Headache Specialists Research Articles

When Should Headache Specialists Hold a Needle? The Role of Botulinum Toxin Injections and Occipital Nerve Blocks

When Should Headache Specialists Hold a Needle? The Role of Botulinum Toxin Injections and Occipital Nerve Blocks

Boundaries of visual phenomena in migraine: the charles bonnet’s syndrome - report of two cases

IntroductionTwo patients were referred to a tertiary headache center due to complex visual phenomena that might be related to migraine aura. Eventually, it turned out that they were Charles Bonnet syndrome (CBS) patients. The syndrome is characterized by vivid visual hallucinations in the absence of other psychiatric symptoms, often in patients with optical morphophysiological disorders. The pathophysiology of CBS remains uncertain, and the syndrome lacks robust diagnostic criteria. So far, reports on CBS are scarce in Brazilian neurological literature, leading to challenges in identification and diagnosis. The condition is primarily recognized through anamnesis and clinical examination.ObjectiveTo report two cases of CBS to draw the attention of headache specialists about this syndrome.Case reportsThe first case involves a 93-year-old male patient, retired, who reported experiencing vivid hallucinations sometimes of an old white car and sometimes a group of children. Despite the clarity of these visions, the patient remained aware that they were not real. In the second case, a 70-year-old male farmer began experiencing hallucinations involving scratches, scribbles, letters, stones, and women in his visions. ConclusionHere two cases of CBS were reported concerning a not so rare condition, but for sure very uncommon to headache specialists.

Comparison of clinical pharmacist practitioners' headache care roles across clinical contexts within the Veterans Health Administration: Optimizing pharmacist integration.

Studies show interdisciplinary treatment is highly effective for addressing chronic pain syndromes, including headache disorders. Increasingly, advanced practice pharmacists work collaboratively with physicians to apply their unique skills to enhance patient outcomes. This qualitative study aimed to elucidate the potential in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) for increased roles of clinical pharmacist practitioners (CPPs)-advanced practice pharmacists with a scope of practice-in collaborative, interdisciplinary headache care teams. Our research question was: How do CPPs integrate with interdisciplinary headache care teams in Headache Centers of Excellence (HCoE) and non-HCoE VHA facilities, and how can their roles be configured to optimize headache specialty care services? This cross-sectional qualitative study used purposive sampling to recruit CPPs providing headache care within HCoEs and in non-HCoE VHA facilities for virtual, recorded, individual interviews. Multi-stage qualitative data analysis entailed: team discussions; immersion/crystallization for close reading of transcripts to identify emerging patterns of HCoE/non-HCoE comparison of CPPs' experiences; team data sorting using spreadsheets; and further immersion into sorted data for final identification of comparisons and interpretation of the data. A total of 15 CPPs involved in headache care were interviewed, with about half working in HCoEs and half in non-HCoE VHA facilities across the United States. CPPs' roles within and outside HCoEs have considerable overlap as both groups co-manage patients with headache with physicians. CPPs have independent and collaborative responsibilities as they extend headache specialists' services by providing direct patient care and referring to additional providers for headache treatment. When their roles differ within and outside HCoEs it is largely due to level of integration on interdisciplinary headache or pain teams. CPPs in HCoEs collaborate with headache neurologists and interdisciplinary teams; some outside HCoEs do as well, while others work with primary care. CPPs' weekly time dedicated specifically to headache tends to be greater in HCoEs. Nevertheless, most interviewees in both groups stated patient need exceeds CPP availability at their facilities for conducting detailed chart reviews, initial visits to understand the context of patients' headache, and scheduled follow-ups over time to monitor and adjust treatment. CPPs also consult with and educate physicians on headache pharmacy, particularly regarding appropriate use of non-formulary medications. Findings from this study suggest that CPPs' roles in headache care are valuable to clinical colleagues and their patients and should be leveraged and expanded within HCoEs and non-HCoE VHA facilities. When substantively integrated into interdisciplinary headache care teams, CPPs offer unique knowledge, headache management and patient behavior change skills, extend headache specialists' services, and provide both patient and physician education. These combined responsibilities contribute to enhancing patient outcomes and facilitating ongoing access to high quality, evidence-based headache care.

