Migraine ICYMI

Key clinical point: Lasmiditan was associated with mild-to-moderate central nervous system (CNS)-related adverse events (AE), mostly transient in duration.

Major finding: Treatment-emergent serious AEs occurred in 0.4%, 0.2%, and 0.4% of patients treated with placebo, 100 mg lasmiditan, and 200 mg lasmiditan, respectively. The most common treatment-emergent AEs with lasmiditan were dizziness, nausea, paresthesia, fatigue, somnolence, and vertigo, with mostly mild-to-moderate severity. No deaths were reported.

Study details: Findings are from safety analysis of the phase 3 CENTURION trial that assessed 4,494 attacks across 1,471 patients with migraine with and without aura who were randomly assigned to either 200 mg lasmiditan or 100 mg lasmiditan for 4 attacks or placebo for 3 attacks and 50 mg lasmiditan for the third/fourth attack.

Disclosures: This study was sponsored by Eli Lilly and Company. Some investigators, including the lead author, reported receiving research grants, institutional payments, or fees for advisory boards and scientific lecturing; being an employee of; owning shares in; or consulting for various sources, including Eli Lilly and Company.

Source: Tassorelli C et al. J Headache Pain. 2021;22:132 (Nov 6). Doi: 10.1186/s10194-021-01343-2.

Key clinical point: Lasmiditan was associated with mild-to-moderate central nervous system (CNS)-related adverse events (AE), mostly transient in duration.

Major finding: Treatment-emergent serious AEs occurred in 0.4%, 0.2%, and 0.4% of patients treated with placebo, 100 mg lasmiditan, and 200 mg lasmiditan, respectively. The most common treatment-emergent AEs with lasmiditan were dizziness, nausea, paresthesia, fatigue, somnolence, and vertigo, with mostly mild-to-moderate severity. No deaths were reported.

Study details: Findings are from safety analysis of the phase 3 CENTURION trial that assessed 4,494 attacks across 1,471 patients with migraine with and without aura who were randomly assigned to either 200 mg lasmiditan or 100 mg lasmiditan for 4 attacks or placebo for 3 attacks and 50 mg lasmiditan for the third/fourth attack.

Disclosures: This study was sponsored by Eli Lilly and Company. Some investigators, including the lead author, reported receiving research grants, institutional payments, or fees for advisory boards and scientific lecturing; being an employee of; owning shares in; or consulting for various sources, including Eli Lilly and Company.

Source: Tassorelli C et al. J Headache Pain. 2021;22:132 (Nov 6). Doi: 10.1186/s10194-021-01343-2.

Key clinical point: Lasmiditan was associated with mild-to-moderate central nervous system (CNS)-related adverse events (AE), mostly transient in duration.

Major finding: Treatment-emergent serious AEs occurred in 0.4%, 0.2%, and 0.4% of patients treated with placebo, 100 mg lasmiditan, and 200 mg lasmiditan, respectively. The most common treatment-emergent AEs with lasmiditan were dizziness, nausea, paresthesia, fatigue, somnolence, and vertigo, with mostly mild-to-moderate severity. No deaths were reported.

Study details: Findings are from safety analysis of the phase 3 CENTURION trial that assessed 4,494 attacks across 1,471 patients with migraine with and without aura who were randomly assigned to either 200 mg lasmiditan or 100 mg lasmiditan for 4 attacks or placebo for 3 attacks and 50 mg lasmiditan for the third/fourth attack.

Disclosures: This study was sponsored by Eli Lilly and Company. Some investigators, including the lead author, reported receiving research grants, institutional payments, or fees for advisory boards and scientific lecturing; being an employee of; owning shares in; or consulting for various sources, including Eli Lilly and Company.

Source: Tassorelli C et al. J Headache Pain. 2021;22:132 (Nov 6). Doi: 10.1186/s10194-021-01343-2.

Key clinical point: Greater occipital nerve (GON) blockade with local anesthetics reduced the severity and duration of headaches in patients with episodic migraine without aura, with the headache frequency reducing significantly among patients receiving lidocaine alone or in combination with triamcinolone.

Major finding: GON block with triamcinolone, lidocaine, lidocaine+triamcinolone, or only normal saline significantly reduced the severity (P < .001) and duration (P = .001) of headaches, with no injection being superior to placebo. Headache frequency reduced in patients who received lidocaine (5.81 attacks per month; 95% CI of the difference −2.52 to −9.09) and lidocaine+triamcinolone (5.69 attacks per month; 95% CI of the difference −1.11 to −10.27).

