Headache & Migraine

SAN FRANCISCO—Chronic migraine is associated with increased age-related cortical thinning of some brain areas and decreased age-related cortical thinning in other areas, according to research presented at the 60th Annual Scientific Meeting of the American Headache Society. It remains uncertain whether these cortical changes are a cause or an effect of chronic migraine.

Age-related cortical integrity had not been explored in chronic migraine previously. To investigate this topic, Yohannes Woubishet Woldeamanuel, MD, Instructor in Neurology and Neurologic Sciences at Stanford University in California, and colleagues enrolled 30 patients with chronic migraine and 30 age- and sex-matched healthy controls into a study. All participants were right-handed. The mean age in the chronic migraine group was 40.5, and the male-to-female ratio was 1:4. Investigators obtained the duration of chronic migraine and lifetime migraine from participants with chronic migraine.

Suggested Reading

Chong CD, Dodick DW, Schlaggar BL, Schwedt TJ. Atypical age-related cortical thinning in episodic migraine. Cephalalgia. 2014;34(14):1115-1124.

Schwedt TJ, Berisha V, Chong CD. Temporal lobe cortical thickness correlations differentiate the migraine brain from the healthy brain. PLoS One. 2015 Feb 13;10(2):e0116687.

SAN FRANCISCO—Chronic migraine is associated with increased age-related cortical thinning of some brain areas and decreased age-related cortical thinning in other areas, according to research presented at the 60th Annual Scientific Meeting of the American Headache Society. It remains uncertain whether these cortical changes are a cause or an effect of chronic migraine.

Age-related cortical integrity had not been explored in chronic migraine previously. To investigate this topic, Yohannes Woubishet Woldeamanuel, MD, Instructor in Neurology and Neurologic Sciences at Stanford University in California, and colleagues enrolled 30 patients with chronic migraine and 30 age- and sex-matched healthy controls into a study. All participants were right-handed. The mean age in the chronic migraine group was 40.5, and the male-to-female ratio was 1:4. Investigators obtained the duration of chronic migraine and lifetime migraine from participants with chronic migraine.

Suggested Reading

Chong CD, Dodick DW, Schlaggar BL, Schwedt TJ. Atypical age-related cortical thinning in episodic migraine. Cephalalgia. 2014;34(14):1115-1124.

Schwedt TJ, Berisha V, Chong CD. Temporal lobe cortical thickness correlations differentiate the migraine brain from the healthy brain. PLoS One. 2015 Feb 13;10(2):e0116687.

SAN FRANCISCO—Chronic migraine is associated with increased age-related cortical thinning of some brain areas and decreased age-related cortical thinning in other areas, according to research presented at the 60th Annual Scientific Meeting of the American Headache Society. It remains uncertain whether these cortical changes are a cause or an effect of chronic migraine.

Age-related cortical integrity had not been explored in chronic migraine previously. To investigate this topic, Yohannes Woubishet Woldeamanuel, MD, Instructor in Neurology and Neurologic Sciences at Stanford University in California, and colleagues enrolled 30 patients with chronic migraine and 30 age- and sex-matched healthy controls into a study. All participants were right-handed. The mean age in the chronic migraine group was 40.5, and the male-to-female ratio was 1:4. Investigators obtained the duration of chronic migraine and lifetime migraine from participants with chronic migraine.

Suggested Reading

Chong CD, Dodick DW, Schlaggar BL, Schwedt TJ. Atypical age-related cortical thinning in episodic migraine. Cephalalgia. 2014;34(14):1115-1124.

Schwedt TJ, Berisha V, Chong CD. Temporal lobe cortical thickness correlations differentiate the migraine brain from the healthy brain. PLoS One. 2015 Feb 13;10(2):e0116687.

SAN FRANCISCO—Unmet treatment needs among migraineurs receiving oral prescription medications include therapies to reduce nausea and disturbed sleep, according to a study described at the 60th Annual Scientific Meeting of the American Headache Society. The population also has unmet needs for therapies that provide pain freedom and rapid onset of action.

In 2017, investigators conducted the Migraine in America Symptoms and Treatment (MAST) study, which focused on migraine symptoms, current treatment patterns, and the assessment of unmet treatment needs. Richard B. Lipton, MD, Edwin S. Lowe Chair in Neurology at Albert Einstein College of Medicine in the Bronx, New York, and colleagues examined MAST data to empirically characterize the patterns of poorly controlled migraine and assess corresponding rates of migraine-related disability.

A Survey of American Migraineurs

The MAST survey data were obtained from a general US population sample of migraineurs age 18 and older. Migraineurs were identified using a validated migraine symptom screen based on modified ICHD-3b criteria. Eligible participants had an average of at least one headache day per month during the previous three months.

Respondents provided information about sociodemographics and medication use and responded to a 13-item battery evaluating headache burden and response to medication. The items on the battery were derived from a review of relevant literature, clinician input, and interviews with migraine patients. Participants provided frequency data for each item on a five-point scale ranging from “1) Never” to “5) All or Nearly All of the Time.” To measure construct validity for the scale, the investigators assessed moderate to severe disability for each respondent using the Migraine Disability Assessment Scale (MIDAS).

To determine the underlying structure of unmet treatment needs, Dr. Lipton and colleagues conducted Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) among the subset of respondents currently using oral acute prescription medications. They assessed the internal consistency for the derived factors using Cronbach’s alpha. Mean factor scores (range, 1 to 5) were calculated by summing item responses for each factor and dividing by the number of items loading on that factor. The researchers used Mantel-Haenszel Chi Square Test for Trend to evaluate the relationship between mean factor score and rates of moderate to severe migraine-related disability.

Treatment May Act Too Slowly

Among 15,133 respondents meeting inclusion criteria, 3,930 reported current use of acute oral prescription headache medication (mean age, 45.0, 73.6% women, 81.6% Caucasian). Injection and nasal spray medication users were eliminated from the sample. The most commonly endorsed needs were “severe headache attacks come on very rapidly” (52.8%), “attacks reach peak intensity in less than 30 minutes” (50.4%), “severe headache presents upon awakening” (40.9%), and “the return of pain within 24 hours after initial pain relief” (38.6%). EFA identified the following four unmet needs: nausea interference, disturbed sleep, rapid onset, and lack of pain freedom. Internal consistency exceeded acceptable levels for all factors except disturbed sleep. MIDAS disability increased in a clear linear pattern with increasing mean factor scores.

Suggested Reading

Blumenfeld AM, Aurora SK, Laranjo K, Papapetropoulos S. Unmet clinical needs in chronic migraine: Rationale for study and design of COMPEL, an open-label, multicenter study of the long-term efficacy, safety, and tolerability of onabotulinumtoxinA for headache prophylaxis in adults with chronic migraine. BMC Neurol. 2015;15:100.

Lipton RB, Buse DC, Serrano D, et al. Examination of unmet treatment needs among persons with episodic migraine: results of the American Migraine Prevalence and Prevention (AMPP) Study. Headache. 2013;53(8):1300-1311.

SAN FRANCISCO—Unmet treatment needs among migraineurs receiving oral prescription medications include therapies to reduce nausea and disturbed sleep, according to a study described at the 60th Annual Scientific Meeting of the American Headache Society. The population also has unmet needs for therapies that provide pain freedom and rapid onset of action.

In 2017, investigators conducted the Migraine in America Symptoms and Treatment (MAST) study, which focused on migraine symptoms, current treatment patterns, and the assessment of unmet treatment needs. Richard B. Lipton, MD, Edwin S. Lowe Chair in Neurology at Albert Einstein College of Medicine in the Bronx, New York, and colleagues examined MAST data to empirically characterize the patterns of poorly controlled migraine and assess corresponding rates of migraine-related disability.

A Survey of American Migraineurs

The MAST survey data were obtained from a general US population sample of migraineurs age 18 and older. Migraineurs were identified using a validated migraine symptom screen based on modified ICHD-3b criteria. Eligible participants had an average of at least one headache day per month during the previous three months.

Respondents provided information about sociodemographics and medication use and responded to a 13-item battery evaluating headache burden and response to medication. The items on the battery were derived from a review of relevant literature, clinician input, and interviews with migraine patients. Participants provided frequency data for each item on a five-point scale ranging from “1) Never” to “5) All or Nearly All of the Time.” To measure construct validity for the scale, the investigators assessed moderate to severe disability for each respondent using the Migraine Disability Assessment Scale (MIDAS).

To determine the underlying structure of unmet treatment needs, Dr. Lipton and colleagues conducted Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) among the subset of respondents currently using oral acute prescription medications. They assessed the internal consistency for the derived factors using Cronbach’s alpha. Mean factor scores (range, 1 to 5) were calculated by summing item responses for each factor and dividing by the number of items loading on that factor. The researchers used Mantel-Haenszel Chi Square Test for Trend to evaluate the relationship between mean factor score and rates of moderate to severe migraine-related disability.

Treatment May Act Too Slowly

Among 15,133 respondents meeting inclusion criteria, 3,930 reported current use of acute oral prescription headache medication (mean age, 45.0, 73.6% women, 81.6% Caucasian). Injection and nasal spray medication users were eliminated from the sample. The most commonly endorsed needs were “severe headache attacks come on very rapidly” (52.8%), “attacks reach peak intensity in less than 30 minutes” (50.4%), “severe headache presents upon awakening” (40.9%), and “the return of pain within 24 hours after initial pain relief” (38.6%). EFA identified the following four unmet needs: nausea interference, disturbed sleep, rapid onset, and lack of pain freedom. Internal consistency exceeded acceptable levels for all factors except disturbed sleep. MIDAS disability increased in a clear linear pattern with increasing mean factor scores.

Suggested Reading

Blumenfeld AM, Aurora SK, Laranjo K, Papapetropoulos S. Unmet clinical needs in chronic migraine: Rationale for study and design of COMPEL, an open-label, multicenter study of the long-term efficacy, safety, and tolerability of onabotulinumtoxinA for headache prophylaxis in adults with chronic migraine. BMC Neurol. 2015;15:100.

Lipton RB, Buse DC, Serrano D, et al. Examination of unmet treatment needs among persons with episodic migraine: results of the American Migraine Prevalence and Prevention (AMPP) Study. Headache. 2013;53(8):1300-1311.

SAN FRANCISCO—Unmet treatment needs among migraineurs receiving oral prescription medications include therapies to reduce nausea and disturbed sleep, according to a study described at the 60th Annual Scientific Meeting of the American Headache Society. The population also has unmet needs for therapies that provide pain freedom and rapid onset of action.

In 2017, investigators conducted the Migraine in America Symptoms and Treatment (MAST) study, which focused on migraine symptoms, current treatment patterns, and the assessment of unmet treatment needs. Richard B. Lipton, MD, Edwin S. Lowe Chair in Neurology at Albert Einstein College of Medicine in the Bronx, New York, and colleagues examined MAST data to empirically characterize the patterns of poorly controlled migraine and assess corresponding rates of migraine-related disability.

A Survey of American Migraineurs

The MAST survey data were obtained from a general US population sample of migraineurs age 18 and older. Migraineurs were identified using a validated migraine symptom screen based on modified ICHD-3b criteria. Eligible participants had an average of at least one headache day per month during the previous three months.

Respondents provided information about sociodemographics and medication use and responded to a 13-item battery evaluating headache burden and response to medication. The items on the battery were derived from a review of relevant literature, clinician input, and interviews with migraine patients. Participants provided frequency data for each item on a five-point scale ranging from “1) Never” to “5) All or Nearly All of the Time.” To measure construct validity for the scale, the investigators assessed moderate to severe disability for each respondent using the Migraine Disability Assessment Scale (MIDAS).

To determine the underlying structure of unmet treatment needs, Dr. Lipton and colleagues conducted Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) among the subset of respondents currently using oral acute prescription medications. They assessed the internal consistency for the derived factors using Cronbach’s alpha. Mean factor scores (range, 1 to 5) were calculated by summing item responses for each factor and dividing by the number of items loading on that factor. The researchers used Mantel-Haenszel Chi Square Test for Trend to evaluate the relationship between mean factor score and rates of moderate to severe migraine-related disability.

Treatment May Act Too Slowly

Among 15,133 respondents meeting inclusion criteria, 3,930 reported current use of acute oral prescription headache medication (mean age, 45.0, 73.6% women, 81.6% Caucasian). Injection and nasal spray medication users were eliminated from the sample. The most commonly endorsed needs were “severe headache attacks come on very rapidly” (52.8%), “attacks reach peak intensity in less than 30 minutes” (50.4%), “severe headache presents upon awakening” (40.9%), and “the return of pain within 24 hours after initial pain relief” (38.6%). EFA identified the following four unmet needs: nausea interference, disturbed sleep, rapid onset, and lack of pain freedom. Internal consistency exceeded acceptable levels for all factors except disturbed sleep. MIDAS disability increased in a clear linear pattern with increasing mean factor scores.

Suggested Reading

Blumenfeld AM, Aurora SK, Laranjo K, Papapetropoulos S. Unmet clinical needs in chronic migraine: Rationale for study and design of COMPEL, an open-label, multicenter study of the long-term efficacy, safety, and tolerability of onabotulinumtoxinA for headache prophylaxis in adults with chronic migraine. BMC Neurol. 2015;15:100.

Lipton RB, Buse DC, Serrano D, et al. Examination of unmet treatment needs among persons with episodic migraine: results of the American Migraine Prevalence and Prevention (AMPP) Study. Headache. 2013;53(8):1300-1311.

SAN FRANCISCO—Lasmiditan may provide pain freedom in the acute treatment of migraine, according to data described at the 60th Annual Scientific Meeting of the American Headache Society. The treatment also may alleviate a patient’s most bothersome symptom (MBS).

Lasmiditan is a novel, centrally acting serotonin (5-HT_1F) agonist that has no vasoconstrictive effect. Linda A. Wietecha, BSN, MS, Medical Advisor for Migraine and Headache Disorders at Eli Lilly and Company in Indianapolis, and colleagues conducted two pivotal phase III studies of lasmiditan to evaluate its efficacy and safety as an acute treatment of migraine.