Headache diagnosis and treatment: A pilot knowledge and needs assessment among physical therapists.

The objective of this pilot study was to assess physical therapists' (PTs) knowledge and needs regarding headache diagnosis and management. While there is significant research on physical therapy and cervicogenic headache, studies suggest that migraine is often under-recognized, misdiagnosed, and inadequately treated across society despite its high prevalence and burden. Because migraine commonly includes concurrent neck pain and/or vestibular symptoms, patients with migraine may present to PTs for treatment. Very little is known about PTs' headache and migraine education, knowledge, and clinical practices. A team of headache specialists and PTs adapted a previously used headache knowledge and needs assessment survey to help ascertain PTs' knowledge and needs regarding headache treatment. The cross-sectional survey was distributed online via Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) to PTs within a large healthcare system in Connecticut. An estimated 50.5% (101/200) of PTs invited to complete the survey did so. Only 37.6% (38/101) of respondents reported receiving any formal headache or migraine education in their professional training, leading to knowledge gaps in differentiating and responding to headache subtypes. Only 45.5% (46/101) were able to identify that migraine is characterized by greater pain intensity than tension-type headache, and 22.8% (23/101) reported not knowing the duration of untreated migraine. When asked about the aspects of care they believe their patients with headache would like to see improved, PTs reported education around prevention and appropriate medication use (61/100 [61.0%]), provider awareness of the degree of disability associated with migraine (51/100 [51.0%]), and diagnostics (47/100 [47.0%]). This sample of PTs from one healthcare system demonstrates knowledge gaps and variations in clinical practice for managing their patients with headache. Future research on integrating additional opportunities for headache education for physical therapists, including evidence-based behavioral therapies, is needed to ascertain whether it is likely to improve patient care.

Situational prevention: Pharmacotherapy during periods of increased risk for migraine attacks.

The small molecule calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonists (gepants) are the only drug class with medicines indicated for both the acute and preventive treatment of migraine. Given this dual capacity to both treat and prevent, along with their favorable tolerability profiles and lack of an association with medication-overuse headache, headache specialists have begun to use gepants in ways that transcend the traditional categories of acute and preventive treatment. One approach, called situational prevention, directs patients to treat during the interictal phase, before symptoms develop, insituations of increased risk for migraine attacks. Herein, we present three patients to illustrate scenarios of gepant use for situational prevention. In each case, a gepant was started in anticipation of a period of increased headache probability (vulnerability) and continued for a duration of 1 day to 5 consecutive days. Although this approach may expose patients to medication when headache may not have developed, the tolerability and safety profile and preventive effect of gepants may represent a feasible approach for some patients. Situational prevention is an emerging strategy for managing migraine before symptoms develop in individuals who can identify periods when the probability of headache is high. This paper is intended to increase awareness of this strategy and stimulate future randomized, placebo-controlled trials to rigorously assess this strategy.

Fremanezumab in real-life clinical practice: specialized headache center experience

Fremanezumab in real-life clinical practice: specialized headache center experience

Occurrence of new or more severe headaches following COVID-19 is associated with markers of microglial activation and peripheral sensitization: results from a prospective cohort study