Study details: This placebo-controlled clinical trial randomly assigned 55 adult patients with episodic migraine without aura to triamcinolone (n = 10), lidocaine (n = 16), lidocaine+triamcinolone (n = 13), or normal saline only (n = 16) groups.

Disclosures: This work was supported by the Iranian Center of Neurological Research in affiliation with Tehran University of Medical Sciences. The authors declared no conflict of interests.

Source: Malekian N et al. Cephalalgia. 2021 (Nov 17). Doi: 10.1177/03331024211058182.

Key clinical point: Greater occipital nerve (GON) blockade with local anesthetics reduced the severity and duration of headaches in patients with episodic migraine without aura, with the headache frequency reducing significantly among patients receiving lidocaine alone or in combination with triamcinolone.

Major finding: GON block with triamcinolone, lidocaine, lidocaine+triamcinolone, or only normal saline significantly reduced the severity (P < .001) and duration (P = .001) of headaches, with no injection being superior to placebo. Headache frequency reduced in patients who received lidocaine (5.81 attacks per month; 95% CI of the difference −2.52 to −9.09) and lidocaine+triamcinolone (5.69 attacks per month; 95% CI of the difference −1.11 to −10.27).

Study details: This placebo-controlled clinical trial randomly assigned 55 adult patients with episodic migraine without aura to triamcinolone (n = 10), lidocaine (n = 16), lidocaine+triamcinolone (n = 13), or normal saline only (n = 16) groups.

Disclosures: This work was supported by the Iranian Center of Neurological Research in affiliation with Tehran University of Medical Sciences. The authors declared no conflict of interests.

Source: Malekian N et al. Cephalalgia. 2021 (Nov 17). Doi: 10.1177/03331024211058182.

Key clinical point: Greater occipital nerve (GON) blockade with local anesthetics reduced the severity and duration of headaches in patients with episodic migraine without aura, with the headache frequency reducing significantly among patients receiving lidocaine alone or in combination with triamcinolone.

Major finding: GON block with triamcinolone, lidocaine, lidocaine+triamcinolone, or only normal saline significantly reduced the severity (P < .001) and duration (P = .001) of headaches, with no injection being superior to placebo. Headache frequency reduced in patients who received lidocaine (5.81 attacks per month; 95% CI of the difference −2.52 to −9.09) and lidocaine+triamcinolone (5.69 attacks per month; 95% CI of the difference −1.11 to −10.27).

Study details: This placebo-controlled clinical trial randomly assigned 55 adult patients with episodic migraine without aura to triamcinolone (n = 10), lidocaine (n = 16), lidocaine+triamcinolone (n = 13), or normal saline only (n = 16) groups.

Disclosures: This work was supported by the Iranian Center of Neurological Research in affiliation with Tehran University of Medical Sciences. The authors declared no conflict of interests.

Source: Malekian N et al. Cephalalgia. 2021 (Nov 17). Doi: 10.1177/03331024211058182.

Key clinical point: Intranasal ketorolac was not inferior to intravenous ketorolac in reducing pain intensity 60 min postmedication in children with migraine headaches of moderate-to-severe pain intensity.

Major finding: The difference in mean pain reduction at 60 min between intranasal and intravenous ketorolac groups was 0.2 (95% CI −0.9 to 1.3), with intranasal ketorolac being noninferior to intravenous ketorolac (P < .001). No serious adverse events were reported.

Study details: Findings are from a phase 3 clinical trial including 59 children (age 8-17 years) with migraine headache of moderate-to-severe pain intensity requiring any intravenous analgesic. They were randomly assigned to receive either intranasal ketorolac (1 mg/kg) or intravenous ketorolac (0.5 mg/kg).

Disclosures: This study was funded by the Columbia University’s CTSA grant from NCATS/NIH and Migraine Research Foundation. The authors declared no conflict of interests.

Source: Tsze DS et al. Acad Emerg Med. 2021 (Nov 25). Doi: 10.1111/acem.14422.

Key clinical point: Intranasal ketorolac was not inferior to intravenous ketorolac in reducing pain intensity 60 min postmedication in children with migraine headaches of moderate-to-severe pain intensity.