The two trials, SAMURAI and SPARTAN, were randomized, double-blinded, and placebo-controlled. Eligible participants had a Migraine Disability Assessment Score of 11 or higher (indicating moderate disability) and three to eight migraine attacks per month. The researchers randomized patients to a first dose of treatment, which was taken within four hours of onset of a migraine with moderate or worse severity that was not improving. In the SAMURAI trial, patients were randomized in equal groups to 200 mg of lasmiditan, 100 mg of lasmiditan, or placebo. In the SPARTAN study, patients were randomized in equal groups to 200 mg of lasmiditan, 100 mg of lasmiditan, 50 mg of lasmiditan, or placebo.

For rescue or recurrence treatment, patients took a randomly assigned second dose of the previously assigned lasmiditan dose or placebo. The primary and key secondary analyses compared the proportions of patients in the lasmiditan 200-mg group with that in the placebo group who were free of headache pain and free of their MBS at two hours after the first dose. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were used to assess safety. The investigators performed logistic regression to make comparisons.

At two hours after the first dose, significantly greater proportions of patients taking 200 mg of lasmiditan were free of headache pain and free of MBS, compared with controls. In SAMURAI, the rate of headache pain freedom was 32.2% in the 200-mg group and 15.3% among controls. In SPARTAN, the rate of headache pain freedom was 38.8% in the 200-mg group and 21.3% in controls. The rate of patients free of MBS in SAMURAI was 40.7% in the 200-mg group and 29.5% in controls. The rate of patients free of MBS in SPARTAN was 48.7% in the 200-mg group and 33.5% in controls. For both end points, the investigators also found significant differences for other lasmiditan dose groups, compared with placebo.

The most frequently reported TEAEs with lasmiditan (ie, those occurring with a frequency of 2% or greater and at a rate greater than that among controls) after the first dose were dizziness, paresthesia, somnolence, fatigue, nausea, and lethargy. Most events were mild to moderate in severity.

Suggested Reading

Färkkilä M, Diener HC, Géraud G, et al. Efficacy and tolerability of lasmiditan, an oral 5-HT(1F) receptor agonist, for the acute treatment of migraine: a phase 2 randomised, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, dose-ranging study. Lancet Neurol. 2012;11(5):405-413.

SAN FRANCISCO—Lasmiditan may provide pain freedom in the acute treatment of migraine, according to data described at the 60th Annual Scientific Meeting of the American Headache Society. The treatment also may alleviate a patient’s most bothersome symptom (MBS).

Lasmiditan is a novel, centrally acting serotonin (5-HT_1F) agonist that has no vasoconstrictive effect. Linda A. Wietecha, BSN, MS, Medical Advisor for Migraine and Headache Disorders at Eli Lilly and Company in Indianapolis, and colleagues conducted two pivotal phase III studies of lasmiditan to evaluate its efficacy and safety as an acute treatment of migraine.

The two trials, SAMURAI and SPARTAN, were randomized, double-blinded, and placebo-controlled. Eligible participants had a Migraine Disability Assessment Score of 11 or higher (indicating moderate disability) and three to eight migraine attacks per month. The researchers randomized patients to a first dose of treatment, which was taken within four hours of onset of a migraine with moderate or worse severity that was not improving. In the SAMURAI trial, patients were randomized in equal groups to 200 mg of lasmiditan, 100 mg of lasmiditan, or placebo. In the SPARTAN study, patients were randomized in equal groups to 200 mg of lasmiditan, 100 mg of lasmiditan, 50 mg of lasmiditan, or placebo.

For rescue or recurrence treatment, patients took a randomly assigned second dose of the previously assigned lasmiditan dose or placebo. The primary and key secondary analyses compared the proportions of patients in the lasmiditan 200-mg group with that in the placebo group who were free of headache pain and free of their MBS at two hours after the first dose. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were used to assess safety. The investigators performed logistic regression to make comparisons.

At two hours after the first dose, significantly greater proportions of patients taking 200 mg of lasmiditan were free of headache pain and free of MBS, compared with controls. In SAMURAI, the rate of headache pain freedom was 32.2% in the 200-mg group and 15.3% among controls. In SPARTAN, the rate of headache pain freedom was 38.8% in the 200-mg group and 21.3% in controls. The rate of patients free of MBS in SAMURAI was 40.7% in the 200-mg group and 29.5% in controls. The rate of patients free of MBS in SPARTAN was 48.7% in the 200-mg group and 33.5% in controls. For both end points, the investigators also found significant differences for other lasmiditan dose groups, compared with placebo.

The most frequently reported TEAEs with lasmiditan (ie, those occurring with a frequency of 2% or greater and at a rate greater than that among controls) after the first dose were dizziness, paresthesia, somnolence, fatigue, nausea, and lethargy. Most events were mild to moderate in severity.

Suggested Reading

Färkkilä M, Diener HC, Géraud G, et al. Efficacy and tolerability of lasmiditan, an oral 5-HT(1F) receptor agonist, for the acute treatment of migraine: a phase 2 randomised, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, dose-ranging study. Lancet Neurol. 2012;11(5):405-413.

SAN FRANCISCO—Lasmiditan may provide pain freedom in the acute treatment of migraine, according to data described at the 60th Annual Scientific Meeting of the American Headache Society. The treatment also may alleviate a patient’s most bothersome symptom (MBS).

Lasmiditan is a novel, centrally acting serotonin (5-HT_1F) agonist that has no vasoconstrictive effect. Linda A. Wietecha, BSN, MS, Medical Advisor for Migraine and Headache Disorders at Eli Lilly and Company in Indianapolis, and colleagues conducted two pivotal phase III studies of lasmiditan to evaluate its efficacy and safety as an acute treatment of migraine.

The two trials, SAMURAI and SPARTAN, were randomized, double-blinded, and placebo-controlled. Eligible participants had a Migraine Disability Assessment Score of 11 or higher (indicating moderate disability) and three to eight migraine attacks per month. The researchers randomized patients to a first dose of treatment, which was taken within four hours of onset of a migraine with moderate or worse severity that was not improving. In the SAMURAI trial, patients were randomized in equal groups to 200 mg of lasmiditan, 100 mg of lasmiditan, or placebo. In the SPARTAN study, patients were randomized in equal groups to 200 mg of lasmiditan, 100 mg of lasmiditan, 50 mg of lasmiditan, or placebo.

For rescue or recurrence treatment, patients took a randomly assigned second dose of the previously assigned lasmiditan dose or placebo. The primary and key secondary analyses compared the proportions of patients in the lasmiditan 200-mg group with that in the placebo group who were free of headache pain and free of their MBS at two hours after the first dose. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were used to assess safety. The investigators performed logistic regression to make comparisons.

At two hours after the first dose, significantly greater proportions of patients taking 200 mg of lasmiditan were free of headache pain and free of MBS, compared with controls. In SAMURAI, the rate of headache pain freedom was 32.2% in the 200-mg group and 15.3% among controls. In SPARTAN, the rate of headache pain freedom was 38.8% in the 200-mg group and 21.3% in controls. The rate of patients free of MBS in SAMURAI was 40.7% in the 200-mg group and 29.5% in controls. The rate of patients free of MBS in SPARTAN was 48.7% in the 200-mg group and 33.5% in controls. For both end points, the investigators also found significant differences for other lasmiditan dose groups, compared with placebo.

The most frequently reported TEAEs with lasmiditan (ie, those occurring with a frequency of 2% or greater and at a rate greater than that among controls) after the first dose were dizziness, paresthesia, somnolence, fatigue, nausea, and lethargy. Most events were mild to moderate in severity.

Suggested Reading

Färkkilä M, Diener HC, Géraud G, et al. Efficacy and tolerability of lasmiditan, an oral 5-HT(1F) receptor agonist, for the acute treatment of migraine: a phase 2 randomised, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, dose-ranging study. Lancet Neurol. 2012;11(5):405-413.

SAN FRANCISCO—Among patients with acute migraine, significant and durable clinical effects were seen with a single dose of rimegepant across multiple outcome measures, including pain freedom, freedom from most bothersome symptom, pain relief, and recovery of normal function, according to data presented at the 60th Annual Scientific Meeting of the American Headache Society. Rimegepant (75 mg oral tablet) demonstrated favorable tolerability and safety, including a liver safety profile, similar to placebo. “These clinically meaningful results complement the benefits seen in an identical phase III study and a previous phase IIb study,” said Richard B. Lipton, MD, Edwin S. Lowe Chair in Neurology at Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York, and colleagues. “Rimegepant may ultimately offer patients a novel approach for the acute treatment of migraine.”

Dr. Lipton and colleagues conducted a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial to compare the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor antagonist rimegepant (75 mg oral tablet) with placebo in the acute treatment of migraine in adults.

SAN FRANCISCO—Among patients with acute migraine, significant and durable clinical effects were seen with a single dose of rimegepant across multiple outcome measures, including pain freedom, freedom from most bothersome symptom, pain relief, and recovery of normal function, according to data presented at the 60th Annual Scientific Meeting of the American Headache Society. Rimegepant (75 mg oral tablet) demonstrated favorable tolerability and safety, including a liver safety profile, similar to placebo. “These clinically meaningful results complement the benefits seen in an identical phase III study and a previous phase IIb study,” said Richard B. Lipton, MD, Edwin S. Lowe Chair in Neurology at Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York, and colleagues. “Rimegepant may ultimately offer patients a novel approach for the acute treatment of migraine.”

Dr. Lipton and colleagues conducted a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial to compare the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor antagonist rimegepant (75 mg oral tablet) with placebo in the acute treatment of migraine in adults.

SAN FRANCISCO—Among patients with acute migraine, significant and durable clinical effects were seen with a single dose of rimegepant across multiple outcome measures, including pain freedom, freedom from most bothersome symptom, pain relief, and recovery of normal function, according to data presented at the 60th Annual Scientific Meeting of the American Headache Society. Rimegepant (75 mg oral tablet) demonstrated favorable tolerability and safety, including a liver safety profile, similar to placebo. “These clinically meaningful results complement the benefits seen in an identical phase III study and a previous phase IIb study,” said Richard B. Lipton, MD, Edwin S. Lowe Chair in Neurology at Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York, and colleagues. “Rimegepant may ultimately offer patients a novel approach for the acute treatment of migraine.”

Dr. Lipton and colleagues conducted a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial to compare the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor antagonist rimegepant (75 mg oral tablet) with placebo in the acute treatment of migraine in adults.

SAN FRANCISCO—Although triptans are considered the gold standard for acute migraine therapy, only 37% of migraineurs had ever used a triptan and just 15.9% were current triptan users, according to the results of a study presented at the 60th Annual Scientific Meeting of the American Headache Society. Aftab Alam, MBBS, MBA, from Medical Affairs at Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories in Princeton, New Jersey, and colleagues from the Migraine in America Symptoms and Treatment (MAST) study determined that while oral treatment was the most common route of administration, only 11.5% of their total sample (31.1% of ever triptan users and 40.4% of current triptan users) had ever used a non-oral formulation.

The MAST Study collected detailed information regarding patterns of medication use in a sample of patients with migraine. The objectives of the analysis were to understand past and current usage patterns for triptans by route of administration and the rates and reasons for discontinuation.

Study respondents were recruited from a nationwide online research panel. Stratified random sampling identified a representative cohort of individuals 18 and older. A validated migraine symptom screen based on modified ICHD-3 beta criteria identified those with migraine. Study inclusion required an average of at least one headache day per month over the previous three months. Qualified respondents provided sociodemographic data (age, gender, and race) as well as patterns of past and current medication use. For past triptan users, Dr. Alam and his MAST study collaborators assessed reasons for discontinuation from a pre-coded list of side effects and triptan sensation symptoms. Other responses were allowed and coded. The researchers examined descriptive results for each route of administration, but “the groups are not mutually exclusive,” Dr. Alam noted.

Triptan Usage Results

Among 15,133 respondents with migraine, the mean age was 43.1; 73% were women, and 81% were Caucasian. Median monthly headache frequency was 3.3 days per month. A total of 5,596 (37%) had ever used a triptan. Among this subgroup, 81.8% had used oral, 21.3% had used a nasal spray, and 19.0% had used injectable forms; 22.2% had used more than one route of administration. Among current triptan users (2,421, 15.9%), 84.7% use oral, 16.5% use nasal spray, and 8.1% use injectable; 9.3% currently use more than one route of administration. Discontinuation rates were highest for injectable triptans (81.5%), followed by nasal sprays (66.5%) and oral medications (55.2%).

Reasons for Discontinuation

The most common reason for discontinuation was perceived lack of efficacy (38.4% oral, 39.8% nasal spray, 25.7% injectable), followed by side effects (22.8% oral, 17% nasal spray, 20.6% injectable). The most commonly reported side effects were dizziness (37.4% oral, 29.4% nasal spray, 33.5% injectable) followed by nausea (30.7% oral, 32.4% nasal spray, 24.6% injectable) and fatigue (26.2% oral, 24.3% nasal spray, 21.2% injectable). One or more triptan sensation symptom was reported among 60.3% of injection users, 46.5% of oral users, and 39.7% of nasal spray users.

—Glenn S. Williams

Suggested Reading

Wells RE, Markowitz SY, Baron EP, et al. Identifying factors underlying discontinuation of triptans. Headache. 2014;54(2):278-289.

SAN FRANCISCO—Although triptans are considered the gold standard for acute migraine therapy, only 37% of migraineurs had ever used a triptan and just 15.9% were current triptan users, according to the results of a study presented at the 60th Annual Scientific Meeting of the American Headache Society. Aftab Alam, MBBS, MBA, from Medical Affairs at Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories in Princeton, New Jersey, and colleagues from the Migraine in America Symptoms and Treatment (MAST) study determined that while oral treatment was the most common route of administration, only 11.5% of their total sample (31.1% of ever triptan users and 40.4% of current triptan users) had ever used a non-oral formulation.