BackgroundNew onset or worsening of a headache disorder substantially contributes to the disease burden of post-COVID-19. Its management poses a suitable means to enhance patients’ participation in professional, social, and personal activities. Unfortunately, the pathophysiology of post-COVID-19 headaches is poorly understood. This study aims to investigate the role of (neuro-) inflammatory mechanisms in order to guide the development of anti-inflammatory treatment strategies.MethodsWe included patients from the interdisciplinary post-COVID-19 Rehabilitation Study (PoCoRe, n = 184 patients) run at a tertiary care university hospital, comprising patients with PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection ≥ 6 weeks prior to their initial consultation. Patients reporting any headache since their infection were considered for this study (n = 93). These were interviewed and classified according to the International Classification of Headache Disorders, Third Edition (ICHD-3) by headache specialists. Patient sera were additionally analysed for levels of VILIP-1, MCP-1 (CCL2), sTREM-2, BDNF, TGF-ß1, VEGF, IL-6, sTREM-1, ß-NGF, IL-18, TNF-alpha, sRAGE, and CX3CL1 (Fractalkine). Markers of inflammation were compared between four groups of patients (none, unchanged, worsened, or new headache disorder).ResultsPatients reported experiencing more severe headaches (n = 17), new onset headaches (n = 46), unchanged headaches (n = 18), and surprisingly, some patients denied having any headaches (n = 12) despite self-reports. Serum levels of CX3CL1 were increased in the worsened (2145 [811–4866] pg/ml) and new onset (1668 [0-7357] pg/ml) headache group as compared to patients with no (1129 [0-5379] pg/ml) or unchanged (1478 [346–4332] pg/ml) headaches. Other markers also differed between groups, but most significantly between patients with worsened (TGF-ß1: 60 [0-310] pg/ml, VEGF: 328 [86–842] pg/ml, ß-NGF: 6 [3–38] pg/ml) as compared to unchanged headaches (TGF-ß1: 29 [0–77] pg/ml, VEGF: 183 [72–380] pg/ml, ß-NGF: 3 [2–89] pg/ml). The results did not differ between headache phenotypes.DiscussionThis study provides evidence that worsened or new headaches following COVID-19 are associated with pro-(neuro-)inflammatory profiles. This supports the use of anti-inflammatory treatment options in this population, especially in the subacute phase.

Preliminary External Validation Results of the Artificial Intelligence-Based Headache Diagnostic Model: A Multicenter Prospective Observational Study.

The misdiagnosis of headache disorders is a serious issue, and AI-based headache model diagnoses with external validation are scarce. We previously developed an artificial intelligence (AI)-based headache diagnosis model using a database of 4000 patients' questionnaires in a headache-specializing clinic and herein performed external validation prospectively. The validation cohort of 59 headache patients was prospectively collected from August 2023 to February 2024 at our or collaborating multicenter institutions. The ground truth was specialists' diagnoses based on the initial questionnaire and at least a one-month headache diary after the initial consultation. The diagnostic performance of the AI model was evaluated. The mean age was 42.55 ± 12.74 years, and 51/59 (86.67%) of the patients were female. No missing values were reported. Of the 59 patients, 56 (89.83%) had migraines or medication-overuse headaches, and 3 (5.08%) had tension-type headaches. No one had trigeminal autonomic cephalalgias or other headaches. The models' overall accuracy and kappa for the ground truth were 94.92% and 0.65 (95%CI 0.21-1.00), respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, precision, and F values for migraines were 98.21%, 66.67%, 98.21%, and 98.21%, respectively. There was disagreement between the AI diagnosis and the ground truth by headache specialists in two patients. This is the first external validation of the AI headache diagnosis model. Further data collection and external validation are required to strengthen and improve its performance in real-world settings.

A large language model-based generative natural language processing framework fine-tuned on clinical notes accurately extracts headache frequency from electronic health records.

