at 2 hours after dosing compared with the placebo. There was no significant increase in adverse events compared with the placebo.

Study details: A meta-analysis of 4 randomized controlled trials including 3,827 patients with acute migraine.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the Suzhou Health Talents Training Project. The authors declared no conflict of interest.

Citation: Gao B et al. Front Pharmacol. 2020 Jan 24. doi: 10.3389/fphar.2019.01577.

Urgent care centers may not use optimal medications for the management of acute migraine attacks, according to a study published in the March issue of Headache. Pain and nausea or vomiting associated with migraine may go undertreated, and treatment may not be consistent with American Headache Society (AHS) guidelines for EDs, said Mia T. Minen, MD, of the department of neurology and population health at NYU Langone Health in New York and colleagues.

“Our study findings raise the question as to whether the patients with migraine in the urgent care setting should be managed similarly to the ED, and whether the AHS guidelines for the ED should be revisited and applied to urgent care,” the researchers noted.

Relative to the ED, urgent care centers may provide cost savings and emerge “as a preferred place for treatment for people with migraine, perhaps as they are potentially more quiet medical settings where people with migraine might expeditiously receive care,” the authors said.

Dr. Minen and colleagues conducted a retrospective chart review to assess migraine management at two urgent care centers in New York. They examined the number of urgent care visits for migraine, treatments used, and how closely clinicians followed the AHS recommendations for administration of antiemetic medication and triptans, among other outcomes.

The study population included adults diagnosed with migraine at the NYU Langone Medhattan Urgent Care center between Dec. 1, 2015, and Dec. 1, 2018, or at the NYU Langone Ambulatory Care Urgent Care West Side center between May 1, 2017, and Dec. 1, 2018. Of more than 32,000 urgent care visits during the study period, 78 patients received a migraine diagnosis. Patients with migraine had an average age of 32.5 years, and 79.5% were female. More than half had a documented history of migraine. Two of the patients (2.6%) had been to an emergency department for headache or migraine.

Less than half of the patients who presented with pain (46.6%) were given medication, most commonly ketorolac injection. Most patients (78.2%) received prescriptions, and 25.6% received a triptan prescription. About 60% of patients were told to follow up with a neurologist. In addition, 11.5% revisited urgent care with a migraine or headache or to request a prescription refill.

“Patients in this study appeared to be using the urgent care centers specifically for acute care,” the researchers said. “The patients generally had infrequent headaches and the majority would not have qualified for migraine preventive treatment.”

Although AHS guidelines include three “should offer” medications for acute management of migraine in the ED – intravenous metoclopramide, intravenous prochlorperazine, and subcutaneous sumatriptan – two of the medications, subcutaneous sumatriptan and intravenous prochlorperazine, were not available in the urgent care pharmacy. “Of the level B migraine medications, only metoclopramide IV was in the pharmacy, and only 12.3% was given this at their urgent care visit,” the researchers said. “There was also likely undertreatment of nausea/vomiting; despite 39 patients with recorded nausea or vomiting with their migraine, less than half (46.2%) received an antiemetic at the visit,” including metoclopramide or ondansetron through oral or intravenous administration.

Future studies should look at headache and migraine visits at urgent care centers across the United States, the investigators suggested.

One of the authors of the study (Leslie Miller, MD) is the head of the NYU Langone Health Urgent Care Centers. Dr. Minen has received grant support, honoraria, or travel funds from the National Institutes of Health, the American Academy of Neurology, the American Brain Foundation, the National Multiple Sclerosis Society, the National Headache Foundation, the American Headache Society, Barnard College, and NYU. Dr. Minen is associate editor of Headache.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Minen MT et al. Headache. 2020;60(3):542-52.

Urgent care centers may not use optimal medications for the management of acute migraine attacks, according to a study published in the March issue of Headache. Pain and nausea or vomiting associated with migraine may go undertreated, and treatment may not be consistent with American Headache Society (AHS) guidelines for EDs, said Mia T. Minen, MD, of the department of neurology and population health at NYU Langone Health in New York and colleagues.

“Our study findings raise the question as to whether the patients with migraine in the urgent care setting should be managed similarly to the ED, and whether the AHS guidelines for the ED should be revisited and applied to urgent care,” the researchers noted.

Relative to the ED, urgent care centers may provide cost savings and emerge “as a preferred place for treatment for people with migraine, perhaps as they are potentially more quiet medical settings where people with migraine might expeditiously receive care,” the authors said.

Dr. Minen and colleagues conducted a retrospective chart review to assess migraine management at two urgent care centers in New York. They examined the number of urgent care visits for migraine, treatments used, and how closely clinicians followed the AHS recommendations for administration of antiemetic medication and triptans, among other outcomes.

The study population included adults diagnosed with migraine at the NYU Langone Medhattan Urgent Care center between Dec. 1, 2015, and Dec. 1, 2018, or at the NYU Langone Ambulatory Care Urgent Care West Side center between May 1, 2017, and Dec. 1, 2018. Of more than 32,000 urgent care visits during the study period, 78 patients received a migraine diagnosis. Patients with migraine had an average age of 32.5 years, and 79.5% were female. More than half had a documented history of migraine. Two of the patients (2.6%) had been to an emergency department for headache or migraine.

Less than half of the patients who presented with pain (46.6%) were given medication, most commonly ketorolac injection. Most patients (78.2%) received prescriptions, and 25.6% received a triptan prescription. About 60% of patients were told to follow up with a neurologist. In addition, 11.5% revisited urgent care with a migraine or headache or to request a prescription refill.

“Patients in this study appeared to be using the urgent care centers specifically for acute care,” the researchers said. “The patients generally had infrequent headaches and the majority would not have qualified for migraine preventive treatment.”