The MAST Study collected detailed information regarding patterns of medication use in a sample of patients with migraine. The objectives of the analysis were to understand past and current usage patterns for triptans by route of administration and the rates and reasons for discontinuation.

Study respondents were recruited from a nationwide online research panel. Stratified random sampling identified a representative cohort of individuals 18 and older. A validated migraine symptom screen based on modified ICHD-3 beta criteria identified those with migraine. Study inclusion required an average of at least one headache day per month over the previous three months. Qualified respondents provided sociodemographic data (age, gender, and race) as well as patterns of past and current medication use. For past triptan users, Dr. Alam and his MAST study collaborators assessed reasons for discontinuation from a pre-coded list of side effects and triptan sensation symptoms. Other responses were allowed and coded. The researchers examined descriptive results for each route of administration, but “the groups are not mutually exclusive,” Dr. Alam noted.

Triptan Usage Results

Among 15,133 respondents with migraine, the mean age was 43.1; 73% were women, and 81% were Caucasian. Median monthly headache frequency was 3.3 days per month. A total of 5,596 (37%) had ever used a triptan. Among this subgroup, 81.8% had used oral, 21.3% had used a nasal spray, and 19.0% had used injectable forms; 22.2% had used more than one route of administration. Among current triptan users (2,421, 15.9%), 84.7% use oral, 16.5% use nasal spray, and 8.1% use injectable; 9.3% currently use more than one route of administration. Discontinuation rates were highest for injectable triptans (81.5%), followed by nasal sprays (66.5%) and oral medications (55.2%).

Reasons for Discontinuation

The most common reason for discontinuation was perceived lack of efficacy (38.4% oral, 39.8% nasal spray, 25.7% injectable), followed by side effects (22.8% oral, 17% nasal spray, 20.6% injectable). The most commonly reported side effects were dizziness (37.4% oral, 29.4% nasal spray, 33.5% injectable) followed by nausea (30.7% oral, 32.4% nasal spray, 24.6% injectable) and fatigue (26.2% oral, 24.3% nasal spray, 21.2% injectable). One or more triptan sensation symptom was reported among 60.3% of injection users, 46.5% of oral users, and 39.7% of nasal spray users.

—Glenn S. Williams

Suggested Reading

Wells RE, Markowitz SY, Baron EP, et al. Identifying factors underlying discontinuation of triptans. Headache. 2014;54(2):278-289.

SAN FRANCISCO—Although triptans are considered the gold standard for acute migraine therapy, only 37% of migraineurs had ever used a triptan and just 15.9% were current triptan users, according to the results of a study presented at the 60th Annual Scientific Meeting of the American Headache Society. Aftab Alam, MBBS, MBA, from Medical Affairs at Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories in Princeton, New Jersey, and colleagues from the Migraine in America Symptoms and Treatment (MAST) study determined that while oral treatment was the most common route of administration, only 11.5% of their total sample (31.1% of ever triptan users and 40.4% of current triptan users) had ever used a non-oral formulation.

The MAST Study collected detailed information regarding patterns of medication use in a sample of patients with migraine. The objectives of the analysis were to understand past and current usage patterns for triptans by route of administration and the rates and reasons for discontinuation.

Study respondents were recruited from a nationwide online research panel. Stratified random sampling identified a representative cohort of individuals 18 and older. A validated migraine symptom screen based on modified ICHD-3 beta criteria identified those with migraine. Study inclusion required an average of at least one headache day per month over the previous three months. Qualified respondents provided sociodemographic data (age, gender, and race) as well as patterns of past and current medication use. For past triptan users, Dr. Alam and his MAST study collaborators assessed reasons for discontinuation from a pre-coded list of side effects and triptan sensation symptoms. Other responses were allowed and coded. The researchers examined descriptive results for each route of administration, but “the groups are not mutually exclusive,” Dr. Alam noted.

Triptan Usage Results

Among 15,133 respondents with migraine, the mean age was 43.1; 73% were women, and 81% were Caucasian. Median monthly headache frequency was 3.3 days per month. A total of 5,596 (37%) had ever used a triptan. Among this subgroup, 81.8% had used oral, 21.3% had used a nasal spray, and 19.0% had used injectable forms; 22.2% had used more than one route of administration. Among current triptan users (2,421, 15.9%), 84.7% use oral, 16.5% use nasal spray, and 8.1% use injectable; 9.3% currently use more than one route of administration. Discontinuation rates were highest for injectable triptans (81.5%), followed by nasal sprays (66.5%) and oral medications (55.2%).

Reasons for Discontinuation

The most common reason for discontinuation was perceived lack of efficacy (38.4% oral, 39.8% nasal spray, 25.7% injectable), followed by side effects (22.8% oral, 17% nasal spray, 20.6% injectable). The most commonly reported side effects were dizziness (37.4% oral, 29.4% nasal spray, 33.5% injectable) followed by nausea (30.7% oral, 32.4% nasal spray, 24.6% injectable) and fatigue (26.2% oral, 24.3% nasal spray, 21.2% injectable). One or more triptan sensation symptom was reported among 60.3% of injection users, 46.5% of oral users, and 39.7% of nasal spray users.

—Glenn S. Williams

Suggested Reading

Wells RE, Markowitz SY, Baron EP, et al. Identifying factors underlying discontinuation of triptans. Headache. 2014;54(2):278-289.

SAN FRANCISCO—Most women with migraine develop migraine pattern change, worsening migraine, or new-onset migraine at the age of menopause, according to a study presented at the 60th Annual Scientific Meeting of the American Headache Society. These changes most often occur during the perimenopausal or postmenopausal stages.

Previous research indicates that the prevalence and frequency of migraine are higher in perimenopausal women than in other women. Yu-Chen Cheng, MD, MPH, a postdoctoral fellow at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, and colleagues investigated patterns of migraine in women at menopausal age (ie, age 40–60) with migraine who presented to the Partners Healthcare Hospitals. The investigators reviewed participants’ medical records, brain image reports, and laboratory data, including levels of estradiol and follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH).

In their retrospective study, Dr. Cheng and colleagues identified 81 patients with concurrent diagnoses of migraine and menopause who had clinical data available. They excluded patients with missing or inaccessible data, as well as patients with organic brain lesions such as those associated with multiple sclerosis or brain tumor. The researchers included 69 patients in the study.

Sixty patients (86.96%) had a history of migraine, and the other nine patients (13.04%) had new-onset migraine. Among participants with a history of migraine, 35 (58.33%) had a change in migraine pattern or worsening of their migraine headaches. The investigators categorized patients in this group as having migraine worsening (60.00%), migraine pattern change (28.57%), worsening related to other cause (8.57%), and not sure (2.86%). Twenty-five patients with migraine history were stable and had no change in the pattern of their headaches.

Dr. Cheng and colleagues also examined the population’s menopausal status when they had migraine change or worsening or new migraine. Among patients with migraine history, nine of 35 (25.71%) were at the perimenopausal stage, 12 (34.29%) were postmenopausal, five (14.29%) were premenopausal, three (8.57%) had worsening because of other causes, and three (8.57%) did not have records on their menopausal status. For patients with new-onset migraine, three of nine (33%) were perimenopausal, three (33%) were postmenopausal, and one (11.11%) was premenopausal.

Among patients with new-onset migraine, brain MRI was normal in 44.44%, showed pituitary abnormality in 22.22%, and showed other brain lesion in 33.33%. In patients with migraine history, brain MRI was normal in 45%, showed pituitary abnormality in 8.3%, showed nonspecific T2 high white matter lesion in 16.67%, and showed other brain lesion in 11.67%.

“Identifying migraine worsening or new-onset migraine during the menopausal transition age may help the diagnosis and treatment optimization of migraine for women during the menopausal age,” said Dr. Cheng.

SAN FRANCISCO—Most women with migraine develop migraine pattern change, worsening migraine, or new-onset migraine at the age of menopause, according to a study presented at the 60th Annual Scientific Meeting of the American Headache Society. These changes most often occur during the perimenopausal or postmenopausal stages.

Previous research indicates that the prevalence and frequency of migraine are higher in perimenopausal women than in other women. Yu-Chen Cheng, MD, MPH, a postdoctoral fellow at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, and colleagues investigated patterns of migraine in women at menopausal age (ie, age 40–60) with migraine who presented to the Partners Healthcare Hospitals. The investigators reviewed participants’ medical records, brain image reports, and laboratory data, including levels of estradiol and follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH).

In their retrospective study, Dr. Cheng and colleagues identified 81 patients with concurrent diagnoses of migraine and menopause who had clinical data available. They excluded patients with missing or inaccessible data, as well as patients with organic brain lesions such as those associated with multiple sclerosis or brain tumor. The researchers included 69 patients in the study.

Sixty patients (86.96%) had a history of migraine, and the other nine patients (13.04%) had new-onset migraine. Among participants with a history of migraine, 35 (58.33%) had a change in migraine pattern or worsening of their migraine headaches. The investigators categorized patients in this group as having migraine worsening (60.00%), migraine pattern change (28.57%), worsening related to other cause (8.57%), and not sure (2.86%). Twenty-five patients with migraine history were stable and had no change in the pattern of their headaches.

Dr. Cheng and colleagues also examined the population’s menopausal status when they had migraine change or worsening or new migraine. Among patients with migraine history, nine of 35 (25.71%) were at the perimenopausal stage, 12 (34.29%) were postmenopausal, five (14.29%) were premenopausal, three (8.57%) had worsening because of other causes, and three (8.57%) did not have records on their menopausal status. For patients with new-onset migraine, three of nine (33%) were perimenopausal, three (33%) were postmenopausal, and one (11.11%) was premenopausal.

Among patients with new-onset migraine, brain MRI was normal in 44.44%, showed pituitary abnormality in 22.22%, and showed other brain lesion in 33.33%. In patients with migraine history, brain MRI was normal in 45%, showed pituitary abnormality in 8.3%, showed nonspecific T2 high white matter lesion in 16.67%, and showed other brain lesion in 11.67%.

“Identifying migraine worsening or new-onset migraine during the menopausal transition age may help the diagnosis and treatment optimization of migraine for women during the menopausal age,” said Dr. Cheng.

SAN FRANCISCO—Most women with migraine develop migraine pattern change, worsening migraine, or new-onset migraine at the age of menopause, according to a study presented at the 60th Annual Scientific Meeting of the American Headache Society. These changes most often occur during the perimenopausal or postmenopausal stages.

Previous research indicates that the prevalence and frequency of migraine are higher in perimenopausal women than in other women. Yu-Chen Cheng, MD, MPH, a postdoctoral fellow at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, and colleagues investigated patterns of migraine in women at menopausal age (ie, age 40–60) with migraine who presented to the Partners Healthcare Hospitals. The investigators reviewed participants’ medical records, brain image reports, and laboratory data, including levels of estradiol and follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH).

In their retrospective study, Dr. Cheng and colleagues identified 81 patients with concurrent diagnoses of migraine and menopause who had clinical data available. They excluded patients with missing or inaccessible data, as well as patients with organic brain lesions such as those associated with multiple sclerosis or brain tumor. The researchers included 69 patients in the study.

Sixty patients (86.96%) had a history of migraine, and the other nine patients (13.04%) had new-onset migraine. Among participants with a history of migraine, 35 (58.33%) had a change in migraine pattern or worsening of their migraine headaches. The investigators categorized patients in this group as having migraine worsening (60.00%), migraine pattern change (28.57%), worsening related to other cause (8.57%), and not sure (2.86%). Twenty-five patients with migraine history were stable and had no change in the pattern of their headaches.

Dr. Cheng and colleagues also examined the population’s menopausal status when they had migraine change or worsening or new migraine. Among patients with migraine history, nine of 35 (25.71%) were at the perimenopausal stage, 12 (34.29%) were postmenopausal, five (14.29%) were premenopausal, three (8.57%) had worsening because of other causes, and three (8.57%) did not have records on their menopausal status. For patients with new-onset migraine, three of nine (33%) were perimenopausal, three (33%) were postmenopausal, and one (11.11%) was premenopausal.

Among patients with new-onset migraine, brain MRI was normal in 44.44%, showed pituitary abnormality in 22.22%, and showed other brain lesion in 33.33%. In patients with migraine history, brain MRI was normal in 45%, showed pituitary abnormality in 8.3%, showed nonspecific T2 high white matter lesion in 16.67%, and showed other brain lesion in 11.67%.

“Identifying migraine worsening or new-onset migraine during the menopausal transition age may help the diagnosis and treatment optimization of migraine for women during the menopausal age,” said Dr. Cheng.

SAN FRANCISCO—For the prevention of chronic migraine, onabotulinumtoxinA has a superior tolerability profile versus topiramate based on treatment-related adverse events and overall discontinuations, according to data presented at the 60th Annual Scientific Meeting of the American Headache Society. In addition, “patient-reported outcomes data suggest that changes in cognition, an important adverse event leading to treatment discontinuation with topiramate, may be seen as early as week 12,” said Andrew M. Blumenfeld, MD, Director of the Headache Center of Southern California in Oceanside, and colleagues. Dr. Blumenfeld also reported that onabotulinumtoxinA has a more favorable effect on depressive symptoms than does topiramate.

According to Dr. Blumenfeld and colleagues, many adults with chronic migraine are not receiving appropriate preventive treatment and when prescribed, adherence to treatment is relatively low. To address this problem, he and his colleagues conducted a multicenter, prospective, randomized, parallel-group, open-label study to compare onabotulinumtoxinA and topiramate for headache prevention in adults with chronic migraine (the FORWARD study).