Major finding: The difference in mean pain reduction at 60 min between intranasal and intravenous ketorolac groups was 0.2 (95% CI −0.9 to 1.3), with intranasal ketorolac being noninferior to intravenous ketorolac (P < .001). No serious adverse events were reported.

Study details: Findings are from a phase 3 clinical trial including 59 children (age 8-17 years) with migraine headache of moderate-to-severe pain intensity requiring any intravenous analgesic. They were randomly assigned to receive either intranasal ketorolac (1 mg/kg) or intravenous ketorolac (0.5 mg/kg).

Disclosures: This study was funded by the Columbia University’s CTSA grant from NCATS/NIH and Migraine Research Foundation. The authors declared no conflict of interests.

Source: Tsze DS et al. Acad Emerg Med. 2021 (Nov 25). Doi: 10.1111/acem.14422.

Key clinical point: Intranasal ketorolac was not inferior to intravenous ketorolac in reducing pain intensity 60 min postmedication in children with migraine headaches of moderate-to-severe pain intensity.

Major finding: The difference in mean pain reduction at 60 min between intranasal and intravenous ketorolac groups was 0.2 (95% CI −0.9 to 1.3), with intranasal ketorolac being noninferior to intravenous ketorolac (P < .001). No serious adverse events were reported.

Study details: Findings are from a phase 3 clinical trial including 59 children (age 8-17 years) with migraine headache of moderate-to-severe pain intensity requiring any intravenous analgesic. They were randomly assigned to receive either intranasal ketorolac (1 mg/kg) or intravenous ketorolac (0.5 mg/kg).

Disclosures: This study was funded by the Columbia University’s CTSA grant from NCATS/NIH and Migraine Research Foundation. The authors declared no conflict of interests.

Source: Tsze DS et al. Acad Emerg Med. 2021 (Nov 25). Doi: 10.1111/acem.14422.

Key clinical point: A 140 mg dose of erenumab monthly was well tolerated and showed sustained efficacy over 2 years in patients with episodic migraine who failed 2-4 prior migraine preventive treatments.

Major finding: At week 112, the proportion of patients achieving ³50%, ³75%, and 100% reduction in monthly migraine days from baseline was 57.2%, 30.6%, and 16.2%, respectively. Overall, 86.3% of patients experienced treatment-emergent adverse events, the most common being nasopharyngitis, influenza, and back pain. No deaths or new safety signals were reported.

Study details: Findings are 2-year follow-up results of the phase 3b LIBERTY study including 240 patients with episodic migraine who failed 2-4 prior prophylactic treatments, completed placebo-controlled double-blind treatment phase, and were enrolled in the 3-year open-label extension phase with 140 mg erenumab monthly.

Disclosures: This study was supported by Novartis Pharma, Switzerland. Some investigators reported receiving grants and fees from, owning stocks in, or being an employee of various pharmaceutical companies, including Novartis.

Source: Ferrari MD et al. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2021 (Nov 29). Doi: 10.1136/jnnp-2021-327480.

Key clinical point: A 140 mg dose of erenumab monthly was well tolerated and showed sustained efficacy over 2 years in patients with episodic migraine who failed 2-4 prior migraine preventive treatments.

Major finding: At week 112, the proportion of patients achieving ³50%, ³75%, and 100% reduction in monthly migraine days from baseline was 57.2%, 30.6%, and 16.2%, respectively. Overall, 86.3% of patients experienced treatment-emergent adverse events, the most common being nasopharyngitis, influenza, and back pain. No deaths or new safety signals were reported.

Study details: Findings are 2-year follow-up results of the phase 3b LIBERTY study including 240 patients with episodic migraine who failed 2-4 prior prophylactic treatments, completed placebo-controlled double-blind treatment phase, and were enrolled in the 3-year open-label extension phase with 140 mg erenumab monthly.

Disclosures: This study was supported by Novartis Pharma, Switzerland. Some investigators reported receiving grants and fees from, owning stocks in, or being an employee of various pharmaceutical companies, including Novartis.

Source: Ferrari MD et al. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2021 (Nov 29). Doi: 10.1136/jnnp-2021-327480.

Key clinical point: A 140 mg dose of erenumab monthly was well tolerated and showed sustained efficacy over 2 years in patients with episodic migraine who failed 2-4 prior migraine preventive treatments.