Although AHS guidelines include three “should offer” medications for acute management of migraine in the ED – intravenous metoclopramide, intravenous prochlorperazine, and subcutaneous sumatriptan – two of the medications, subcutaneous sumatriptan and intravenous prochlorperazine, were not available in the urgent care pharmacy. “Of the level B migraine medications, only metoclopramide IV was in the pharmacy, and only 12.3% was given this at their urgent care visit,” the researchers said. “There was also likely undertreatment of nausea/vomiting; despite 39 patients with recorded nausea or vomiting with their migraine, less than half (46.2%) received an antiemetic at the visit,” including metoclopramide or ondansetron through oral or intravenous administration.

Future studies should look at headache and migraine visits at urgent care centers across the United States, the investigators suggested.

One of the authors of the study (Leslie Miller, MD) is the head of the NYU Langone Health Urgent Care Centers. Dr. Minen has received grant support, honoraria, or travel funds from the National Institutes of Health, the American Academy of Neurology, the American Brain Foundation, the National Multiple Sclerosis Society, the National Headache Foundation, the American Headache Society, Barnard College, and NYU. Dr. Minen is associate editor of Headache.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Minen MT et al. Headache. 2020;60(3):542-52.

Urgent care centers may not use optimal medications for the management of acute migraine attacks, according to a study published in the March issue of Headache. Pain and nausea or vomiting associated with migraine may go undertreated, and treatment may not be consistent with American Headache Society (AHS) guidelines for EDs, said Mia T. Minen, MD, of the department of neurology and population health at NYU Langone Health in New York and colleagues.

“Our study findings raise the question as to whether the patients with migraine in the urgent care setting should be managed similarly to the ED, and whether the AHS guidelines for the ED should be revisited and applied to urgent care,” the researchers noted.

Relative to the ED, urgent care centers may provide cost savings and emerge “as a preferred place for treatment for people with migraine, perhaps as they are potentially more quiet medical settings where people with migraine might expeditiously receive care,” the authors said.

Dr. Minen and colleagues conducted a retrospective chart review to assess migraine management at two urgent care centers in New York. They examined the number of urgent care visits for migraine, treatments used, and how closely clinicians followed the AHS recommendations for administration of antiemetic medication and triptans, among other outcomes.

The study population included adults diagnosed with migraine at the NYU Langone Medhattan Urgent Care center between Dec. 1, 2015, and Dec. 1, 2018, or at the NYU Langone Ambulatory Care Urgent Care West Side center between May 1, 2017, and Dec. 1, 2018. Of more than 32,000 urgent care visits during the study period, 78 patients received a migraine diagnosis. Patients with migraine had an average age of 32.5 years, and 79.5% were female. More than half had a documented history of migraine. Two of the patients (2.6%) had been to an emergency department for headache or migraine.

Less than half of the patients who presented with pain (46.6%) were given medication, most commonly ketorolac injection. Most patients (78.2%) received prescriptions, and 25.6% received a triptan prescription. About 60% of patients were told to follow up with a neurologist. In addition, 11.5% revisited urgent care with a migraine or headache or to request a prescription refill.

“Patients in this study appeared to be using the urgent care centers specifically for acute care,” the researchers said. “The patients generally had infrequent headaches and the majority would not have qualified for migraine preventive treatment.”

Although AHS guidelines include three “should offer” medications for acute management of migraine in the ED – intravenous metoclopramide, intravenous prochlorperazine, and subcutaneous sumatriptan – two of the medications, subcutaneous sumatriptan and intravenous prochlorperazine, were not available in the urgent care pharmacy. “Of the level B migraine medications, only metoclopramide IV was in the pharmacy, and only 12.3% was given this at their urgent care visit,” the researchers said. “There was also likely undertreatment of nausea/vomiting; despite 39 patients with recorded nausea or vomiting with their migraine, less than half (46.2%) received an antiemetic at the visit,” including metoclopramide or ondansetron through oral or intravenous administration.

Future studies should look at headache and migraine visits at urgent care centers across the United States, the investigators suggested.

One of the authors of the study (Leslie Miller, MD) is the head of the NYU Langone Health Urgent Care Centers. Dr. Minen has received grant support, honoraria, or travel funds from the National Institutes of Health, the American Academy of Neurology, the American Brain Foundation, the National Multiple Sclerosis Society, the National Headache Foundation, the American Headache Society, Barnard College, and NYU. Dr. Minen is associate editor of Headache.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Minen MT et al. Headache. 2020;60(3):542-52.

LOS ANGELES – Investigators have developed a risk score to predict the likelihood of stroke among patients with migraine with aura. The study on which the risk score is based was presented at the International Stroke Conference sponsored by the American Heart Association. Migraine with aura, for which younger women are at higher risk, increases the risk of ischemic stroke. “With our new risk-prediction tool, we could start identifying those at higher risk, treat their risk factors, and lower their risk of stroke,” said Souvik Sen, MD, MPH, professor and chair of neurology at the University of South Carolina in Columbia, in a press release.

Risk groups significantly discriminated stroke risk

To create the score, Dr. Sen and colleagues examined data from the ARIC (Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities) cohort, which includes community-dwelling people in Forsyth County, N.C.; Jackson, Miss.; Washington County, Md.; and the suburbs of Minneapolis. Researchers have been following the participants since 1987. From this population, Dr. Sen and colleagues identified 429 participants with a history of migraine with aura. Most of these participants were women aged 50-59 years at their first visit. The researchers analyzed the association between potential risk factors and ischemic stroke using Cox proportional hazards analysis.