To develop a natural language processing (NLP) algorithm that can accurately extract headache frequency from free-text clinical notes. Headache frequency, defined as the number of days with any headache in a month (or 4 weeks), remains a key parameter in the evaluation of treatment response to migraine preventive medications. However, due to the variations and inconsistencies in documentation by clinicians, significant challenges exist to accurately extract headache frequency from the electronic health record (EHR) by traditional NLP algorithms. This was a retrospective cross-sectional study with patients identified from two tertiary headache referral centers, Mayo Clinic Arizona and Mayo Clinic Rochester. All neurology consultation notes written by 15 specialized clinicians (11 headache specialists and 4 nurse practitioners) between 2012 and 2022 were extracted and 1915 notes were used for model fine-tuning (90%) and testing (10%). We employed four different NLP frameworks: (1) ClinicalBERT (Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers) regression model, (2) Generative Pre-Trained Transformer-2 (GPT-2) Question Answering (QA) model zero-shot, (3) GPT-2 QA model few-shot training fine-tuned on clinical notes, and (4) GPT-2 generative model few-shot training fine-tuned on clinical notes to generate the answer by considering the context of included text. The mean (standard deviation) headache frequency of our training and testing datasets were 13.4 (10.9) and 14.4 (11.2), respectively. The GPT-2 generative model was the best-performing model with an accuracy of 0.92 (0.91, 0.93, 95% confidence interval [CI]) and R2 score of 0.89 (0.87, 0.90, 95% CI), and all GPT-2-based models outperformed the ClinicalBERT model in terms of exact matching accuracy. Although the ClinicalBERT regression model had the lowest accuracy of 0.27 (0.26, 0.28), it demonstrated a high R2 score of 0.88 (0.85, 0.89), suggesting the ClinicalBERT model can reasonably predict the headache frequency within a range of ≤ ± 3 days, and the R2 score was higher than the GPT-2 QA zero-shot model or GPT-2 QA model few-shot training fine-tuned model. We developed a robust information extraction model based on a state-of-the-art large language model, a GPT-2 generative model that can extract headache frequency from EHR free-text clinical notes with high accuracy and R2 score. It overcame several challenges related to different ways clinicians document headache frequency that were not easily achieved by traditional NLP models. We also showed that GPT-2-based frameworks outperformed ClinicalBERT in terms of accuracy in extracting headache frequency from clinical notes. To facilitate research in the field, we released the GPT-2 generative model and inference code with open-source license of community use in GitHub. Additional fine-tuning of the algorithm might be required when applied to different health-care systems for various clinical use cases.

The burden of headache disorders in North India: methodology, and validation of a Hindi version of the HARDSHIP questionnaire, for a community-based survey in Delhi and national capital territory region

BackgroundKnowledge of the prevalence and attributable burden of headache disorders in India is sparse, with only two recent population-based studies from South and East India. These produced conflicting results. A study in North India is needed. We report the methodology of such a study using, and validating, a Hindi translation of the Headache-Attributed Restriction, Disability, Social Handicap, and Impaired Participation (HARDSHIP) questionnaire developed by Lifting The Burden (LTB). Almost half of the Indian population speak Hindi or one of its dialects.MethodsThe study adopted LTB’s standardized protocol for population-based studies in a cross-sectional survey using multistage random sampling conducted in urban Delhi and a surrounding rural area. Trained interviewers visited households unannounced, randomly selected one adult member from each and applied the Hindi version of HARDSHIP in face-to-face interviews. The most bothersome headache reported by participants was classified algorithmically into headache on ≥ 15 days/month (H15 +), migraine (including definite and probable) or tension-type headache (including definite and probable). These diagnoses were mutually exclusive. All participants diagnosed with H15 + and a 10% subsample of all others were additionally assessed by headache specialists and classified as above. We estimated the sensitivity and specificity of HARDSHIP diagnoses by comparison with the specialists’ diagnoses.ResultsFrom 3,040 eligible households, 2,066 participants were interviewed. The participating proportions were 98.3% in rural areas but 52.9% in urban Delhi. In the validation subsample of 291 participants (149 rural, 142 urban), 61 did not report any headache (seven of those assessed by HARDSHIP, eight by headache specialists and 46 by both) [kappa = 0.83; 95% CI: 0.74-0.91]. In the remaining 230 participants who reported headache in the preceding year, sensitivity, specificity and kappa with (95% CI) were 0.73 (0.65-0.79), 0.80 (0.67-0.90) and 0.43 (0.34-0.58) for migraine; 0.71 (0.56-0.83), 0.80 (0.730.85) and 0.43 (0.37-0.62) for TTH and 0.75 (0.47-0.94), 0.93 (0.89-0.96) and 0.46 (0.34-0.58) for H15 + respectively.ConclusionThis study validates the Hindi version of HARDSHIP, finding its performance similar to those of other versions. It can be used to conduct population surveys in other Hindi-speaking regions of India.