The study assessed the effectiveness of onabotulinumtoxinA 155 U administered to 31 sites across seven head and neck muscles, fixed-site, fixed-dose, every 12 weeks for three cycles versus topiramate 50 to 100 mg/day up to week 36. The primary efficacy measure was the proportion of patients with a 50% or greater reduction in headache days versus baseline in the 28 days before week 32. Safety and tolerability were assessed; adverse events were monitored. Patient-reported outcomes collected from questionnaires at day 1 and weeks 12, 24, and 36 included the Controlled Oral Word Association Test (COWAT) and the nine-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9). Baseline observation carried forward (BLOCF) was used to impute missing values at primary time points, followed by questionnaire guidelines for missing questionnaire data.

A total of 282 patients were enrolled—140 in the onabotulinumtoxinA arm and 142 in the topiramate arm. Mean baseline headache days (onabotulinumtoxinA, 22.1; topiramate, 21.8) were similar. Of the patients enrolled, 148 completed randomized treatment (onabotulinumtoxinA, 85.7%; topiramate, 19.7%). Primary reasons for withdrawal were ineffective treatment (onabotulinumtoxinA, 5.0%; topiramate, 19.0%) and adverse events (onabotulinumtoxinA, 3.6%; topiramate, 50.7%). Based on BLOCF, more patients on onabotulinumtoxinA had a 50% or greater reduction in headache frequency compared with baseline versus topiramate (40.0% vs 12.0%). Adverse events were reported by 45.5% of patients who received onabotulinumtoxinA and 76.8% of patients who received topiramate; treatment-related adverse events were reported by 17.3% and 69.0%, respectively. No new safety signals were identified for onabotulinumtoxinA. Adverse events relating to nervous system disorders most commonly led to treatment discontinuation for topiramate. Topiramate reduced mean COWAT scores from as early as week 12, suggesting cognitive changes occurred early in treatment with topiramate. As the study progressed, topiramate’s effect may have been obscured by the BLOCF imputation methodology due to the large proportion of patients withdrawing from topiramate, the investigators said. In contrast, onabotulinumtoxinA resulted in a small increase in COWAT scores from week 12 to week 36. OnabotulinumtoxinA had a significantly greater effect on mean PHQ-9 scores at week 36 (4.4), compared with topiramate (7.1; estimated mean difference, –1.86).

SAN FRANCISCO—For the prevention of chronic migraine, onabotulinumtoxinA has a superior tolerability profile versus topiramate based on treatment-related adverse events and overall discontinuations, according to data presented at the 60th Annual Scientific Meeting of the American Headache Society. In addition, “patient-reported outcomes data suggest that changes in cognition, an important adverse event leading to treatment discontinuation with topiramate, may be seen as early as week 12,” said Andrew M. Blumenfeld, MD, Director of the Headache Center of Southern California in Oceanside, and colleagues. Dr. Blumenfeld also reported that onabotulinumtoxinA has a more favorable effect on depressive symptoms than does topiramate.

According to Dr. Blumenfeld and colleagues, many adults with chronic migraine are not receiving appropriate preventive treatment and when prescribed, adherence to treatment is relatively low. To address this problem, he and his colleagues conducted a multicenter, prospective, randomized, parallel-group, open-label study to compare onabotulinumtoxinA and topiramate for headache prevention in adults with chronic migraine (the FORWARD study).

The study assessed the effectiveness of onabotulinumtoxinA 155 U administered to 31 sites across seven head and neck muscles, fixed-site, fixed-dose, every 12 weeks for three cycles versus topiramate 50 to 100 mg/day up to week 36. The primary efficacy measure was the proportion of patients with a 50% or greater reduction in headache days versus baseline in the 28 days before week 32. Safety and tolerability were assessed; adverse events were monitored. Patient-reported outcomes collected from questionnaires at day 1 and weeks 12, 24, and 36 included the Controlled Oral Word Association Test (COWAT) and the nine-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9). Baseline observation carried forward (BLOCF) was used to impute missing values at primary time points, followed by questionnaire guidelines for missing questionnaire data.

A total of 282 patients were enrolled—140 in the onabotulinumtoxinA arm and 142 in the topiramate arm. Mean baseline headache days (onabotulinumtoxinA, 22.1; topiramate, 21.8) were similar. Of the patients enrolled, 148 completed randomized treatment (onabotulinumtoxinA, 85.7%; topiramate, 19.7%). Primary reasons for withdrawal were ineffective treatment (onabotulinumtoxinA, 5.0%; topiramate, 19.0%) and adverse events (onabotulinumtoxinA, 3.6%; topiramate, 50.7%). Based on BLOCF, more patients on onabotulinumtoxinA had a 50% or greater reduction in headache frequency compared with baseline versus topiramate (40.0% vs 12.0%). Adverse events were reported by 45.5% of patients who received onabotulinumtoxinA and 76.8% of patients who received topiramate; treatment-related adverse events were reported by 17.3% and 69.0%, respectively. No new safety signals were identified for onabotulinumtoxinA. Adverse events relating to nervous system disorders most commonly led to treatment discontinuation for topiramate. Topiramate reduced mean COWAT scores from as early as week 12, suggesting cognitive changes occurred early in treatment with topiramate. As the study progressed, topiramate’s effect may have been obscured by the BLOCF imputation methodology due to the large proportion of patients withdrawing from topiramate, the investigators said. In contrast, onabotulinumtoxinA resulted in a small increase in COWAT scores from week 12 to week 36. OnabotulinumtoxinA had a significantly greater effect on mean PHQ-9 scores at week 36 (4.4), compared with topiramate (7.1; estimated mean difference, –1.86).

SAN FRANCISCO—For the prevention of chronic migraine, onabotulinumtoxinA has a superior tolerability profile versus topiramate based on treatment-related adverse events and overall discontinuations, according to data presented at the 60th Annual Scientific Meeting of the American Headache Society. In addition, “patient-reported outcomes data suggest that changes in cognition, an important adverse event leading to treatment discontinuation with topiramate, may be seen as early as week 12,” said Andrew M. Blumenfeld, MD, Director of the Headache Center of Southern California in Oceanside, and colleagues. Dr. Blumenfeld also reported that onabotulinumtoxinA has a more favorable effect on depressive symptoms than does topiramate.

According to Dr. Blumenfeld and colleagues, many adults with chronic migraine are not receiving appropriate preventive treatment and when prescribed, adherence to treatment is relatively low. To address this problem, he and his colleagues conducted a multicenter, prospective, randomized, parallel-group, open-label study to compare onabotulinumtoxinA and topiramate for headache prevention in adults with chronic migraine (the FORWARD study).

The study assessed the effectiveness of onabotulinumtoxinA 155 U administered to 31 sites across seven head and neck muscles, fixed-site, fixed-dose, every 12 weeks for three cycles versus topiramate 50 to 100 mg/day up to week 36. The primary efficacy measure was the proportion of patients with a 50% or greater reduction in headache days versus baseline in the 28 days before week 32. Safety and tolerability were assessed; adverse events were monitored. Patient-reported outcomes collected from questionnaires at day 1 and weeks 12, 24, and 36 included the Controlled Oral Word Association Test (COWAT) and the nine-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9). Baseline observation carried forward (BLOCF) was used to impute missing values at primary time points, followed by questionnaire guidelines for missing questionnaire data.

A total of 282 patients were enrolled—140 in the onabotulinumtoxinA arm and 142 in the topiramate arm. Mean baseline headache days (onabotulinumtoxinA, 22.1; topiramate, 21.8) were similar. Of the patients enrolled, 148 completed randomized treatment (onabotulinumtoxinA, 85.7%; topiramate, 19.7%). Primary reasons for withdrawal were ineffective treatment (onabotulinumtoxinA, 5.0%; topiramate, 19.0%) and adverse events (onabotulinumtoxinA, 3.6%; topiramate, 50.7%). Based on BLOCF, more patients on onabotulinumtoxinA had a 50% or greater reduction in headache frequency compared with baseline versus topiramate (40.0% vs 12.0%). Adverse events were reported by 45.5% of patients who received onabotulinumtoxinA and 76.8% of patients who received topiramate; treatment-related adverse events were reported by 17.3% and 69.0%, respectively. No new safety signals were identified for onabotulinumtoxinA. Adverse events relating to nervous system disorders most commonly led to treatment discontinuation for topiramate. Topiramate reduced mean COWAT scores from as early as week 12, suggesting cognitive changes occurred early in treatment with topiramate. As the study progressed, topiramate’s effect may have been obscured by the BLOCF imputation methodology due to the large proportion of patients withdrawing from topiramate, the investigators said. In contrast, onabotulinumtoxinA resulted in a small increase in COWAT scores from week 12 to week 36. OnabotulinumtoxinA had a significantly greater effect on mean PHQ-9 scores at week 36 (4.4), compared with topiramate (7.1; estimated mean difference, –1.86).

SAN FRANCISCO—Greater occipital nerve blocks with bupivacaine may be an effective treatment for patients with acute migraine in the emergency department who continue to experience moderate or severe headache after administration of intravenous metoclopramide, according to a presentation at the 60th Annual Scientific Meeting of the American Headache Society.

Greater occipital nerve block is thought to be an effective treatment for acute migraine, although no randomized efficacy data have been published for this indication. Benjamin W. Friedman, MD, Professor of Emergency Medicine, Montefiore Medical Center, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York, and colleagues hypothesized that bilateral greater occipital nerve block with bupivacaine would provide greater rates of headache freedom than a sham injection among a population of emergency department patients who reported persistence of moderate or severe headache despite standard treatment with intravenous metoclopramide.

Dr. Friedman and colleagues conducted a randomized, sham-controlled trial of bilateral greater occipital nerve blocks with bupivacaine in two urban emergency departments. Patients with acute migraine who reported persistence of a moderate or severe headache for at least one hour or longer after treatment with 10 mg of intravenous metoclopramide were randomized to bilateral greater occipital nerve block with a total of 6 cc of 0.5% bupivacaine or bilateral intradermal scalp injection with a total of 1 cc of 0.5% bupivacaine. The primary outcome was complete headache freedom 30 minutes after the injection. An important secondary outcome was sustained headache relief, defined as achieving a headache level of mild or none in the emergency department and maintaining a level of mild or no headache without the use of any additional medication for 48 hours.

Over a 32-month period, 76 patients were screened for participation and 28 were enrolled, of whom 15 received sham injection and 13 received greater occipital nerve block. The primary outcome, headache freedom at 30 minutes, was achieved by none of the patients in the sham arm and by four patients (31%) in the nerve block arm. The secondary outcome, sustained headache relief for 48 hours, was reported by none of the patients who received sham and by three of the patients (23%) who received greater occipital nerve blocks. Reported side effects did not differ substantially between the two groups.

SAN FRANCISCO—Greater occipital nerve blocks with bupivacaine may be an effective treatment for patients with acute migraine in the emergency department who continue to experience moderate or severe headache after administration of intravenous metoclopramide, according to a presentation at the 60th Annual Scientific Meeting of the American Headache Society.

Greater occipital nerve block is thought to be an effective treatment for acute migraine, although no randomized efficacy data have been published for this indication. Benjamin W. Friedman, MD, Professor of Emergency Medicine, Montefiore Medical Center, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York, and colleagues hypothesized that bilateral greater occipital nerve block with bupivacaine would provide greater rates of headache freedom than a sham injection among a population of emergency department patients who reported persistence of moderate or severe headache despite standard treatment with intravenous metoclopramide.

Dr. Friedman and colleagues conducted a randomized, sham-controlled trial of bilateral greater occipital nerve blocks with bupivacaine in two urban emergency departments. Patients with acute migraine who reported persistence of a moderate or severe headache for at least one hour or longer after treatment with 10 mg of intravenous metoclopramide were randomized to bilateral greater occipital nerve block with a total of 6 cc of 0.5% bupivacaine or bilateral intradermal scalp injection with a total of 1 cc of 0.5% bupivacaine. The primary outcome was complete headache freedom 30 minutes after the injection. An important secondary outcome was sustained headache relief, defined as achieving a headache level of mild or none in the emergency department and maintaining a level of mild or no headache without the use of any additional medication for 48 hours.

Over a 32-month period, 76 patients were screened for participation and 28 were enrolled, of whom 15 received sham injection and 13 received greater occipital nerve block. The primary outcome, headache freedom at 30 minutes, was achieved by none of the patients in the sham arm and by four patients (31%) in the nerve block arm. The secondary outcome, sustained headache relief for 48 hours, was reported by none of the patients who received sham and by three of the patients (23%) who received greater occipital nerve blocks. Reported side effects did not differ substantially between the two groups.

SAN FRANCISCO—Greater occipital nerve blocks with bupivacaine may be an effective treatment for patients with acute migraine in the emergency department who continue to experience moderate or severe headache after administration of intravenous metoclopramide, according to a presentation at the 60th Annual Scientific Meeting of the American Headache Society.

Greater occipital nerve block is thought to be an effective treatment for acute migraine, although no randomized efficacy data have been published for this indication. Benjamin W. Friedman, MD, Professor of Emergency Medicine, Montefiore Medical Center, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York, and colleagues hypothesized that bilateral greater occipital nerve block with bupivacaine would provide greater rates of headache freedom than a sham injection among a population of emergency department patients who reported persistence of moderate or severe headache despite standard treatment with intravenous metoclopramide.

Dr. Friedman and colleagues conducted a randomized, sham-controlled trial of bilateral greater occipital nerve blocks with bupivacaine in two urban emergency departments. Patients with acute migraine who reported persistence of a moderate or severe headache for at least one hour or longer after treatment with 10 mg of intravenous metoclopramide were randomized to bilateral greater occipital nerve block with a total of 6 cc of 0.5% bupivacaine or bilateral intradermal scalp injection with a total of 1 cc of 0.5% bupivacaine. The primary outcome was complete headache freedom 30 minutes after the injection. An important secondary outcome was sustained headache relief, defined as achieving a headache level of mild or none in the emergency department and maintaining a level of mild or no headache without the use of any additional medication for 48 hours.