Of the 429 participants, 31 had an ischemic stroke during a follow-up period of 20 years. Dr. Sen’s group created a risk score by identifying five risk factors for stroke and assigning them points in proportion to their influence (i.e., their regression coefficients). They assigned diabetes mellitus – 7 points; age older than 65 years – 5 points; heart rate variability (i.e., the standard deviation of all normal-to-normal RR intervals) – 3 points; hypertension – 3 points – and sex – 1 point. Then the researchers calculated risk scores for each patient and defined a low-risk group (from 0-4 points), a moderate-risk group (5-10 points), and a high-risk group (11-21 points).

After 18 years of follow-up, the incidence of stroke was 3% in the low-risk group, 8% in the moderate-risk group, and 34% in the high-risk group. The hazard ratio for ischemic stroke in the high-risk group, compared with the low-risk group, was 7.35. Kaplan Meier curves indicated that the risk-stratification groups significantly discriminated stroke risk among the sample. The risk score should be validated in an independent population cohort, said the investigators.

Dr. Sen and colleagues did not report any funding for this study. Investigators reported receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health, the American Heart Association, and the American Academy of Neurology.

Score may leave important variables unexamined

One mechanism through which migraine increases the risk of stroke is the constriction of blood vessels, said Louis R. Caplan, MD, professor of neurology at Harvard Medical School in Boston and member of the editorial advisory board of Neurology Reviews. Triptans, which many patients use to treat migraine, also cause vasoconstriction. In addition, migraine increases blood coagulation.

Although the risk score developed by Dr. Sen and colleagues accounts for various comorbidities, it may not apply equally to all patients. “As I understand it, they’re just using migraine with aura as a single factor,” said Dr. Caplan. Variables such as prolonged aura, frequent episodes, and aura-related deficit are associated with increased risk of stroke, but the risk score does not examine these factors.

Patients with severe, long-lasting attacks or attacks that involve weakness or aphasia should receive prophylactic treatment to prevent vasoconstriction, such as verapamil (Verelan), said Dr. Caplan. Antithrombotic agents such as aspirin also may be appropriate prophylaxis. Whether effective treatment of migraine with aura decreases the risk of stroke remains unknown.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Trivedi T et al. ISC 2020. Abstract WMP117.

LOS ANGELES – Investigators have developed a risk score to predict the likelihood of stroke among patients with migraine with aura. The study on which the risk score is based was presented at the International Stroke Conference sponsored by the American Heart Association. Migraine with aura, for which younger women are at higher risk, increases the risk of ischemic stroke. “With our new risk-prediction tool, we could start identifying those at higher risk, treat their risk factors, and lower their risk of stroke,” said Souvik Sen, MD, MPH, professor and chair of neurology at the University of South Carolina in Columbia, in a press release.

Risk groups significantly discriminated stroke risk

To create the score, Dr. Sen and colleagues examined data from the ARIC (Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities) cohort, which includes community-dwelling people in Forsyth County, N.C.; Jackson, Miss.; Washington County, Md.; and the suburbs of Minneapolis. Researchers have been following the participants since 1987. From this population, Dr. Sen and colleagues identified 429 participants with a history of migraine with aura. Most of these participants were women aged 50-59 years at their first visit. The researchers analyzed the association between potential risk factors and ischemic stroke using Cox proportional hazards analysis.

Of the 429 participants, 31 had an ischemic stroke during a follow-up period of 20 years. Dr. Sen’s group created a risk score by identifying five risk factors for stroke and assigning them points in proportion to their influence (i.e., their regression coefficients). They assigned diabetes mellitus – 7 points; age older than 65 years – 5 points; heart rate variability (i.e., the standard deviation of all normal-to-normal RR intervals) – 3 points; hypertension – 3 points – and sex – 1 point. Then the researchers calculated risk scores for each patient and defined a low-risk group (from 0-4 points), a moderate-risk group (5-10 points), and a high-risk group (11-21 points).

After 18 years of follow-up, the incidence of stroke was 3% in the low-risk group, 8% in the moderate-risk group, and 34% in the high-risk group. The hazard ratio for ischemic stroke in the high-risk group, compared with the low-risk group, was 7.35. Kaplan Meier curves indicated that the risk-stratification groups significantly discriminated stroke risk among the sample. The risk score should be validated in an independent population cohort, said the investigators.

Dr. Sen and colleagues did not report any funding for this study. Investigators reported receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health, the American Heart Association, and the American Academy of Neurology.

Score may leave important variables unexamined

One mechanism through which migraine increases the risk of stroke is the constriction of blood vessels, said Louis R. Caplan, MD, professor of neurology at Harvard Medical School in Boston and member of the editorial advisory board of Neurology Reviews. Triptans, which many patients use to treat migraine, also cause vasoconstriction. In addition, migraine increases blood coagulation.

Although the risk score developed by Dr. Sen and colleagues accounts for various comorbidities, it may not apply equally to all patients. “As I understand it, they’re just using migraine with aura as a single factor,” said Dr. Caplan. Variables such as prolonged aura, frequent episodes, and aura-related deficit are associated with increased risk of stroke, but the risk score does not examine these factors.

Patients with severe, long-lasting attacks or attacks that involve weakness or aphasia should receive prophylactic treatment to prevent vasoconstriction, such as verapamil (Verelan), said Dr. Caplan. Antithrombotic agents such as aspirin also may be appropriate prophylaxis. Whether effective treatment of migraine with aura decreases the risk of stroke remains unknown.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Trivedi T et al. ISC 2020. Abstract WMP117.

LOS ANGELES – Investigators have developed a risk score to predict the likelihood of stroke among patients with migraine with aura. The study on which the risk score is based was presented at the International Stroke Conference sponsored by the American Heart Association. Migraine with aura, for which younger women are at higher risk, increases the risk of ischemic stroke. “With our new risk-prediction tool, we could start identifying those at higher risk, treat their risk factors, and lower their risk of stroke,” said Souvik Sen, MD, MPH, professor and chair of neurology at the University of South Carolina in Columbia, in a press release.