Headache Specialists' Perceptions of the Role of Health Psychologists in Headache Management: A Qualitative Study.

Background Since headache specialists cannot treat all the patients with headache disorders, multidisciplinary teams that include health psychologists are becoming more prevalent. Health psychologists mainly use a form of cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), along with biofeedback on occasion, to effectively address patients' pain and headache disorders. The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) is one setting that routinely includes a health psychologist with advanced training in pain disorders in their pain care to its veterans. The VHA has established Headache Centers of Excellence (HCoE) around the country to provide multidisciplinary treatment for patients with headache disorders, which enables headache specialists to regularly interact with health psychologists. Objective The study's objective is to evaluate headache specialists' views of health psychologists in the treatment of patients with headache disorders. Method Semi-structured interviews were conducted with headache specialists in academic-based healthcare settings, the community, and VHA HCoE sites. The interviews were audio-recorded and de-identified so they could be transcribed and analyzed using content matrix analysis. Results Four themes emerged: headache specialists desired to work with health psychologists and included them as members of multidisciplinary teams; valued health psychologists because they provided non-pharmacological treatments, such as CBTand biofeedback; preferred in-person communication with health psychologists; and used multiple titles when referring to health psychologists. Conclusion Headache specialists valued health psychologists as providers of behavioral and non-pharmacological treatments and considered them essential members of multidisciplinary teams. Headache specialists should strive to work with a headache psychologist, not just a general health psychologist. By committing to this, headache specialists can foster changes in the quality of care, resource allocation, and training experiences related to health psychologists.

Migraine Preventive Treatment Failure: A Cross-Sectional Study in a Tertiary Center in Brazil

BackgroundIn Brazil, there is a scarcity of evidence on migraine burden in patients who have experienced previous preventive treatment failure (PPTF). ObjectiveTo evaluate the associations between ≥ 3 PPTF and clinical, psychiatric, and medical history data.MethodsIn a retrospective, cross-sectional study, the medical records of migraine patients who first visited a tertiary specialized clinic were examined. We selected adults of both sexes aged ≥ 18 who attended their first appointment between March and July 2017. Ordinal logistic regression models estimated the associations between number of PPTF (no previous treatment, 1 PPTF, 2, and ≥ 3 PPTF) and chronic migraine, the number of diagnosis exams performed, abortive drugs classes used, and non-pharmacological treatments tried (all categorized as none, 1- 3, and ≥ 4), and severe depression (PHQ-9 ≥ 15) and anxiety (GAD-7 ≥ 15), adjusted for sex, age, and years with disease.ResultsData from 440 patients (72.1 % female) with a mean (SD) age of 37.3 (13.0) years were analyzed. The frequency of no previous treatment was 37.7 % (166/440), while 31.8 % (140/440) showed ≥ 3 PPTF. In patients with ≥ 3 PPTF, 35.7 % (50/140) had episodic, and 64.3 % (90/140) had chronic migraine. Compared to no previous treatment, patients with ≥ 3 PPTF showed higher odds (95 % confidence interval) for chronic migraine [2.10 (1.47, 2.98)], ≥ 4 diagnosis exams [6.59 (3.38, 12.84)], ≥ 4 abortive drug classes [16.03 (9.53, 26.94)], ≥ 4 non-pharmacological treatments [5.91 (3.07,11.35)], and severe depression [1.75 (1.07, 2.88)] and anxiety [1.73 (1.05, 2.85)]. ConclusionPatients first visiting a headache specialist had a high frequency of non-response treatment associated with higher migraine burden in terms of chronification, psychiatric comorbidity, acute medication and non-pharmacological treatment inefficacy, and unnecessary exams.