Over a 32-month period, 76 patients were screened for participation and 28 were enrolled, of whom 15 received sham injection and 13 received greater occipital nerve block. The primary outcome, headache freedom at 30 minutes, was achieved by none of the patients in the sham arm and by four patients (31%) in the nerve block arm. The secondary outcome, sustained headache relief for 48 hours, was reported by none of the patients who received sham and by three of the patients (23%) who received greater occipital nerve blocks. Reported side effects did not differ substantially between the two groups.

SAN FRANCISCO—Treatment with fremanezumab is associated with reduced overuse of acute medications and a corresponding decrease in days on which a patient uses acute medications, according to a phase III study described at the 60th Annual Scientific Meeting of the American Headache Society.

The overuse of acute or symptomatic headache medications (eg, triptans, ergot derivatives, opioids, and combination analgesics) can cause medication overuse headache (MOH). Chronic migraine is often accompanied by MOH, and the prevention of MOH is one of the main goals in the preventive treatment of migraine.

Comparing Two Fremanezumab Doses With Placebo

The investigators conducted a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III study, during which they randomized eligible patients with chronic migraine in equal groups to receive subcutaneous injections of fremanezumab quarterly dosing (ie, 675 mg at baseline and placebo at Weeks 4 and 8), fremanezumab monthly dosing (ie, 675 mg at baseline and 225 mg at Weeks 4 and 8), or placebo at each time point over a 12-week treatment period. Dr. Silberstein’s group defined medication overuse as the use of acute headache medication on 15 or more days, the use of migraine-specific acute medication on 10 or more days, or the use of combination medications for headache on 10 or more days during the 28-day baseline period.

In a post hoc analysis, the researchers assessed the proportion of patients who reverted from overusing medications at baseline to not overusing medications at Week 12, as well as the change from baseline in the number of days of acute headache medication use among these patients. Analyses were performed using data for all randomized patients who received at least one dose of study drug and had at least 10 days of postbaseline efficacy assessments on the primary end point.

Fremanezumab Was More Likely to Reduce Overuse

At baseline, the number of patients with medication overuse was 201 in the quarterly arm, 198 in the monthly arm, and 188 in the placebo arm. Among these participants, significantly more fremanezumab-treated patients reported no medication overuse during the 12-week treatment period. The number of patients reporting no medication overuse was 111 (55%) in the quarterly arm, 120 (61%) in the monthly arm, and 87 (46%) in the placebo arm. The investigators observed a response to treatment as early as Week 4 (102 [51%] quarterly patients, 107 [54%] monthly patients, and 73 [39%] controls).

Among the patients who responded to treatment over the 12-week treatment period, the baseline number of days with medication overuse was similar across treatment groups (approximately 16.6). Within this population, fremanezumab treatment significantly reduced the number of days of acute headache medication use over the 12-week treatment period by nine in the quarterly arm and 8.9 in the monthly arm, compared with 7.1 among controls.

SAN FRANCISCO—Treatment with fremanezumab is associated with reduced overuse of acute medications and a corresponding decrease in days on which a patient uses acute medications, according to a phase III study described at the 60th Annual Scientific Meeting of the American Headache Society.

The overuse of acute or symptomatic headache medications (eg, triptans, ergot derivatives, opioids, and combination analgesics) can cause medication overuse headache (MOH). Chronic migraine is often accompanied by MOH, and the prevention of MOH is one of the main goals in the preventive treatment of migraine.

Comparing Two Fremanezumab Doses With Placebo

The investigators conducted a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III study, during which they randomized eligible patients with chronic migraine in equal groups to receive subcutaneous injections of fremanezumab quarterly dosing (ie, 675 mg at baseline and placebo at Weeks 4 and 8), fremanezumab monthly dosing (ie, 675 mg at baseline and 225 mg at Weeks 4 and 8), or placebo at each time point over a 12-week treatment period. Dr. Silberstein’s group defined medication overuse as the use of acute headache medication on 15 or more days, the use of migraine-specific acute medication on 10 or more days, or the use of combination medications for headache on 10 or more days during the 28-day baseline period.

In a post hoc analysis, the researchers assessed the proportion of patients who reverted from overusing medications at baseline to not overusing medications at Week 12, as well as the change from baseline in the number of days of acute headache medication use among these patients. Analyses were performed using data for all randomized patients who received at least one dose of study drug and had at least 10 days of postbaseline efficacy assessments on the primary end point.

Fremanezumab Was More Likely to Reduce Overuse

At baseline, the number of patients with medication overuse was 201 in the quarterly arm, 198 in the monthly arm, and 188 in the placebo arm. Among these participants, significantly more fremanezumab-treated patients reported no medication overuse during the 12-week treatment period. The number of patients reporting no medication overuse was 111 (55%) in the quarterly arm, 120 (61%) in the monthly arm, and 87 (46%) in the placebo arm. The investigators observed a response to treatment as early as Week 4 (102 [51%] quarterly patients, 107 [54%] monthly patients, and 73 [39%] controls).

Among the patients who responded to treatment over the 12-week treatment period, the baseline number of days with medication overuse was similar across treatment groups (approximately 16.6). Within this population, fremanezumab treatment significantly reduced the number of days of acute headache medication use over the 12-week treatment period by nine in the quarterly arm and 8.9 in the monthly arm, compared with 7.1 among controls.

SAN FRANCISCO—Treatment with fremanezumab is associated with reduced overuse of acute medications and a corresponding decrease in days on which a patient uses acute medications, according to a phase III study described at the 60th Annual Scientific Meeting of the American Headache Society.

The overuse of acute or symptomatic headache medications (eg, triptans, ergot derivatives, opioids, and combination analgesics) can cause medication overuse headache (MOH). Chronic migraine is often accompanied by MOH, and the prevention of MOH is one of the main goals in the preventive treatment of migraine.

Comparing Two Fremanezumab Doses With Placebo

The investigators conducted a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III study, during which they randomized eligible patients with chronic migraine in equal groups to receive subcutaneous injections of fremanezumab quarterly dosing (ie, 675 mg at baseline and placebo at Weeks 4 and 8), fremanezumab monthly dosing (ie, 675 mg at baseline and 225 mg at Weeks 4 and 8), or placebo at each time point over a 12-week treatment period. Dr. Silberstein’s group defined medication overuse as the use of acute headache medication on 15 or more days, the use of migraine-specific acute medication on 10 or more days, or the use of combination medications for headache on 10 or more days during the 28-day baseline period.

In a post hoc analysis, the researchers assessed the proportion of patients who reverted from overusing medications at baseline to not overusing medications at Week 12, as well as the change from baseline in the number of days of acute headache medication use among these patients. Analyses were performed using data for all randomized patients who received at least one dose of study drug and had at least 10 days of postbaseline efficacy assessments on the primary end point.

Fremanezumab Was More Likely to Reduce Overuse

At baseline, the number of patients with medication overuse was 201 in the quarterly arm, 198 in the monthly arm, and 188 in the placebo arm. Among these participants, significantly more fremanezumab-treated patients reported no medication overuse during the 12-week treatment period. The number of patients reporting no medication overuse was 111 (55%) in the quarterly arm, 120 (61%) in the monthly arm, and 87 (46%) in the placebo arm. The investigators observed a response to treatment as early as Week 4 (102 [51%] quarterly patients, 107 [54%] monthly patients, and 73 [39%] controls).

Among the patients who responded to treatment over the 12-week treatment period, the baseline number of days with medication overuse was similar across treatment groups (approximately 16.6). Within this population, fremanezumab treatment significantly reduced the number of days of acute headache medication use over the 12-week treatment period by nine in the quarterly arm and 8.9 in the monthly arm, compared with 7.1 among controls.

Dr. Charles is Clinical Associate Professor Neurology, Rutgers–New Jersey Medical School, Newark, NJ; Neurology Attending, Holy Name Medical Center, Teaneck, NJ ([email protected]).

Dr. Gallo is Interventional Radiology Attending, Holy Name Medical Center, Teaneck, NJ ([email protected]).

DISCLOSURES

The authors have no financial relationships to disclose relevant to the manuscript. There was no sponsorship of, or funding for, the study.

Dr. Charles designed and conceptualized the study; analyzed study data and performed the statistical analysis; and drafted the manuscript for intellectual content. Dr. Gallo had a major role in the acquisition of interventional sphenopalatine ganglion data.

ABSTRACT

Objective

Chronic refractory migraine patients who failed repetitive dihydroergotamine/dopamine infusion protocols and conventional preventives were treated with repeated low-dose ketamine-based parenteral protocols, followed by memantine-based preventive therapy, and observed for immediate reduction in pain intensity and headache frequency.

Methods

Ten patients were treated at an outpatient infusion center for 2 to 5 sequential days with AM and PM courses of intravenous diphenhydramine, prochlorperazine, and dihydroergotamine. A daily sphenopalatine ganglion block and low-dose intramuscular ketamine were given midday between treatments, with dexamethasone given on the last infusion day. The Numeric Pain Rating Scale was measured after infusion. Carryover effect was assessed 1 month and 2 months after infusion by headache frequency while being treated with memantine and various other preventive and abortive therapies.

Results

Reduction in headache pain of 71% was achieved at the end of the infusion period. Sedation was the only adverse effect. Decreased headache frequency persisted beyond the infusion period, with an 88.6% reduction in headache days per month at 1 month and a 79.4% reduction in headache days per month at 2 months, without adverse effects.

Conclusions

Data indicate that 1) repetitive low-dose, ketamine-based parenteral therapy, followed by memantine-based preventive therapy, reduced refractory headache pain and 2) the decremental effect on headache frequency persisted beyond the infusion period. Our results support the hypothesis that multimechanistic therapies might be better than single-modality treatment. More studies, with a larger patient population, are needed to confirm whether these multimodality ketamine/memantine therapies should become the preferred approach for these extremely disabled patients.

Chronic refractory migraine (CRM) degrades function and quality of life despite elimination of triggers and adequate trials of acute and preventive medicines that have established efficacy. This definition requires that patients with chronic migraine fail adequate trials of preventive drugs, alone or in combination, in at least 2 of 4 drug classes, including beta blockers, anticonvulsants, tricyclic antidepressants, onabotulinumtoxin A, and calcium-channel blockers. Patients must also fail adequate trials of abortive medicines, including both a triptan and dihydroergotamine (DHE), intranasal or injectable formulation, and either a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug or a combination analgesic, unless contraindicated.^1-4

In 1986, Raskin published a nonrandomized, nonblinded study of 2 treatments for intractable migraine in which repetitive inpatient intravenous (IV) DHE, administered in the hospital, was statistically more effective than IV diazepam in terminating cycles of intractable migraine.⁵ Most headache specialists have adopted the so-called Raskin protocol, as originally described or in any of several variations, as cornerstone therapy for CRM, chronic migraine, and prolonged status migrainosus.⁶ However, DHE-based infusion protocols do not always effectively reset the brain’s pain modulatory pathways in chronic migraine immediately posttreatment and might not induce a meaningful carryover effect.

We present 10 patients with CRM who met criteria for refractory migraine, including failure to terminate their headache with repetitive DHE/prochlorperazine/diphenhydramine/ketorolac/dexamethasone IV protocols, with or without sporadic administration of a sphenopalatine ganglion block. We treated these patients multimechanistically with repetitive IV DHE, a dopamine antagonist, an antihistamine, sphenopalatine ganglion (SPG) block, and low-dose ketamine, plus last-infusion-day dexamethasone, followed by outpatient oral memantine. Subsequently, we observed them for 2 months.

Ketamine is a phencyclidine derivative introduced the early 1960s as an IV anesthetic. Low-dose ketamine has been used successfully in the treatment of chronic pain. Today, increased interest in the application of low-dose ketamine includes cancer pain; treatment and prevention of acute and chronic pain, with and without neuropathic analgesia; fibromyalgia; complex regional pain; and migraine.^7,8 The effectiveness of ketamine in different pain disorders may arise through different pathways and/or by way of activity at various receptor systems. Effects arise predominantly by noncompetitive antagonism of the glutamate N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA ) receptor.^7,8

Memantine also is an NMDA receptor antagonist that is used effectively as an oral agent in CRM.⁹

METHODS

Patients enrolled in this prospective study had CRM for periods ranging from 1 to 2 years. All had daily headache that could not be terminated with repetitive DHE/prochlorperazine/diphenhydramine/ketorolac/dexamethasone IV protocols with or without sporadic administration of an SPG block. Age ranged from 18 and 68 years; all patients were female. Patients were excluded if they had known coronary artery disease, uncontrolled hypertension, or peripheral arterial disease; a history of stroke, transient ischemic attack, or pregnancy; impaired liver or renal function; smoked a tobacco product; or were taking a protease inhibitor or macrolide antibiotic.

 Approval by the institutional review board was unnecessary because all drugs and procedures are FDA-approved and have published evidence-based efficacy for migraine and other diseases.

 The Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS; a scale of 0 to 10) was utilized to rate the intensity of pain from the beginning of the infusion to the end of the multiday infusion protocol, when the catheter was removed. All patients but 1 were treated for 5 days; for the 1 exception, treatment was terminated after 48 hours because of a scheduling conflict. The observational follow‐up periods for assessment of outcomes were 1 month and 2 months post-infusion.

Patients started the study with a baseline NPRS of 9 or 10. They were treated at the institution’s headache outpatient infusion center. In the morning, patients received, by sequential IV infusion, diphenhydramine, 50 mg; prochlorperazine, 10 mg; and DHE, 1 mg. They then received a midday SPG block under fluoroscopic guidance and ketamine, 0.45 mg/kg intramuscularly (IM), given in the post-anesthesia care unit. In the late afternoon, the patients received diphenhydramine, 50 mg; prochlorperazine, 10 mg; and DHE, 0.5 mg, in the Headache Outpatient Infusion Center. Patients were discharged to home by 6 PM. They received IV dexamethasone, 20 mg, on the last day of therapy.

Oral preventive agents were continued and abortives were temporarily discontinued during infusion therapy. Oral memantine was used immediately before, during, and, in all cases, after infusion, at a daily dosage that ranged from 10 mg BID to 28 mg, once-daily extended release.