Risk groups significantly discriminated stroke risk

To create the score, Dr. Sen and colleagues examined data from the ARIC (Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities) cohort, which includes community-dwelling people in Forsyth County, N.C.; Jackson, Miss.; Washington County, Md.; and the suburbs of Minneapolis. Researchers have been following the participants since 1987. From this population, Dr. Sen and colleagues identified 429 participants with a history of migraine with aura. Most of these participants were women aged 50-59 years at their first visit. The researchers analyzed the association between potential risk factors and ischemic stroke using Cox proportional hazards analysis.

Of the 429 participants, 31 had an ischemic stroke during a follow-up period of 20 years. Dr. Sen’s group created a risk score by identifying five risk factors for stroke and assigning them points in proportion to their influence (i.e., their regression coefficients). They assigned diabetes mellitus – 7 points; age older than 65 years – 5 points; heart rate variability (i.e., the standard deviation of all normal-to-normal RR intervals) – 3 points; hypertension – 3 points – and sex – 1 point. Then the researchers calculated risk scores for each patient and defined a low-risk group (from 0-4 points), a moderate-risk group (5-10 points), and a high-risk group (11-21 points).

After 18 years of follow-up, the incidence of stroke was 3% in the low-risk group, 8% in the moderate-risk group, and 34% in the high-risk group. The hazard ratio for ischemic stroke in the high-risk group, compared with the low-risk group, was 7.35. Kaplan Meier curves indicated that the risk-stratification groups significantly discriminated stroke risk among the sample. The risk score should be validated in an independent population cohort, said the investigators.

Dr. Sen and colleagues did not report any funding for this study. Investigators reported receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health, the American Heart Association, and the American Academy of Neurology.

Score may leave important variables unexamined

One mechanism through which migraine increases the risk of stroke is the constriction of blood vessels, said Louis R. Caplan, MD, professor of neurology at Harvard Medical School in Boston and member of the editorial advisory board of Neurology Reviews. Triptans, which many patients use to treat migraine, also cause vasoconstriction. In addition, migraine increases blood coagulation.

Although the risk score developed by Dr. Sen and colleagues accounts for various comorbidities, it may not apply equally to all patients. “As I understand it, they’re just using migraine with aura as a single factor,” said Dr. Caplan. Variables such as prolonged aura, frequent episodes, and aura-related deficit are associated with increased risk of stroke, but the risk score does not examine these factors.

Patients with severe, long-lasting attacks or attacks that involve weakness or aphasia should receive prophylactic treatment to prevent vasoconstriction, such as verapamil (Verelan), said Dr. Caplan. Antithrombotic agents such as aspirin also may be appropriate prophylaxis. Whether effective treatment of migraine with aura decreases the risk of stroke remains unknown.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Trivedi T et al. ISC 2020. Abstract WMP117.

A growing body of research links the gut with the brain and behavior, but compartmentalization within the medical community may be slowing investigation of the gut-brain axis, according to a leading expert.

Studies have shown that the microbiome may influence a diverse range of behavioral and neurological processes, from acute and chronic stress responses to development of Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s disease, reported John F. Cryan, PhD, of University College Cork, Ireland.

Dr. Cryan began his presentation at the annual Gut Microbiota for Health World Summit by citing Hippocrates, who is thought to have stated that all diseases begin in the gut.

“That can be quite strange when I talk to my neurology or psychiatry colleagues,” Dr. Cryan said. “They sometimes look at me like I have two heads. Because in medicine we compartmentalize, and if you are studying neurology or psychiatry or [you are] in clinical practice, you are focusing on everything from the neck upwards.”

For more than a decade, Dr. Cryan and colleagues have been investigating the gut-brain axis, predominantly in mouse models, but also across animal species and in humans.

At the meeting, sponsored by the American Gastroenterological Association and the European Society for Neurogastroenterology and Motility, Dr. Cryan reviewed a variety of representative studies.

For instance, in both mice and humans, research has shown that C-section, which is associated with poorer microbiome diversity than vaginal delivery, has also been linked with social deficits and elevated stress responses. And in the case of mice, coprophagia, in which cesarean-delivered mice eat the feces of vaginally born mice, has been shown to ameliorate these psychiatric effects.

Dr. Cryan likened this process to an “artificial fecal transplant.”

“You know, co-housing and eating each other’s poo is not the translational approach that we were advocating by any means,” Dr. Cryan said. “But at least it tells us – in a proof-of-concept way – that if we change the microbiome, then we can reverse what’s going on.”

While the mechanisms behind the gut-brain axis remain incompletely understood, Dr. Cryan noted that the vagus nerve, which travels from the gut to the brain, plays a central role, and that transecting this nerve in mice stops the microbiome from affecting the brain.

“What happens in vagus doesn’t just stay in vagus, but will actually affect our emotions in different ways,” Dr. Cryan said.

He emphasized that communication travels both ways along the gut-brain axis, and went on to describe how this phenomenon has been demonstrated across a wide array of animals.

“From insects all the way through to primates, if you start to interfere with social behavior, you change the microbiome,” Dr. Cryan said. “But the opposite is also true; if you start to change the microbiome you can start to have widespread effects on social behavior.”

In humans, manipulating the microbiome could open up new psychiatric frontiers, Dr. Cryan said.

“[In the past 30 years], there really have been no real advances in how we manage mental health,” he said. “That’s very sobering when we are having such a mental health problem across all ages right now. And so perhaps it’s time for what we’ve coined the ‘psychobiotic revolution’ – time for a new way of thinking about mental health.”