Major finding: At week 112, the proportion of patients achieving ³50%, ³75%, and 100% reduction in monthly migraine days from baseline was 57.2%, 30.6%, and 16.2%, respectively. Overall, 86.3% of patients experienced treatment-emergent adverse events, the most common being nasopharyngitis, influenza, and back pain. No deaths or new safety signals were reported.

Study details: Findings are 2-year follow-up results of the phase 3b LIBERTY study including 240 patients with episodic migraine who failed 2-4 prior prophylactic treatments, completed placebo-controlled double-blind treatment phase, and were enrolled in the 3-year open-label extension phase with 140 mg erenumab monthly.

Disclosures: This study was supported by Novartis Pharma, Switzerland. Some investigators reported receiving grants and fees from, owning stocks in, or being an employee of various pharmaceutical companies, including Novartis.

Source: Ferrari MD et al. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2021 (Nov 29). Doi: 10.1136/jnnp-2021-327480.

Consider the following clinical scenarios.

Ellen, a 42-year-old married woman, presents to Dr. H’s office with a recent increase in her migraines. She looks sad and worried.

Dr. H. walks into the room, introduces himself, and immediately opens the electronic record to review her medical history forms. Her migraine episodes have increased from once biweekly to 1 to 2 times weekly; with additional less intense headaches on many other days. She uses both a triptan and an over-the-counter medication to control the pain–she gets a limited number of sumatriptan each month and is beginning to escalate her OTC usage. Dr. H. asks her about the intensity and duration of her headaches, reviews her medication use, and questions her about associated symptoms such as nausea or light and sound sensitivity? Ellen responds with yes and no answers. Dr. H. reviews different medication options, prescribes an older preventative medication and renews her sumatriptan.

In the second scenario, Ellen is in Dr. J’s office. When Dr. J enters the doorway to her office, she introduces herself and is welcoming and seated in a less formal manner. Dr. J is making eye contact with Ellen and not looking at her computer.

Instead of asking her questions that require a yes or no reply, she asks Ellen to walk her through her migraine experiences. She learns that the patient has been under much stress with work, and hears about troubling family issues, and that she is worried about her increased number of headaches and decreased functionality. Dr. J says, let’s talk about options. She tells her the first thing is to optimize acute care in order treat the acute attacks effectively. Simply “taking” a medication is insufficient to know whether a patient is taking that medication optimally. She asks Ellen to take her through her process in treating a migraine.

Ellen, Dr. J surmises, has a penchant for treating any sensation associated with a possible approaching headache with OTCs, which needs to be curtailed. Her use of OTCs could be at medication overuse levels thereby contributing to her headaches. Dr. J explains and shows Ellen a simple headache diary. Dr. J then discusses the future: the two of them will develop a plan to control the migraine frequency for the long term. The plan will include ways to control the stressors in Ellen’s life. Dr. J provides Ellen with names of psychologists with expertise in cognitive behavior therapies and relaxation-based treatments; they can help Ellen manage stressors that could be impacting her headaches. Dr. J communicates that migraine management requires a comprehensive approach that can involve behavioral as well as pharmacological therapies to maximize both headache relief and reduce disability. 

Migraine is a brain disease that can often be fueled by behavioral issues. Psychological stress, sleep problems, mood and anxiety issues can transform migraine from episodic to chronic. The operative word here is can. Patients with migraine who learn to better manage stress, employ simple relaxation strategies, and identify and treat comorbid psychiatric issues may show significant improvement. Migraine treatment can require more than one health care professional asheadache specialists, psychologists, perhaps psychiatrists, and sleep specialists may all be involved

Getting migraine under control often cannot be accomplished in just one visit; it can take time, as medications might need to be added or adjusted, sleep, diet, and physical activity modified along with stressors identified and managed. Helping patients optimize their acute treatment regimen is critical so they get quick relief while limiting overuse. Overuse of either prescription or OTC medications can lead to medication overuse headache (MOH). MOH can increase headache frequency and reduce the effectiveness of some preventive medications as well as other therapies. 

All these steps require good communication strategies by the physician and an understanding of the benefit of comprehensive treatment strategies that include behavioral therapies.