Refractory occipital neuralgia treatment with nerve decompression surgery: a case series

BackgroundThe management of refractory occipital neuralgia (ON) can be challenging. Selection criteria for occipital nerve decompression surgery are not well defined in terms of clinical features and best preoperative medical management.MethodsIn total, 15 patients diagnosed with ON by a board-certified, fellowship-trained headache specialist and referred to a plastic surgeon for nerve decompression surgery were prospectively enrolled. All subjects received trials of occipital nerve blocks (NB), at least three preventive medications, and onabotulinum toxin (BTX) prior to surgery before referral to a plastic surgeon. Treatment outcomes included headache frequency (headache days/month), intensity (0–10), duration (h), and response to medication/injectable therapies at 12 months postoperatively.ResultsPreoperatively, median headache days/month was 30 (20–30), intensity 8 (8–10), and duration 24 h (12–24). Patients trialed 10 (±5.8) NB and 11.7 (±9) BTX cycles. Postoperatively, headache frequency was 5 (0–16) days/month (p < 0.01), intensity was 4 (0–6) (p < 0.01), and duration was 10 (0–24) h (p < 0.01). Median patient-reported percent resolution of ON headaches was 80% (70–85%). All patients reported improvement of comorbid headache disorders, most commonly migraine, and a reduction, discontinuation, or increased effectiveness of medications, NB and BTX.ConclusionAll patients who underwent treatment for refractory ON by a headache specialist and plastic surgeon benefited from nerve decompression surgery in various degrees. The collaborative selection criteria employed in this study may be replicable in clinical practice.

Real-life experiences with galcanezumab and predictors for treatment response in Turkey

BackgroundThe complexity of clinical practice extends far beyond the controlled settings of trials, and there is a need for real-world studies aimed at identifying which patients will respond to anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies in different countries. This study aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of galcanezumab in treating migraine in a real-life setting in Turkey, as well as identify predictors of treatment response.MethodsA total of 476 patients who diagnosed with migraine according to ICHD-3 criteria and treated with galcanezumab by headache specialists were voluntarily participated in this cross-sectional study. Galcanezumab is indicated for the prevention of migraine in adults who have at least 4 monthly migraine days in Turkey. All patients filled out a survey on Google Form that comprised 54 questions, addressing various aspects such as demographics, migraine characteristics, previous use of acute symptomatic medication, failures with preventive drug classes, comorbidities, most bothersome symptoms, as well as the interictal burden of migraine.ResultsAmong the participants, 89.3% reported that galcanezumab treatment was beneficial for them. A decrease in the frequency (80.0%), severity (85.7%), and acute medication usage for migraine attacks (71.4%) was reported with galcanezumab treatment. An adverse effect related to galcanezumab was reported in 16.3% of cases, but no serious adverse reactions were observed. Remarkably, 14.3% of participants reported no longer experiencing any headaches, and 18.9% did not require any acute treatment while receiving galcanezumab treatment. A logistic regression model showed that male gender, lack of ictal nausea, and previous failure of more than 2 prophylactic agents may predict the non-responders.ConclusionsThe first large series from Turkey showed that galcanezumab treatment is safe and effective in most of the patients diagnosed with migraine by headache experts in the real-life setting. Patients reported a significant decrease in both ictal and interictal burden of migraine and expressed satisfaction with this treatment.

Triptan non-response in specialized headache care: cross-sectional data from the DMKG Headache Registry