According to Dr. Cryan, psychobiotics are interventions that target the microbiome for mental health purposes, including fermented foods, probiotics, prebiotics, synbiotics, parabiotics, and postbiotics.

Among these, probiotics have been a focal point of interventional research. Although results have been mixed, Dr. Cryan suggested that negative probiotic studies are more likely due to bacterial strain than a failure of the concept as a whole.

“Most strains of bacteria will do absolutely nothing,” Dr. Cryan said. “Strain is really important.”

In demonstration of this concept, he recounted a 2017 study conducted at University College Cork in which 22 healthy volunteers were given Bifidobacterium longum 1714, and then subjected to a social stress test. The results, published in Translational Psychiatry, showed that the probiotic, compared with placebo, was associated with attenuated stress responses, reduced daily stress, and enhanced visuospatial memory.

In contrast, a similar study by Dr. Cryan and colleagues, which tested Lactobacillus rhamnosus (JB-1), fell short.

“You [could not have gotten] more negative data into one paper if you tried,” Dr. Cryan said, referring to the study. “It did absolutely nothing.”

To find out which psychobiotics may have an impact, and how, Dr. Cryan called for more research.

“It’s still early days,” he said. “We probably have more meta-analyses and systematic reviews of the field than we have primary research papers.

Dr. Cryan concluded his presentation on an optimistic note.

“Neurology is waking up ... to understand that the microbiome could be playing a key role in many, many other disorders. ... Overall, what we’re beginning to see is that our state of gut markedly affects our state of mind.”

Dr. Cryan disclosed relationships with Abbott Nutrition, Roche Pharma, Nutricia, and others.

A growing body of research links the gut with the brain and behavior, but compartmentalization within the medical community may be slowing investigation of the gut-brain axis, according to a leading expert.

Studies have shown that the microbiome may influence a diverse range of behavioral and neurological processes, from acute and chronic stress responses to development of Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s disease, reported John F. Cryan, PhD, of University College Cork, Ireland.

Dr. Cryan began his presentation at the annual Gut Microbiota for Health World Summit by citing Hippocrates, who is thought to have stated that all diseases begin in the gut.

“That can be quite strange when I talk to my neurology or psychiatry colleagues,” Dr. Cryan said. “They sometimes look at me like I have two heads. Because in medicine we compartmentalize, and if you are studying neurology or psychiatry or [you are] in clinical practice, you are focusing on everything from the neck upwards.”

For more than a decade, Dr. Cryan and colleagues have been investigating the gut-brain axis, predominantly in mouse models, but also across animal species and in humans.

At the meeting, sponsored by the American Gastroenterological Association and the European Society for Neurogastroenterology and Motility, Dr. Cryan reviewed a variety of representative studies.

For instance, in both mice and humans, research has shown that C-section, which is associated with poorer microbiome diversity than vaginal delivery, has also been linked with social deficits and elevated stress responses. And in the case of mice, coprophagia, in which cesarean-delivered mice eat the feces of vaginally born mice, has been shown to ameliorate these psychiatric effects.

Dr. Cryan likened this process to an “artificial fecal transplant.”

“You know, co-housing and eating each other’s poo is not the translational approach that we were advocating by any means,” Dr. Cryan said. “But at least it tells us – in a proof-of-concept way – that if we change the microbiome, then we can reverse what’s going on.”

While the mechanisms behind the gut-brain axis remain incompletely understood, Dr. Cryan noted that the vagus nerve, which travels from the gut to the brain, plays a central role, and that transecting this nerve in mice stops the microbiome from affecting the brain.

“What happens in vagus doesn’t just stay in vagus, but will actually affect our emotions in different ways,” Dr. Cryan said.

He emphasized that communication travels both ways along the gut-brain axis, and went on to describe how this phenomenon has been demonstrated across a wide array of animals.

“From insects all the way through to primates, if you start to interfere with social behavior, you change the microbiome,” Dr. Cryan said. “But the opposite is also true; if you start to change the microbiome you can start to have widespread effects on social behavior.”

In humans, manipulating the microbiome could open up new psychiatric frontiers, Dr. Cryan said.

“[In the past 30 years], there really have been no real advances in how we manage mental health,” he said. “That’s very sobering when we are having such a mental health problem across all ages right now. And so perhaps it’s time for what we’ve coined the ‘psychobiotic revolution’ – time for a new way of thinking about mental health.”

According to Dr. Cryan, psychobiotics are interventions that target the microbiome for mental health purposes, including fermented foods, probiotics, prebiotics, synbiotics, parabiotics, and postbiotics.

Among these, probiotics have been a focal point of interventional research. Although results have been mixed, Dr. Cryan suggested that negative probiotic studies are more likely due to bacterial strain than a failure of the concept as a whole.

“Most strains of bacteria will do absolutely nothing,” Dr. Cryan said. “Strain is really important.”

In demonstration of this concept, he recounted a 2017 study conducted at University College Cork in which 22 healthy volunteers were given Bifidobacterium longum 1714, and then subjected to a social stress test. The results, published in Translational Psychiatry, showed that the probiotic, compared with placebo, was associated with attenuated stress responses, reduced daily stress, and enhanced visuospatial memory.

In contrast, a similar study by Dr. Cryan and colleagues, which tested Lactobacillus rhamnosus (JB-1), fell short.

“You [could not have gotten] more negative data into one paper if you tried,” Dr. Cryan said, referring to the study. “It did absolutely nothing.”

To find out which psychobiotics may have an impact, and how, Dr. Cryan called for more research.

“It’s still early days,” he said. “We probably have more meta-analyses and systematic reviews of the field than we have primary research papers.