RESULTS

Therapies were well-tolerated by all patients. On the last day of treatment, the entire cohort (N = 10) demonstrated an average of 71% (mean standard deviation [SD], 10.1%) reduction in pain intensity. The average reduction in headache days per month at 1 month was 88.6% (mean SD, 6.24%) and at 2 months was 79.4% (mean SD, 17.13%) (Table). Adverse effects were mild temporary sedation from ketamine. Pulse oximetry revealed no abnormal decrease in O₂ saturation. All patients reported marked overall reduction in headache disability at the end of the infusion protocol. Self-administered abortive therapies posttreatment were more efficacious than they were pretreatment. All patients indicated less headache disability overall by the end of the 2-month observation period.
 

Table. Chronic Refractory Migraine Baseline Data and Treatment Results^a

^aAll patients had daily headache at initiation of treatment.

^bHeadache days/month.

NPRS, Numeric Pain Rating Scale.

DISCUSSION

In our study of 10 patients with CRM who had daily headache treated repetitively in an outpatient infusion center with multimodality therapies, including sub-anesthetic doses of ketamine, all patients experienced marked reduction in headache pain intensity, with a whole-group average reduction of 71% by the end of infusion treatment. During post-infusion observation, all patients continued various preventive therapies, including memantine. At 1 month, the average reduction in headache frequency was 88.6%. Two months post-infusion, the average reduction in headache frequency was 79.4%. Adverse effects were minimal. Overall, the treatment was found to be safe and efficacious. All patients felt less headache disability after 2 months.

Because the protocol was administered comfortably in the Headache Outpatient Infusion Center, the inconvenience and higher cost of inpatient parenteral treatment were avoided. Ketamine, 0.45 mg/kg IM is a sub-anesthetic dose with proven efficacy in treating migraine without adverse effects in an outpatient setting.⁸ Low-dose ketamine obviated the need for anesthesia personnel and precautions. Temporary sedation was the only adverse effect. Ketamine was administered by a nurse in the post-anesthesia care unit while patients were under observation with conventional measurement of vital signs and pulse oximetry. Memantine, also an NMDA receptor antagonist, is postulated to prolong the NMDA antagonism of ketamine.

Inpatient and outpatient continuous IV DHE and repetitive IV DHE, often combined with dopamine antagonists in controlled and comparator studies, have demonstrated equal effectiveness for the treatment of chronic migraine.^5,10,11 Our patients failed these therapies. This raises the question: Should our combined multimodality, ketamine-based approach be standard parenteral therapy for CRM?

In a recent study of continuous inpatient single-modality IV ketamine, a less-impressive carryover effect was obtained, with 23% to 50% 1-month sustained responders.¹² Multimechanistic treatment superiority over monotherapy is legendary in the treatment of cancer and human immunodeficiency infection. Sumatriptan plus naproxen sodium as a single tablet for acute treatment of migraine resulted in more favorable clinical benefit compared with either monotherapy, with an acceptable, well-tolerated adverse effect profile. Because multiple pathogenic mechanisms putatively are involved in generation of the migraine symptom complex, multimechanism-targeted therapy may confer advantages over individual monotherapy. Drugs in 2 classes of migraine pharmacotherapy—triptans and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs —target distinct aspects of the vascular and inflammatory processes hypothesized to underlie migraine.¹³

Although combination therapy for CRM has not been systematically studied in randomized trials, clinical experience suggests that a rational approach to CRM treatment, utilizing a combination of treatments, may be effective when monotherapy has failed.¹⁴ During the infusion protocol, we re-set the trigeminovascular pain pathways 1) by repetitively blocking NMDA receptors (with ketamine), dopamine receptors (with prochlorperazine), and histamine receptors (with diphenhydramine); 2) by lidocaine anesthetic block of the sphenopalatine ganglia; and, on the last day of the protocol, 3) administering 1 large dose of IV dexamethasone to help prevent recurrence.¹⁵ NMDA blockade continued with oral outpatient memantine.

Virtually all patients were taking other preventives during the pretreatment period and 2-month observation period, including topiramate, venlafaxine, beta blockers, candesartan, zonisamide, onabotulinumtoxin A, neuromodulation (Cefaly Technology), and transcranial magnetic stimulation (springTMS®). Self-administered abortives were more effective in the 2-month observational period; these included IM/IV DHE; oral, spray, and subcutaneous triptans; IM ketorolac; diclofenac buffered solution; and transcranial magnetic stimulation (springTMS®). The cornerstone strategy of our treatment group that was a constant was the use of low-dose IM sub-anesthetic ketamine at a dosage of 0.45 mg/kg/d and the use of oral memantine during the follow-up observation period, at dosages ranging from 10 mg BID to 28 mg, once-daily extended release.

Limitations of this study design are:

• lack of a control group
• lack of subject randomization for comparative outcomes
• patients remaining on a variety of prophylactic regimens
• patients permitted to take any rescue therapy.

 The effect of repetitive SPG block cannot be teased out of the efficacy data, but many of our patients had a poor or temporary response to infrequent sporadic SPG blocks prior to participating in our protocol.

Many migraineurs who seek care in a headache clinic are refractory to treatment, despite advances in headache therapy; refractory migraine was found in 5.1% of these patients.¹⁶ In this small series of patients, we demonstrated immediate relief and a significant 2-month carryover effect with our multimodality parenteral protocol. Larger, controlled studies are needed to further explore this protocol with repetitive DHE, diphenhydramine, prochlorperazine, SPG block, and low-dose IM ketamine, followed by outpatient memantine. Such studies would determine whether our protocol should be utilized as a primary treatment, instead of the conventional DHE-based Raskin and modified Raskin protocols.

Although this is a small series of patients, lack of adverse effects and impressive results should give credence to utilizing our protocol as treatment for this extremely debilitated, often desperate subset of headache patients. Data indicate that, whereas ketamine combined with other therapies immediately reduced refractory headache pain, the ameliorating effect of ketamine on CRM headache frequency and pain in our protocol persisted beyond the infusion period. This phenomenon indicates a disease-modulating role for ketamine in refractory migraine pain, possibly by means of desensitization of NMDA receptors in the trigeminal nucleus caudalis—desensitization that continued with the NMDA receptor antagonist memantine and/or restoration of inhibitory sensory control in the brain.

CONCLUSION

Our results support the hypothesis that multimechanistic therapies, including low-dose IM ketamine and memantine, might be better than single-modality treatment in this debilitated, refractory population. Future studies, with larger patient populations, are needed to confirm whether these multimodality ketamine/memantine-inclusive therapies should become the preferred approach for these extremely disabled patients.

REFERENCES

1. Goadsby PJ, Schoenen J, Ferrari MD, Silberstein SD, Dodick DW. Towards a definition of intractable headache for use in clinical practice and trials. Cephalalgia. 2006;26(9):1168-1170.
2. Schulman EA, Lipton R, Peterlin BL, Levin M, Grosberg BM. Commentary from the Refractory Headache Special Interest Section on defining the pharmacologically intractable headache for clinical trials and clinical practice. Headache. 2010;50(10):1637-1639.
3. Martelletti P, Jensen RH, Antal A, et al. Neuromodulation of chronic headaches: position statement from the European Headache Federation. J Headache Pain. 2013;14:86.
4. Dodick DW, Turkel CC, DeGryse RE, et al; PREEMPT Chronic Migraine Study Group. OnabotulinumtoxinA for treatment of chronic migraine: pooled results from the double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled phases of the PREEMPT clinical program. Headache. 2010;50(6):921-936.
5. Raskin NH. Repetitive intravenous dihydroergotamine as therapy for intractable migraine. Neurology. 1986;36(7):995‐997.
6. Charles JA, von Dohln P. Outpatient home-based continuous intravenous dihydroergotamine therapy for intractable migraine. Headache. 2010;50(5):852-860.
7. Sigtermans M, Noppers I, Sarton E, et al. An observational study on the effect of S+-ketamine on chronic pain versus experimental acute pain in complex regional pain syndrome type 1 patients. Eur J Pain. 2010;14(3):302-307.
8. Krusz J, Cagle J, Hall S. Intramuscular (IM) ketamine for treating headache and pain flare-ups in the clinic. J Pain. 2008;9(4):30.
9. Bigal M Rapoport A, Sheftell F, Tepper D, Tepper S. Memantine in the preventive treatment of refractory migraine. Headache. 2008;48(9):1337-1342.
10. Ford RG, Ford KT. Continuous intravenous dihydroergotamine for treatment of intractable headache. Headache. 1997;37(3):129‐136.
11. Boudreau G, Aghai E, Marchand L, Langlois M. Outpatient intravenous dihydroergotamine for probable medication overuse headache. Headache Care. 2006;3(1):45‐49.
12. Pomeroy JL, Marmura MJ, Nahas SJ, Viscusi ER. Ketamine infusions for treatment refractory headache. Headache. 2017;57(2):276-282.
13. Brandes JL, Kudrow D, Stark SR, et al. Sumatriptan-naproxen for acute treatment of migraine: a randomized trial. JAMA. 2007;297(13):1443-1454.
14. Peterlin BL, Calhoun AH, Siegel S, Mathew NT. Rational combination therapy in refractory migraine. Headache. 2008;48(6):805-819.
15. Innes G, Macphail I, Dillon EC, Metcalfe C, Gao M. Dexamethasone prevents relapse after emergency department treatment of acute migraine: a randomized clinical trial. CJEM. 2015;1(1):26-33.
16. Irimia P, Palma JA, Fernandez-Torron R, Martinez-Vila E. Refractory migraine in a headache clinic population. BMC Neurol. 2011;11:94.

Dr. Charles is Clinical Associate Professor Neurology, Rutgers–New Jersey Medical School, Newark, NJ; Neurology Attending, Holy Name Medical Center, Teaneck, NJ ([email protected]).

Dr. Gallo is Interventional Radiology Attending, Holy Name Medical Center, Teaneck, NJ ([email protected]).

DISCLOSURES

The authors have no financial relationships to disclose relevant to the manuscript. There was no sponsorship of, or funding for, the study.

Dr. Charles designed and conceptualized the study; analyzed study data and performed the statistical analysis; and drafted the manuscript for intellectual content. Dr. Gallo had a major role in the acquisition of interventional sphenopalatine ganglion data.

ABSTRACT

Objective

Chronic refractory migraine patients who failed repetitive dihydroergotamine/dopamine infusion protocols and conventional preventives were treated with repeated low-dose ketamine-based parenteral protocols, followed by memantine-based preventive therapy, and observed for immediate reduction in pain intensity and headache frequency.

Methods

Ten patients were treated at an outpatient infusion center for 2 to 5 sequential days with AM and PM courses of intravenous diphenhydramine, prochlorperazine, and dihydroergotamine. A daily sphenopalatine ganglion block and low-dose intramuscular ketamine were given midday between treatments, with dexamethasone given on the last infusion day. The Numeric Pain Rating Scale was measured after infusion. Carryover effect was assessed 1 month and 2 months after infusion by headache frequency while being treated with memantine and various other preventive and abortive therapies.

Results

Reduction in headache pain of 71% was achieved at the end of the infusion period. Sedation was the only adverse effect. Decreased headache frequency persisted beyond the infusion period, with an 88.6% reduction in headache days per month at 1 month and a 79.4% reduction in headache days per month at 2 months, without adverse effects.

Conclusions

Data indicate that 1) repetitive low-dose, ketamine-based parenteral therapy, followed by memantine-based preventive therapy, reduced refractory headache pain and 2) the decremental effect on headache frequency persisted beyond the infusion period. Our results support the hypothesis that multimechanistic therapies might be better than single-modality treatment. More studies, with a larger patient population, are needed to confirm whether these multimodality ketamine/memantine therapies should become the preferred approach for these extremely disabled patients.

Chronic refractory migraine (CRM) degrades function and quality of life despite elimination of triggers and adequate trials of acute and preventive medicines that have established efficacy. This definition requires that patients with chronic migraine fail adequate trials of preventive drugs, alone or in combination, in at least 2 of 4 drug classes, including beta blockers, anticonvulsants, tricyclic antidepressants, onabotulinumtoxin A, and calcium-channel blockers. Patients must also fail adequate trials of abortive medicines, including both a triptan and dihydroergotamine (DHE), intranasal or injectable formulation, and either a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug or a combination analgesic, unless contraindicated.^1-4

In 1986, Raskin published a nonrandomized, nonblinded study of 2 treatments for intractable migraine in which repetitive inpatient intravenous (IV) DHE, administered in the hospital, was statistically more effective than IV diazepam in terminating cycles of intractable migraine.⁵ Most headache specialists have adopted the so-called Raskin protocol, as originally described or in any of several variations, as cornerstone therapy for CRM, chronic migraine, and prolonged status migrainosus.⁶ However, DHE-based infusion protocols do not always effectively reset the brain’s pain modulatory pathways in chronic migraine immediately posttreatment and might not induce a meaningful carryover effect.

We present 10 patients with CRM who met criteria for refractory migraine, including failure to terminate their headache with repetitive DHE/prochlorperazine/diphenhydramine/ketorolac/dexamethasone IV protocols, with or without sporadic administration of a sphenopalatine ganglion block. We treated these patients multimechanistically with repetitive IV DHE, a dopamine antagonist, an antihistamine, sphenopalatine ganglion (SPG) block, and low-dose ketamine, plus last-infusion-day dexamethasone, followed by outpatient oral memantine. Subsequently, we observed them for 2 months.