BackgroundTriptans are effective for many migraine patients, but some do not experience adequate efficacy and tolerability. The European Headache Federation (EHF) has proposed that patients with lack of efficacy and/or tolerability of ≥ 2 triptans (‘triptan resistance’) could be considered eligible for treatment with the novel medications from the ditan and gepant groups. There is little data on the frequency of ‘triptan resistance’.MethodsWe used patient self-report data from the German Migraine and Headache Society (DMKG) Headache Registry to assess triptan response and triptan efficacy and/or tolerability failure.Results A total of 2284 adult migraine patients (females: 85.4%, age: 39.4 ± 12.8 years) were included. 42.5% (n = 970) had failed ≥ 1 triptan, 13.1% (n = 300) had failed ≥ 2 triptans (meeting the EHF definition of ‘triptan resistance’), and 3.9% (n = 88) had failed ≥ 3 triptans. Compared to triptan responders (current use, no failure, n = 597), triptan non-responders had significantly more severe migraine (higher frequency (p < 0.001), intensity (p < 0.05), and disability (p < 0.001)), that further increased with the level of triptan failure. Responders rates were highest for nasal and oral zolmitriptan, oral eletriptan and subcutaneous sumatriptan.ConclusionIn the present setting (specialized headache care in Germany), 13.1% of the patients had failed ≥ 2 triptans. Triptan failure was associated with increased migraine severity and disability, emphasizing the importance of establishing an effective and tolerable acute migraine medication. Acute treatment optimization might include switching to one of the triptans with the highest responder rates and/or to a different acute medication class.Trial registrationThe DMKG Headache Registry is registered with the German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS 00021081).

Olfactory function assessment of migraine patients by using the Sniffin’ sticks test: A clinical study

ObjectiveThis as a cross-sectional controlled clinical study. We hypothesis that the olfactory functions in migraine patients may differ from the healthy controls. In this study, we evaluated the olfactory functions by using a Sniffin’ Sticks test battery, which is a reliable and semi quantitative test to evaluate for olfactory dysfunction. MethodsPatients above 18 years of age who had migraine received a definitive diagnosis of migraine from experienced headache specialists based on the criteria of The International Classification of Headache Disorders-3 were included. Odor threshold, discrimination, and identification parameters were assessed using the “Sniffin’ Sticks” test. ResultsOne-hundred and one migraine patients (age [mean ± SD], 36.9 ± 10.4 years; range, 18–60 years) and sixty healthy volunteers (age 34.5 ± 13.2 years, range 18–65 years) participated in our study.The median odor threshold score [percentiles 25th–75th] was 8.3 [6.5–9.8] for the migraine group during attack free period and 4.5[3.6–6.0] for the control group. It was found that the migraine group had a median odor discrimination score of 10.0 [10.0–13.0] and the control group 12.0 [11.0–13.0]. These differences were statistically significant (p < 0.001 and p = 0.032 respectively).The median odor discrimination and identification scores were statistically significant higher for the participants with higher educational level group than in those of lower educational group (p < 0.0001). The median odor discrimination and identification scores of those without allodynia (12.0 [10.0–14.0] and 13.0 [10.0–13.0] respectively) were higher than that of those with allodynia (11.0 [9.0–12.0] and 11.0 [10.0–13.0] respectively) (p = 0.037 and p = 0.034 respectively). ConclusionsWe found that the odor thresholds, discrimination and identification scores of the migraine group demonstrate differences from those of the healthy group and in relation to allodynia.

Diagnostic Algorithm for Pediatric Headaches: A Clinical Improvement Initiative

BackgroundThe widespread variation in diagnosing primary headache disorders in children and adolescents results in reduced quality and high costs. Defining an algorithm for primary headache diagnoses in children and adolescents is part of a larger initiative to standardize and improve care. The aim of this algorithm was to increase the accuracy of headache diagnosis by formal criteria to more than 80% of patient encounters. MethodsA team of headache specialists, nurse practitioners, nurses, data analysts, and business specialists developed an algorithm based on available scientific evidence. This algorithm was vetted and adapted by the neurology faculty and headache specialists until final consensus was reached. Following three months of testing and validation, the algorithm was disseminated to general pediatric neurology clinics. The following information was gathered: percent of encounters utilizing the algorithm, percentage of encounters with appropriate diagnosis by formal criteria, percentage of encounters with appropriate testing ordered, and average cost per headache visit. ResultsCorrect diagnosis of primary headache by International Classification of Headache Disorders-3 criteria improved from 72% to 90% and appropriate testing improved from 80% to 94%. By the end of analysis, 94% of encounters were correctly implementing the algorithm. A year-long tracking revealed decreased cost of headache evaluation by 6% compared with the year prior. ConclusionsA standardized algorithm improved the diagnostic accuracy in general child neurology clinics. Expanding the algorithm to primary care and pediatric emergency rooms could have a greater impact on headache evaluation and diagnosis; this should result in improved care and outcomes with reduced cost.