Dr. Cryan concluded his presentation on an optimistic note.

“Neurology is waking up ... to understand that the microbiome could be playing a key role in many, many other disorders. ... Overall, what we’re beginning to see is that our state of gut markedly affects our state of mind.”

Dr. Cryan disclosed relationships with Abbott Nutrition, Roche Pharma, Nutricia, and others.

A growing body of research links the gut with the brain and behavior, but compartmentalization within the medical community may be slowing investigation of the gut-brain axis, according to a leading expert.

Studies have shown that the microbiome may influence a diverse range of behavioral and neurological processes, from acute and chronic stress responses to development of Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s disease, reported John F. Cryan, PhD, of University College Cork, Ireland.

Dr. Cryan began his presentation at the annual Gut Microbiota for Health World Summit by citing Hippocrates, who is thought to have stated that all diseases begin in the gut.

“That can be quite strange when I talk to my neurology or psychiatry colleagues,” Dr. Cryan said. “They sometimes look at me like I have two heads. Because in medicine we compartmentalize, and if you are studying neurology or psychiatry or [you are] in clinical practice, you are focusing on everything from the neck upwards.”

For more than a decade, Dr. Cryan and colleagues have been investigating the gut-brain axis, predominantly in mouse models, but also across animal species and in humans.

At the meeting, sponsored by the American Gastroenterological Association and the European Society for Neurogastroenterology and Motility, Dr. Cryan reviewed a variety of representative studies.

For instance, in both mice and humans, research has shown that C-section, which is associated with poorer microbiome diversity than vaginal delivery, has also been linked with social deficits and elevated stress responses. And in the case of mice, coprophagia, in which cesarean-delivered mice eat the feces of vaginally born mice, has been shown to ameliorate these psychiatric effects.

Dr. Cryan likened this process to an “artificial fecal transplant.”

“You know, co-housing and eating each other’s poo is not the translational approach that we were advocating by any means,” Dr. Cryan said. “But at least it tells us – in a proof-of-concept way – that if we change the microbiome, then we can reverse what’s going on.”

While the mechanisms behind the gut-brain axis remain incompletely understood, Dr. Cryan noted that the vagus nerve, which travels from the gut to the brain, plays a central role, and that transecting this nerve in mice stops the microbiome from affecting the brain.

“What happens in vagus doesn’t just stay in vagus, but will actually affect our emotions in different ways,” Dr. Cryan said.

He emphasized that communication travels both ways along the gut-brain axis, and went on to describe how this phenomenon has been demonstrated across a wide array of animals.

“From insects all the way through to primates, if you start to interfere with social behavior, you change the microbiome,” Dr. Cryan said. “But the opposite is also true; if you start to change the microbiome you can start to have widespread effects on social behavior.”

In humans, manipulating the microbiome could open up new psychiatric frontiers, Dr. Cryan said.

“[In the past 30 years], there really have been no real advances in how we manage mental health,” he said. “That’s very sobering when we are having such a mental health problem across all ages right now. And so perhaps it’s time for what we’ve coined the ‘psychobiotic revolution’ – time for a new way of thinking about mental health.”

According to Dr. Cryan, psychobiotics are interventions that target the microbiome for mental health purposes, including fermented foods, probiotics, prebiotics, synbiotics, parabiotics, and postbiotics.

Among these, probiotics have been a focal point of interventional research. Although results have been mixed, Dr. Cryan suggested that negative probiotic studies are more likely due to bacterial strain than a failure of the concept as a whole.

“Most strains of bacteria will do absolutely nothing,” Dr. Cryan said. “Strain is really important.”

In demonstration of this concept, he recounted a 2017 study conducted at University College Cork in which 22 healthy volunteers were given Bifidobacterium longum 1714, and then subjected to a social stress test. The results, published in Translational Psychiatry, showed that the probiotic, compared with placebo, was associated with attenuated stress responses, reduced daily stress, and enhanced visuospatial memory.

In contrast, a similar study by Dr. Cryan and colleagues, which tested Lactobacillus rhamnosus (JB-1), fell short.

“You [could not have gotten] more negative data into one paper if you tried,” Dr. Cryan said, referring to the study. “It did absolutely nothing.”

To find out which psychobiotics may have an impact, and how, Dr. Cryan called for more research.

“It’s still early days,” he said. “We probably have more meta-analyses and systematic reviews of the field than we have primary research papers.

Dr. Cryan concluded his presentation on an optimistic note.

“Neurology is waking up ... to understand that the microbiome could be playing a key role in many, many other disorders. ... Overall, what we’re beginning to see is that our state of gut markedly affects our state of mind.”

Dr. Cryan disclosed relationships with Abbott Nutrition, Roche Pharma, Nutricia, and others.

Patients with suspected migraine and a normal neurological examination without any atypical features or red flags do not need an MRI or CT, according to recent updated recommendations in a guideline released by the American Headache Society.

Migraine with atypical features may require neuroimaging, according to the guideline. These include an unusual aura; change in clinical features; a first or worst migraine; a migraine that presents with brainstem aura, confusion, or motor manifestation; migraine accompaniments in later life; headaches that are side-locked or posttraumatic; and aura that presents without headache.
 

Assessing the evidence

The recommendation to avoid MRI or CT in otherwise neurologically normal patients with migraine carried a grade A recommendation from the American Headache Society, while the specific considerations for neuroimaging was based on consensus and carried a grade C recommendation, according to lead author Randolph W. Evans, MD, of the department of neurology at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, and colleagues.