Ketamine is a phencyclidine derivative introduced the early 1960s as an IV anesthetic. Low-dose ketamine has been used successfully in the treatment of chronic pain. Today, increased interest in the application of low-dose ketamine includes cancer pain; treatment and prevention of acute and chronic pain, with and without neuropathic analgesia; fibromyalgia; complex regional pain; and migraine.^7,8 The effectiveness of ketamine in different pain disorders may arise through different pathways and/or by way of activity at various receptor systems. Effects arise predominantly by noncompetitive antagonism of the glutamate N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA ) receptor.^7,8

Memantine also is an NMDA receptor antagonist that is used effectively as an oral agent in CRM.⁹

METHODS

Patients enrolled in this prospective study had CRM for periods ranging from 1 to 2 years. All had daily headache that could not be terminated with repetitive DHE/prochlorperazine/diphenhydramine/ketorolac/dexamethasone IV protocols with or without sporadic administration of an SPG block. Age ranged from 18 and 68 years; all patients were female. Patients were excluded if they had known coronary artery disease, uncontrolled hypertension, or peripheral arterial disease; a history of stroke, transient ischemic attack, or pregnancy; impaired liver or renal function; smoked a tobacco product; or were taking a protease inhibitor or macrolide antibiotic.

 Approval by the institutional review board was unnecessary because all drugs and procedures are FDA-approved and have published evidence-based efficacy for migraine and other diseases.

 The Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS; a scale of 0 to 10) was utilized to rate the intensity of pain from the beginning of the infusion to the end of the multiday infusion protocol, when the catheter was removed. All patients but 1 were treated for 5 days; for the 1 exception, treatment was terminated after 48 hours because of a scheduling conflict. The observational follow‐up periods for assessment of outcomes were 1 month and 2 months post-infusion.

Patients started the study with a baseline NPRS of 9 or 10. They were treated at the institution’s headache outpatient infusion center. In the morning, patients received, by sequential IV infusion, diphenhydramine, 50 mg; prochlorperazine, 10 mg; and DHE, 1 mg. They then received a midday SPG block under fluoroscopic guidance and ketamine, 0.45 mg/kg intramuscularly (IM), given in the post-anesthesia care unit. In the late afternoon, the patients received diphenhydramine, 50 mg; prochlorperazine, 10 mg; and DHE, 0.5 mg, in the Headache Outpatient Infusion Center. Patients were discharged to home by 6 PM. They received IV dexamethasone, 20 mg, on the last day of therapy.

Oral preventive agents were continued and abortives were temporarily discontinued during infusion therapy. Oral memantine was used immediately before, during, and, in all cases, after infusion, at a daily dosage that ranged from 10 mg BID to 28 mg, once-daily extended release.

RESULTS

Therapies were well-tolerated by all patients. On the last day of treatment, the entire cohort (N = 10) demonstrated an average of 71% (mean standard deviation [SD], 10.1%) reduction in pain intensity. The average reduction in headache days per month at 1 month was 88.6% (mean SD, 6.24%) and at 2 months was 79.4% (mean SD, 17.13%) (Table). Adverse effects were mild temporary sedation from ketamine. Pulse oximetry revealed no abnormal decrease in O₂ saturation. All patients reported marked overall reduction in headache disability at the end of the infusion protocol. Self-administered abortive therapies posttreatment were more efficacious than they were pretreatment. All patients indicated less headache disability overall by the end of the 2-month observation period.
 

Table. Chronic Refractory Migraine Baseline Data and Treatment Results^a

^aAll patients had daily headache at initiation of treatment.

^bHeadache days/month.

NPRS, Numeric Pain Rating Scale.

DISCUSSION

In our study of 10 patients with CRM who had daily headache treated repetitively in an outpatient infusion center with multimodality therapies, including sub-anesthetic doses of ketamine, all patients experienced marked reduction in headache pain intensity, with a whole-group average reduction of 71% by the end of infusion treatment. During post-infusion observation, all patients continued various preventive therapies, including memantine. At 1 month, the average reduction in headache frequency was 88.6%. Two months post-infusion, the average reduction in headache frequency was 79.4%. Adverse effects were minimal. Overall, the treatment was found to be safe and efficacious. All patients felt less headache disability after 2 months.

Because the protocol was administered comfortably in the Headache Outpatient Infusion Center, the inconvenience and higher cost of inpatient parenteral treatment were avoided. Ketamine, 0.45 mg/kg IM is a sub-anesthetic dose with proven efficacy in treating migraine without adverse effects in an outpatient setting.⁸ Low-dose ketamine obviated the need for anesthesia personnel and precautions. Temporary sedation was the only adverse effect. Ketamine was administered by a nurse in the post-anesthesia care unit while patients were under observation with conventional measurement of vital signs and pulse oximetry. Memantine, also an NMDA receptor antagonist, is postulated to prolong the NMDA antagonism of ketamine.

Inpatient and outpatient continuous IV DHE and repetitive IV DHE, often combined with dopamine antagonists in controlled and comparator studies, have demonstrated equal effectiveness for the treatment of chronic migraine.^5,10,11 Our patients failed these therapies. This raises the question: Should our combined multimodality, ketamine-based approach be standard parenteral therapy for CRM?

In a recent study of continuous inpatient single-modality IV ketamine, a less-impressive carryover effect was obtained, with 23% to 50% 1-month sustained responders.¹² Multimechanistic treatment superiority over monotherapy is legendary in the treatment of cancer and human immunodeficiency infection. Sumatriptan plus naproxen sodium as a single tablet for acute treatment of migraine resulted in more favorable clinical benefit compared with either monotherapy, with an acceptable, well-tolerated adverse effect profile. Because multiple pathogenic mechanisms putatively are involved in generation of the migraine symptom complex, multimechanism-targeted therapy may confer advantages over individual monotherapy. Drugs in 2 classes of migraine pharmacotherapy—triptans and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs —target distinct aspects of the vascular and inflammatory processes hypothesized to underlie migraine.¹³

Although combination therapy for CRM has not been systematically studied in randomized trials, clinical experience suggests that a rational approach to CRM treatment, utilizing a combination of treatments, may be effective when monotherapy has failed.¹⁴ During the infusion protocol, we re-set the trigeminovascular pain pathways 1) by repetitively blocking NMDA receptors (with ketamine), dopamine receptors (with prochlorperazine), and histamine receptors (with diphenhydramine); 2) by lidocaine anesthetic block of the sphenopalatine ganglia; and, on the last day of the protocol, 3) administering 1 large dose of IV dexamethasone to help prevent recurrence.¹⁵ NMDA blockade continued with oral outpatient memantine.

Virtually all patients were taking other preventives during the pretreatment period and 2-month observation period, including topiramate, venlafaxine, beta blockers, candesartan, zonisamide, onabotulinumtoxin A, neuromodulation (Cefaly Technology), and transcranial magnetic stimulation (springTMS®). Self-administered abortives were more effective in the 2-month observational period; these included IM/IV DHE; oral, spray, and subcutaneous triptans; IM ketorolac; diclofenac buffered solution; and transcranial magnetic stimulation (springTMS®). The cornerstone strategy of our treatment group that was a constant was the use of low-dose IM sub-anesthetic ketamine at a dosage of 0.45 mg/kg/d and the use of oral memantine during the follow-up observation period, at dosages ranging from 10 mg BID to 28 mg, once-daily extended release.

Limitations of this study design are:

• lack of a control group
• lack of subject randomization for comparative outcomes
• patients remaining on a variety of prophylactic regimens
• patients permitted to take any rescue therapy.

 The effect of repetitive SPG block cannot be teased out of the efficacy data, but many of our patients had a poor or temporary response to infrequent sporadic SPG blocks prior to participating in our protocol.

Many migraineurs who seek care in a headache clinic are refractory to treatment, despite advances in headache therapy; refractory migraine was found in 5.1% of these patients.¹⁶ In this small series of patients, we demonstrated immediate relief and a significant 2-month carryover effect with our multimodality parenteral protocol. Larger, controlled studies are needed to further explore this protocol with repetitive DHE, diphenhydramine, prochlorperazine, SPG block, and low-dose IM ketamine, followed by outpatient memantine. Such studies would determine whether our protocol should be utilized as a primary treatment, instead of the conventional DHE-based Raskin and modified Raskin protocols.

Although this is a small series of patients, lack of adverse effects and impressive results should give credence to utilizing our protocol as treatment for this extremely debilitated, often desperate subset of headache patients. Data indicate that, whereas ketamine combined with other therapies immediately reduced refractory headache pain, the ameliorating effect of ketamine on CRM headache frequency and pain in our protocol persisted beyond the infusion period. This phenomenon indicates a disease-modulating role for ketamine in refractory migraine pain, possibly by means of desensitization of NMDA receptors in the trigeminal nucleus caudalis—desensitization that continued with the NMDA receptor antagonist memantine and/or restoration of inhibitory sensory control in the brain.

CONCLUSION

Our results support the hypothesis that multimechanistic therapies, including low-dose IM ketamine and memantine, might be better than single-modality treatment in this debilitated, refractory population. Future studies, with larger patient populations, are needed to confirm whether these multimodality ketamine/memantine-inclusive therapies should become the preferred approach for these extremely disabled patients.

REFERENCES

1. Goadsby PJ, Schoenen J, Ferrari MD, Silberstein SD, Dodick DW. Towards a definition of intractable headache for use in clinical practice and trials. Cephalalgia. 2006;26(9):1168-1170.
2. Schulman EA, Lipton R, Peterlin BL, Levin M, Grosberg BM. Commentary from the Refractory Headache Special Interest Section on defining the pharmacologically intractable headache for clinical trials and clinical practice. Headache. 2010;50(10):1637-1639.
3. Martelletti P, Jensen RH, Antal A, et al. Neuromodulation of chronic headaches: position statement from the European Headache Federation. J Headache Pain. 2013;14:86.
4. Dodick DW, Turkel CC, DeGryse RE, et al; PREEMPT Chronic Migraine Study Group. OnabotulinumtoxinA for treatment of chronic migraine: pooled results from the double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled phases of the PREEMPT clinical program. Headache. 2010;50(6):921-936.
5. Raskin NH. Repetitive intravenous dihydroergotamine as therapy for intractable migraine. Neurology. 1986;36(7):995‐997.
6. Charles JA, von Dohln P. Outpatient home-based continuous intravenous dihydroergotamine therapy for intractable migraine. Headache. 2010;50(5):852-860.
7. Sigtermans M, Noppers I, Sarton E, et al. An observational study on the effect of S+-ketamine on chronic pain versus experimental acute pain in complex regional pain syndrome type 1 patients. Eur J Pain. 2010;14(3):302-307.
8. Krusz J, Cagle J, Hall S. Intramuscular (IM) ketamine for treating headache and pain flare-ups in the clinic. J Pain. 2008;9(4):30.
9. Bigal M Rapoport A, Sheftell F, Tepper D, Tepper S. Memantine in the preventive treatment of refractory migraine. Headache. 2008;48(9):1337-1342.
10. Ford RG, Ford KT. Continuous intravenous dihydroergotamine for treatment of intractable headache. Headache. 1997;37(3):129‐136.
11. Boudreau G, Aghai E, Marchand L, Langlois M. Outpatient intravenous dihydroergotamine for probable medication overuse headache. Headache Care. 2006;3(1):45‐49.
12. Pomeroy JL, Marmura MJ, Nahas SJ, Viscusi ER. Ketamine infusions for treatment refractory headache. Headache. 2017;57(2):276-282.
13. Brandes JL, Kudrow D, Stark SR, et al. Sumatriptan-naproxen for acute treatment of migraine: a randomized trial. JAMA. 2007;297(13):1443-1454.
14. Peterlin BL, Calhoun AH, Siegel S, Mathew NT. Rational combination therapy in refractory migraine. Headache. 2008;48(6):805-819.
15. Innes G, Macphail I, Dillon EC, Metcalfe C, Gao M. Dexamethasone prevents relapse after emergency department treatment of acute migraine: a randomized clinical trial. CJEM. 2015;1(1):26-33.
16. Irimia P, Palma JA, Fernandez-Torron R, Martinez-Vila E. Refractory migraine in a headache clinic population. BMC Neurol. 2011;11:94.

Dr. Charles is Clinical Associate Professor Neurology, Rutgers–New Jersey Medical School, Newark, NJ; Neurology Attending, Holy Name Medical Center, Teaneck, NJ ([email protected]).

Dr. Gallo is Interventional Radiology Attending, Holy Name Medical Center, Teaneck, NJ ([email protected]).

DISCLOSURES

The authors have no financial relationships to disclose relevant to the manuscript. There was no sponsorship of, or funding for, the study.

Dr. Charles designed and conceptualized the study; analyzed study data and performed the statistical analysis; and drafted the manuscript for intellectual content. Dr. Gallo had a major role in the acquisition of interventional sphenopalatine ganglion data.

ABSTRACT

Objective

Chronic refractory migraine patients who failed repetitive dihydroergotamine/dopamine infusion protocols and conventional preventives were treated with repeated low-dose ketamine-based parenteral protocols, followed by memantine-based preventive therapy, and observed for immediate reduction in pain intensity and headache frequency.

Methods

Ten patients were treated at an outpatient infusion center for 2 to 5 sequential days with AM and PM courses of intravenous diphenhydramine, prochlorperazine, and dihydroergotamine. A daily sphenopalatine ganglion block and low-dose intramuscular ketamine were given midday between treatments, with dexamethasone given on the last infusion day. The Numeric Pain Rating Scale was measured after infusion. Carryover effect was assessed 1 month and 2 months after infusion by headache frequency while being treated with memantine and various other preventive and abortive therapies.

Results

Reduction in headache pain of 71% was achieved at the end of the infusion period. Sedation was the only adverse effect. Decreased headache frequency persisted beyond the infusion period, with an 88.6% reduction in headache days per month at 1 month and a 79.4% reduction in headache days per month at 2 months, without adverse effects.

Conclusions

Data indicate that 1) repetitive low-dose, ketamine-based parenteral therapy, followed by memantine-based preventive therapy, reduced refractory headache pain and 2) the decremental effect on headache frequency persisted beyond the infusion period. Our results support the hypothesis that multimechanistic therapies might be better than single-modality treatment. More studies, with a larger patient population, are needed to confirm whether these multimodality ketamine/memantine therapies should become the preferred approach for these extremely disabled patients.