Triptans utilization in Italian population: A real-life study in community pharmacies.

The term Headache Disorders (HD) refers to a number of nervous system pathologies characterised by recurrent headaches. Despite the serious impact HD have on the health system, society, and the economy, these are an underestimated, underdiagnosed, and, hence, undertreated phenomenon. Triptans are the first-line therapy for the acute treatment of moderate to severe migraine but their utilization is still inadequate, perhaps also because in Italy no triptan can be bought without a medical prescription. In this article, the data from a 2016-2017 study has been further analysed with the aim of evaluating any associations between the use of triptans and the other series of variables identified in the questionnaire. This further analysis has been connected to the role that community pharmacies could play on this issue. The questionnaire was administered to 4,424 pharmacy users by 610 purposely trained pharmacists working in 514 pharmacies. The survey was carried out in 19 of the 20 Italian regions. The data shows that only 25% of patients suffering from HDs are prescribed triptans. Older patients, those with definite migraines, and those with a chronic disorder resort more frequently to this class of pharmaceuticals, as do those patients in care at a specialist headache centre. The multivariable analysis also confirmed these results. Our study, which performed a direct detection, in real life, on patients requesting pharmacological treatment for a migraine headache, therefore confirmed the need to investigate the reasons behind the low use and prescription of triptans in the Italian population. Moreover, any future studies should take advantage of community pharmacies, plan actions that would allow a series of evaluations over time of the requirements of migraineurs, and establish a process to put these patients under the care of the pharmacy to ensure adherence to therapy.

If She Can Visualize It, This Stroke and Headache Specialist Will Build It

If She Can Visualize It, This Stroke and Headache Specialist Will Build It

Reliability of a telephone interview for the classification of headache disorders.

The study aimed to test the reliability of a semi-structured telephone interview for the classification of headache disorders according to the ICHD-3. Questionnaire-based screening tools are often optimized for single primary headache diagnoses [e.g., migraine (MIG) and tension headache (TTH)] and therefore insufficiently represent the diagnostic precision of the ICHD-3, which limits epidemiological research of rare headache disorders. Brief semi-structured telephone interviews could be an effective alternative to improve classification. A patient population representative of different primary and secondary headache disorders (n = 60) was recruited from the outpatient clinic (HSA) of a tertiary care headache center. These patients completed an established population-based questionnaire for the classification of MIG, TTH, or trigeminal autonomic cephalalgia (TAC). In addition, they received a semi-structured telephone interview call from three blinded headache specialists individually. The agreement of diagnoses made either using the questionnaires or interviews with the HSA diagnoses was evaluated. Of the 59 patients (n = 1 dropout), 24% had a second-order and 5% had a third-order headache disorder. The main diagnoses were as follows: frequent primary headaches with 61% MIG, 10% TAC, 9% TTH, and 5% rare primary and 16% secondary headaches. Second-order diagnosis was chronic migraine throughout, and third-order diagnoses were medication overuse headache and TTH. Agreement between main headaches from the HSA was significantly better for the telephone interview than for the questionnaire (questionnaire: κ = 0.330; interview: κ = 0.822; p < 0.001). Second-order diagnoses were not adequately captured by questionnaires, while there was a trend for good agreement with the telephone interview (κ = 0.433; p = 0.074). Headache frequency and psychiatric comorbidities were independent predictors of HSA and telephone interview agreement. Male sex, headache frequency, severity, and depressive disorders were independently predictive for agreement between the questionnaire and HSA. The telephone interview showed high sensitivity (≥71%) and specificity (≥92%) for all primary headache disorders, whereas the questionnaire was below 50% in either sensitivity or specificity. The semi-structured telephone interview appears to be a more reliable tool for accurate diagnosis of headache disorders than self-report questionnaires. This offers the potential to improve epidemiological headache research and care even in underserved areas.