The recommendations, published in the journal Headache (2020 Feb;60(2):318-36), came from a systematic review of 23 studies of adults at least 18 years old who underwent MRI or CT during outpatient treatment for migraine between 1973 and 2018. Ten studies looked at CT neuroimaging in patients with migraine, nine studies examined MRI neuroimaging alone in patients with migraine, and four studies contained adults with headache or migraine who underwent either MRI or CT. The majority of studies analyzed were retrospective or cross-sectional in nature, while four studies were prospective observational studies.

Dr. Evans and colleagues noted that neuroimaging for patients with suspected migraine is ordered for a variety of reasons, such as excluding conditions that aren’t migraine, diagnostic certainty, cognitive bias, practice workflow, medicolegal concerns, addressing patient and family anxiety, and addressing clinician anxiety. Neuroimaging also can be costly, they said, adding up to an estimated $1 billion annually according to one study, and can lead to additional testing from findings that may not be clinically significant.
 

Good advice, with caveats

In an interview, Alan M. Rapoport, MD, editor-in-chief of Neurology Reviews, said that while he generally does not like broad guideline recommendations, the recommendation made by the American Headache Society to avoid neuroimaging in patients with a normal neurological examination without any atypical features and red flags “takes most of the important factors into consideration and will work almost all the time.” The recommendation made by consensus for specific considerations of neuroimaging was issued by top headache specialists in the United States who reviewed the data, and it is unlikely a patient with a migraine as diagnosed by the International Classification of Headache Disorders with a normal neurological examination would have a significant abnormality that would appear with imaging, Dr. Rapoport said.

“If everyone caring for migraine patients knew these recommendations, and used them unless the patients fit the exclusions mentioned, we would have more efficient clinical practice and save lots of money on unnecessary scanning,” he said.

However, Dr. Rapoport, clinical professor of neurology at the University of California, Los Angeles, founder of the New England Center for Headache, and past president of The International Headache Society, said that not all clinicians will be convinced by the American Headache Society’s recommendations.

“Various third parties often jump on society recommendations or guidelines and prevent smart clinicians from doing what they need to do when they want to disregard the recommendation or guideline,” he explained. “More importantly, if a physician feels the need to think out of the box and image a patient without a clear reason, and the patient cannot pay for the scan when a medical insurance company refuses to authorize it, there can be a bad result if the patient does not get the study.”

Dr. Rapoport noted that the guideline does not address situations where neuroimaging may not pick up conditions that lead to migraine, such as a subarachnoid or subdural hemorrhage, reversible cerebral vasoconstriction syndrome, or early aspects of low cerebrospinal fluid pressure syndrome. Anxiety on the part of the patient or the clinician is another area that can be addressed by future research, he said.

“If the clinician does a good job of explaining the odds of anything significant being found with a typical migraine history and normal examination, and the patient says [they] need an MRI with contrast to be sure, it will be difficult to dissuade them,” said Dr. Rapoport. “If you don’t order one, they will find a way to get one. If it is abnormal, you could be in trouble. Also, if the clinician has no good reason to do a scan but has anxiety about what is being missed, it will probably get done.”

There was no funding source for the guidelines. The authors reported personal and institutional relationships in the form of advisory board memberships, investigator appointments, speakers bureau positions, research support, and consultancies for a variety of pharmaceutical companies, agencies, institutions, publishers, and other organizations.

Patients with suspected migraine and a normal neurological examination without any atypical features or red flags do not need an MRI or CT, according to recent updated recommendations in a guideline released by the American Headache Society.

Migraine with atypical features may require neuroimaging, according to the guideline. These include an unusual aura; change in clinical features; a first or worst migraine; a migraine that presents with brainstem aura, confusion, or motor manifestation; migraine accompaniments in later life; headaches that are side-locked or posttraumatic; and aura that presents without headache.
 

Assessing the evidence

The recommendation to avoid MRI or CT in otherwise neurologically normal patients with migraine carried a grade A recommendation from the American Headache Society, while the specific considerations for neuroimaging was based on consensus and carried a grade C recommendation, according to lead author Randolph W. Evans, MD, of the department of neurology at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, and colleagues.

The recommendations, published in the journal Headache (2020 Feb;60(2):318-36), came from a systematic review of 23 studies of adults at least 18 years old who underwent MRI or CT during outpatient treatment for migraine between 1973 and 2018. Ten studies looked at CT neuroimaging in patients with migraine, nine studies examined MRI neuroimaging alone in patients with migraine, and four studies contained adults with headache or migraine who underwent either MRI or CT. The majority of studies analyzed were retrospective or cross-sectional in nature, while four studies were prospective observational studies.

Dr. Evans and colleagues noted that neuroimaging for patients with suspected migraine is ordered for a variety of reasons, such as excluding conditions that aren’t migraine, diagnostic certainty, cognitive bias, practice workflow, medicolegal concerns, addressing patient and family anxiety, and addressing clinician anxiety. Neuroimaging also can be costly, they said, adding up to an estimated $1 billion annually according to one study, and can lead to additional testing from findings that may not be clinically significant.
 

Good advice, with caveats

In an interview, Alan M. Rapoport, MD, editor-in-chief of Neurology Reviews, said that while he generally does not like broad guideline recommendations, the recommendation made by the American Headache Society to avoid neuroimaging in patients with a normal neurological examination without any atypical features and red flags “takes most of the important factors into consideration and will work almost all the time.” The recommendation made by consensus for specific considerations of neuroimaging was issued by top headache specialists in the United States who reviewed the data, and it is unlikely a patient with a migraine as diagnosed by the International Classification of Headache Disorders with a normal neurological examination would have a significant abnormality that would appear with imaging, Dr. Rapoport said.

“If everyone caring for migraine patients knew these recommendations, and used them unless the patients fit the exclusions mentioned, we would have more efficient clinical practice and save lots of money on unnecessary scanning,” he said.