Chronic refractory migraine (CRM) degrades function and quality of life despite elimination of triggers and adequate trials of acute and preventive medicines that have established efficacy. This definition requires that patients with chronic migraine fail adequate trials of preventive drugs, alone or in combination, in at least 2 of 4 drug classes, including beta blockers, anticonvulsants, tricyclic antidepressants, onabotulinumtoxin A, and calcium-channel blockers. Patients must also fail adequate trials of abortive medicines, including both a triptan and dihydroergotamine (DHE), intranasal or injectable formulation, and either a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug or a combination analgesic, unless contraindicated.^1-4

In 1986, Raskin published a nonrandomized, nonblinded study of 2 treatments for intractable migraine in which repetitive inpatient intravenous (IV) DHE, administered in the hospital, was statistically more effective than IV diazepam in terminating cycles of intractable migraine.⁵ Most headache specialists have adopted the so-called Raskin protocol, as originally described or in any of several variations, as cornerstone therapy for CRM, chronic migraine, and prolonged status migrainosus.⁶ However, DHE-based infusion protocols do not always effectively reset the brain’s pain modulatory pathways in chronic migraine immediately posttreatment and might not induce a meaningful carryover effect.

We present 10 patients with CRM who met criteria for refractory migraine, including failure to terminate their headache with repetitive DHE/prochlorperazine/diphenhydramine/ketorolac/dexamethasone IV protocols, with or without sporadic administration of a sphenopalatine ganglion block. We treated these patients multimechanistically with repetitive IV DHE, a dopamine antagonist, an antihistamine, sphenopalatine ganglion (SPG) block, and low-dose ketamine, plus last-infusion-day dexamethasone, followed by outpatient oral memantine. Subsequently, we observed them for 2 months.

Ketamine is a phencyclidine derivative introduced the early 1960s as an IV anesthetic. Low-dose ketamine has been used successfully in the treatment of chronic pain. Today, increased interest in the application of low-dose ketamine includes cancer pain; treatment and prevention of acute and chronic pain, with and without neuropathic analgesia; fibromyalgia; complex regional pain; and migraine.^7,8 The effectiveness of ketamine in different pain disorders may arise through different pathways and/or by way of activity at various receptor systems. Effects arise predominantly by noncompetitive antagonism of the glutamate N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA ) receptor.^7,8

Memantine also is an NMDA receptor antagonist that is used effectively as an oral agent in CRM.⁹

METHODS

Patients enrolled in this prospective study had CRM for periods ranging from 1 to 2 years. All had daily headache that could not be terminated with repetitive DHE/prochlorperazine/diphenhydramine/ketorolac/dexamethasone IV protocols with or without sporadic administration of an SPG block. Age ranged from 18 and 68 years; all patients were female. Patients were excluded if they had known coronary artery disease, uncontrolled hypertension, or peripheral arterial disease; a history of stroke, transient ischemic attack, or pregnancy; impaired liver or renal function; smoked a tobacco product; or were taking a protease inhibitor or macrolide antibiotic.

 Approval by the institutional review board was unnecessary because all drugs and procedures are FDA-approved and have published evidence-based efficacy for migraine and other diseases.

 The Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS; a scale of 0 to 10) was utilized to rate the intensity of pain from the beginning of the infusion to the end of the multiday infusion protocol, when the catheter was removed. All patients but 1 were treated for 5 days; for the 1 exception, treatment was terminated after 48 hours because of a scheduling conflict. The observational follow‐up periods for assessment of outcomes were 1 month and 2 months post-infusion.

Patients started the study with a baseline NPRS of 9 or 10. They were treated at the institution’s headache outpatient infusion center. In the morning, patients received, by sequential IV infusion, diphenhydramine, 50 mg; prochlorperazine, 10 mg; and DHE, 1 mg. They then received a midday SPG block under fluoroscopic guidance and ketamine, 0.45 mg/kg intramuscularly (IM), given in the post-anesthesia care unit. In the late afternoon, the patients received diphenhydramine, 50 mg; prochlorperazine, 10 mg; and DHE, 0.5 mg, in the Headache Outpatient Infusion Center. Patients were discharged to home by 6 PM. They received IV dexamethasone, 20 mg, on the last day of therapy.

Oral preventive agents were continued and abortives were temporarily discontinued during infusion therapy. Oral memantine was used immediately before, during, and, in all cases, after infusion, at a daily dosage that ranged from 10 mg BID to 28 mg, once-daily extended release.

RESULTS

Therapies were well-tolerated by all patients. On the last day of treatment, the entire cohort (N = 10) demonstrated an average of 71% (mean standard deviation [SD], 10.1%) reduction in pain intensity. The average reduction in headache days per month at 1 month was 88.6% (mean SD, 6.24%) and at 2 months was 79.4% (mean SD, 17.13%) (Table). Adverse effects were mild temporary sedation from ketamine. Pulse oximetry revealed no abnormal decrease in O₂ saturation. All patients reported marked overall reduction in headache disability at the end of the infusion protocol. Self-administered abortive therapies posttreatment were more efficacious than they were pretreatment. All patients indicated less headache disability overall by the end of the 2-month observation period.
 

Table. Chronic Refractory Migraine Baseline Data and Treatment Results^a

^aAll patients had daily headache at initiation of treatment.

^bHeadache days/month.

NPRS, Numeric Pain Rating Scale.

DISCUSSION

In our study of 10 patients with CRM who had daily headache treated repetitively in an outpatient infusion center with multimodality therapies, including sub-anesthetic doses of ketamine, all patients experienced marked reduction in headache pain intensity, with a whole-group average reduction of 71% by the end of infusion treatment. During post-infusion observation, all patients continued various preventive therapies, including memantine. At 1 month, the average reduction in headache frequency was 88.6%. Two months post-infusion, the average reduction in headache frequency was 79.4%. Adverse effects were minimal. Overall, the treatment was found to be safe and efficacious. All patients felt less headache disability after 2 months.

Because the protocol was administered comfortably in the Headache Outpatient Infusion Center, the inconvenience and higher cost of inpatient parenteral treatment were avoided. Ketamine, 0.45 mg/kg IM is a sub-anesthetic dose with proven efficacy in treating migraine without adverse effects in an outpatient setting.⁸ Low-dose ketamine obviated the need for anesthesia personnel and precautions. Temporary sedation was the only adverse effect. Ketamine was administered by a nurse in the post-anesthesia care unit while patients were under observation with conventional measurement of vital signs and pulse oximetry. Memantine, also an NMDA receptor antagonist, is postulated to prolong the NMDA antagonism of ketamine.

Inpatient and outpatient continuous IV DHE and repetitive IV DHE, often combined with dopamine antagonists in controlled and comparator studies, have demonstrated equal effectiveness for the treatment of chronic migraine.^5,10,11 Our patients failed these therapies. This raises the question: Should our combined multimodality, ketamine-based approach be standard parenteral therapy for CRM?

In a recent study of continuous inpatient single-modality IV ketamine, a less-impressive carryover effect was obtained, with 23% to 50% 1-month sustained responders.¹² Multimechanistic treatment superiority over monotherapy is legendary in the treatment of cancer and human immunodeficiency infection. Sumatriptan plus naproxen sodium as a single tablet for acute treatment of migraine resulted in more favorable clinical benefit compared with either monotherapy, with an acceptable, well-tolerated adverse effect profile. Because multiple pathogenic mechanisms putatively are involved in generation of the migraine symptom complex, multimechanism-targeted therapy may confer advantages over individual monotherapy. Drugs in 2 classes of migraine pharmacotherapy—triptans and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs —target distinct aspects of the vascular and inflammatory processes hypothesized to underlie migraine.¹³

Although combination therapy for CRM has not been systematically studied in randomized trials, clinical experience suggests that a rational approach to CRM treatment, utilizing a combination of treatments, may be effective when monotherapy has failed.¹⁴ During the infusion protocol, we re-set the trigeminovascular pain pathways 1) by repetitively blocking NMDA receptors (with ketamine), dopamine receptors (with prochlorperazine), and histamine receptors (with diphenhydramine); 2) by lidocaine anesthetic block of the sphenopalatine ganglia; and, on the last day of the protocol, 3) administering 1 large dose of IV dexamethasone to help prevent recurrence.¹⁵ NMDA blockade continued with oral outpatient memantine.

Virtually all patients were taking other preventives during the pretreatment period and 2-month observation period, including topiramate, venlafaxine, beta blockers, candesartan, zonisamide, onabotulinumtoxin A, neuromodulation (Cefaly Technology), and transcranial magnetic stimulation (springTMS®). Self-administered abortives were more effective in the 2-month observational period; these included IM/IV DHE; oral, spray, and subcutaneous triptans; IM ketorolac; diclofenac buffered solution; and transcranial magnetic stimulation (springTMS®). The cornerstone strategy of our treatment group that was a constant was the use of low-dose IM sub-anesthetic ketamine at a dosage of 0.45 mg/kg/d and the use of oral memantine during the follow-up observation period, at dosages ranging from 10 mg BID to 28 mg, once-daily extended release.

Limitations of this study design are:

• lack of a control group
• lack of subject randomization for comparative outcomes
• patients remaining on a variety of prophylactic regimens
• patients permitted to take any rescue therapy.

 The effect of repetitive SPG block cannot be teased out of the efficacy data, but many of our patients had a poor or temporary response to infrequent sporadic SPG blocks prior to participating in our protocol.

Many migraineurs who seek care in a headache clinic are refractory to treatment, despite advances in headache therapy; refractory migraine was found in 5.1% of these patients.¹⁶ In this small series of patients, we demonstrated immediate relief and a significant 2-month carryover effect with our multimodality parenteral protocol. Larger, controlled studies are needed to further explore this protocol with repetitive DHE, diphenhydramine, prochlorperazine, SPG block, and low-dose IM ketamine, followed by outpatient memantine. Such studies would determine whether our protocol should be utilized as a primary treatment, instead of the conventional DHE-based Raskin and modified Raskin protocols.

Although this is a small series of patients, lack of adverse effects and impressive results should give credence to utilizing our protocol as treatment for this extremely debilitated, often desperate subset of headache patients. Data indicate that, whereas ketamine combined with other therapies immediately reduced refractory headache pain, the ameliorating effect of ketamine on CRM headache frequency and pain in our protocol persisted beyond the infusion period. This phenomenon indicates a disease-modulating role for ketamine in refractory migraine pain, possibly by means of desensitization of NMDA receptors in the trigeminal nucleus caudalis—desensitization that continued with the NMDA receptor antagonist memantine and/or restoration of inhibitory sensory control in the brain.

CONCLUSION

Our results support the hypothesis that multimechanistic therapies, including low-dose IM ketamine and memantine, might be better than single-modality treatment in this debilitated, refractory population. Future studies, with larger patient populations, are needed to confirm whether these multimodality ketamine/memantine-inclusive therapies should become the preferred approach for these extremely disabled patients.

REFERENCES

1. Goadsby PJ, Schoenen J, Ferrari MD, Silberstein SD, Dodick DW. Towards a definition of intractable headache for use in clinical practice and trials. Cephalalgia. 2006;26(9):1168-1170.
2. Schulman EA, Lipton R, Peterlin BL, Levin M, Grosberg BM. Commentary from the Refractory Headache Special Interest Section on defining the pharmacologically intractable headache for clinical trials and clinical practice. Headache. 2010;50(10):1637-1639.
3. Martelletti P, Jensen RH, Antal A, et al. Neuromodulation of chronic headaches: position statement from the European Headache Federation. J Headache Pain. 2013;14:86.
4. Dodick DW, Turkel CC, DeGryse RE, et al; PREEMPT Chronic Migraine Study Group. OnabotulinumtoxinA for treatment of chronic migraine: pooled results from the double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled phases of the PREEMPT clinical program. Headache. 2010;50(6):921-936.
5. Raskin NH. Repetitive intravenous dihydroergotamine as therapy for intractable migraine. Neurology. 1986;36(7):995‐997.
6. Charles JA, von Dohln P. Outpatient home-based continuous intravenous dihydroergotamine therapy for intractable migraine. Headache. 2010;50(5):852-860.
7. Sigtermans M, Noppers I, Sarton E, et al. An observational study on the effect of S+-ketamine on chronic pain versus experimental acute pain in complex regional pain syndrome type 1 patients. Eur J Pain. 2010;14(3):302-307.
8. Krusz J, Cagle J, Hall S. Intramuscular (IM) ketamine for treating headache and pain flare-ups in the clinic. J Pain. 2008;9(4):30.
9. Bigal M Rapoport A, Sheftell F, Tepper D, Tepper S. Memantine in the preventive treatment of refractory migraine. Headache. 2008;48(9):1337-1342.
10. Ford RG, Ford KT. Continuous intravenous dihydroergotamine for treatment of intractable headache. Headache. 1997;37(3):129‐136.
11. Boudreau G, Aghai E, Marchand L, Langlois M. Outpatient intravenous dihydroergotamine for probable medication overuse headache. Headache Care. 2006;3(1):45‐49.
12. Pomeroy JL, Marmura MJ, Nahas SJ, Viscusi ER. Ketamine infusions for treatment refractory headache. Headache. 2017;57(2):276-282.
13. Brandes JL, Kudrow D, Stark SR, et al. Sumatriptan-naproxen for acute treatment of migraine: a randomized trial. JAMA. 2007;297(13):1443-1454.
14. Peterlin BL, Calhoun AH, Siegel S, Mathew NT. Rational combination therapy in refractory migraine. Headache. 2008;48(6):805-819.
15. Innes G, Macphail I, Dillon EC, Metcalfe C, Gao M. Dexamethasone prevents relapse after emergency department treatment of acute migraine: a randomized clinical trial. CJEM. 2015;1(1):26-33.
16. Irimia P, Palma JA, Fernandez-Torron R, Martinez-Vila E. Refractory migraine in a headache clinic population. BMC Neurol. 2011;11:94.