However, Dr. Rapoport, clinical professor of neurology at the University of California, Los Angeles, founder of the New England Center for Headache, and past president of The International Headache Society, said that not all clinicians will be convinced by the American Headache Society’s recommendations.

“Various third parties often jump on society recommendations or guidelines and prevent smart clinicians from doing what they need to do when they want to disregard the recommendation or guideline,” he explained. “More importantly, if a physician feels the need to think out of the box and image a patient without a clear reason, and the patient cannot pay for the scan when a medical insurance company refuses to authorize it, there can be a bad result if the patient does not get the study.”

Dr. Rapoport noted that the guideline does not address situations where neuroimaging may not pick up conditions that lead to migraine, such as a subarachnoid or subdural hemorrhage, reversible cerebral vasoconstriction syndrome, or early aspects of low cerebrospinal fluid pressure syndrome. Anxiety on the part of the patient or the clinician is another area that can be addressed by future research, he said.

“If the clinician does a good job of explaining the odds of anything significant being found with a typical migraine history and normal examination, and the patient says [they] need an MRI with contrast to be sure, it will be difficult to dissuade them,” said Dr. Rapoport. “If you don’t order one, they will find a way to get one. If it is abnormal, you could be in trouble. Also, if the clinician has no good reason to do a scan but has anxiety about what is being missed, it will probably get done.”

There was no funding source for the guidelines. The authors reported personal and institutional relationships in the form of advisory board memberships, investigator appointments, speakers bureau positions, research support, and consultancies for a variety of pharmaceutical companies, agencies, institutions, publishers, and other organizations.

Patients with suspected migraine and a normal neurological examination without any atypical features or red flags do not need an MRI or CT, according to recent updated recommendations in a guideline released by the American Headache Society.

Migraine with atypical features may require neuroimaging, according to the guideline. These include an unusual aura; change in clinical features; a first or worst migraine; a migraine that presents with brainstem aura, confusion, or motor manifestation; migraine accompaniments in later life; headaches that are side-locked or posttraumatic; and aura that presents without headache.
 

Assessing the evidence

The recommendation to avoid MRI or CT in otherwise neurologically normal patients with migraine carried a grade A recommendation from the American Headache Society, while the specific considerations for neuroimaging was based on consensus and carried a grade C recommendation, according to lead author Randolph W. Evans, MD, of the department of neurology at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, and colleagues.

The recommendations, published in the journal Headache (2020 Feb;60(2):318-36), came from a systematic review of 23 studies of adults at least 18 years old who underwent MRI or CT during outpatient treatment for migraine between 1973 and 2018. Ten studies looked at CT neuroimaging in patients with migraine, nine studies examined MRI neuroimaging alone in patients with migraine, and four studies contained adults with headache or migraine who underwent either MRI or CT. The majority of studies analyzed were retrospective or cross-sectional in nature, while four studies were prospective observational studies.

Dr. Evans and colleagues noted that neuroimaging for patients with suspected migraine is ordered for a variety of reasons, such as excluding conditions that aren’t migraine, diagnostic certainty, cognitive bias, practice workflow, medicolegal concerns, addressing patient and family anxiety, and addressing clinician anxiety. Neuroimaging also can be costly, they said, adding up to an estimated $1 billion annually according to one study, and can lead to additional testing from findings that may not be clinically significant.
 

Good advice, with caveats

In an interview, Alan M. Rapoport, MD, editor-in-chief of Neurology Reviews, said that while he generally does not like broad guideline recommendations, the recommendation made by the American Headache Society to avoid neuroimaging in patients with a normal neurological examination without any atypical features and red flags “takes most of the important factors into consideration and will work almost all the time.” The recommendation made by consensus for specific considerations of neuroimaging was issued by top headache specialists in the United States who reviewed the data, and it is unlikely a patient with a migraine as diagnosed by the International Classification of Headache Disorders with a normal neurological examination would have a significant abnormality that would appear with imaging, Dr. Rapoport said.

“If everyone caring for migraine patients knew these recommendations, and used them unless the patients fit the exclusions mentioned, we would have more efficient clinical practice and save lots of money on unnecessary scanning,” he said.

However, Dr. Rapoport, clinical professor of neurology at the University of California, Los Angeles, founder of the New England Center for Headache, and past president of The International Headache Society, said that not all clinicians will be convinced by the American Headache Society’s recommendations.

“Various third parties often jump on society recommendations or guidelines and prevent smart clinicians from doing what they need to do when they want to disregard the recommendation or guideline,” he explained. “More importantly, if a physician feels the need to think out of the box and image a patient without a clear reason, and the patient cannot pay for the scan when a medical insurance company refuses to authorize it, there can be a bad result if the patient does not get the study.”

Dr. Rapoport noted that the guideline does not address situations where neuroimaging may not pick up conditions that lead to migraine, such as a subarachnoid or subdural hemorrhage, reversible cerebral vasoconstriction syndrome, or early aspects of low cerebrospinal fluid pressure syndrome. Anxiety on the part of the patient or the clinician is another area that can be addressed by future research, he said.

“If the clinician does a good job of explaining the odds of anything significant being found with a typical migraine history and normal examination, and the patient says [they] need an MRI with contrast to be sure, it will be difficult to dissuade them,” said Dr. Rapoport. “If you don’t order one, they will find a way to get one. If it is abnormal, you could be in trouble. Also, if the clinician has no good reason to do a scan but has anxiety about what is being missed, it will probably get done.”

There was no funding source for the guidelines. The authors reported personal and institutional relationships in the form of advisory board memberships, investigator appointments, speakers bureau positions, research support, and consultancies for a variety of pharmaceutical companies, agencies, institutions, publishers, and other organizations.