Helping motivation to change

Readiness to change will vary with different patients. Some people will be open to treating stress-related issues in an initial session while others will require many sessions in which the physician gently explores these concerns. It is helpful for the physician to ask open-ended questions, helping patients to “tell their stories.” The clinician needs to actively listen and accurately reflect patient’s thoughts and feelings (“it sounds like you…”) Avoiding overinterpretation and occasionally summarizing ensures clear communication. Both patients and physicians have identified high quality communication in the patient-physician relationship to be a key factor in adherence with acute headache medications.

Anxiety is common in migraine sufferers and predicts long-term migraine persistence. Some individuals with high levels of anxiety may overuse immediate relief medications because of worry about getting a migraine. Many migraineurs have a significant amount of fear about any sensation that may herald a migraine. Consequently, some medicate fear, preemptively. Patients also can fear side effects to new medications, thereby reducing their willingness to change existing therapy for a potentially more effective treatment.

Biological rhythms, sleep and coping skills

Managing migraine also includes managing consistent biological rhythms. The literature has shown that chronobiological issues can be a driver of headache frequency and may also contribute to mood and anxiety disorders. Studies have shown that a simple cognitive-behavioral treatment for insomnia has transformed many migraineurs from chronic migraine to episodic migraine. 

Studies have demonstrated that a combination of optimal medication and cognitive behavioral therapy can be very effective. Behavioral therapies increase self-efficacy, a belief that patients have the requisite skills to manage a complicated disorder like migraine. A few sessions of stress management training combined with preventive medications and maximizing acute care options may have significant added value—reducing migraine frequency and related disability and ensuring better disease-coping mechanisms.

Final notes

Migraine is a biobehavioral disorder and it is important for the clinician to evaluate a diverse set of factors and come up with a comprehensive plan. This is particularly important for the patient with high frequency migraine who exhibits stress-related factors and possible psychiatric comorbidities. There are numerous cognitive behavioral therapies incorporating relaxation strategies and stress management techniques that can be very effective in caring for these complicated patients.   

Consider the following clinical scenarios.

Ellen, a 42-year-old married woman, presents to Dr. H’s office with a recent increase in her migraines. She looks sad and worried.

Dr. H. walks into the room, introduces himself, and immediately opens the electronic record to review her medical history forms. Her migraine episodes have increased from once biweekly to 1 to 2 times weekly; with additional less intense headaches on many other days. She uses both a triptan and an over-the-counter medication to control the pain–she gets a limited number of sumatriptan each month and is beginning to escalate her OTC usage. Dr. H. asks her about the intensity and duration of her headaches, reviews her medication use, and questions her about associated symptoms such as nausea or light and sound sensitivity? Ellen responds with yes and no answers. Dr. H. reviews different medication options, prescribes an older preventative medication and renews her sumatriptan.

In the second scenario, Ellen is in Dr. J’s office. When Dr. J enters the doorway to her office, she introduces herself and is welcoming and seated in a less formal manner. Dr. J is making eye contact with Ellen and not looking at her computer.

Instead of asking her questions that require a yes or no reply, she asks Ellen to walk her through her migraine experiences. She learns that the patient has been under much stress with work, and hears about troubling family issues, and that she is worried about her increased number of headaches and decreased functionality. Dr. J says, let’s talk about options. She tells her the first thing is to optimize acute care in order treat the acute attacks effectively. Simply “taking” a medication is insufficient to know whether a patient is taking that medication optimally. She asks Ellen to take her through her process in treating a migraine.

Ellen, Dr. J surmises, has a penchant for treating any sensation associated with a possible approaching headache with OTCs, which needs to be curtailed. Her use of OTCs could be at medication overuse levels thereby contributing to her headaches. Dr. J explains and shows Ellen a simple headache diary. Dr. J then discusses the future: the two of them will develop a plan to control the migraine frequency for the long term. The plan will include ways to control the stressors in Ellen’s life. Dr. J provides Ellen with names of psychologists with expertise in cognitive behavior therapies and relaxation-based treatments; they can help Ellen manage stressors that could be impacting her headaches. Dr. J communicates that migraine management requires a comprehensive approach that can involve behavioral as well as pharmacological therapies to maximize both headache relief and reduce disability. 

Migraine is a brain disease that can often be fueled by behavioral issues. Psychological stress, sleep problems, mood and anxiety issues can transform migraine from episodic to chronic. The operative word here is can. Patients with migraine who learn to better manage stress, employ simple relaxation strategies, and identify and treat comorbid psychiatric issues may show significant improvement. Migraine treatment can require more than one health care professional asheadache specialists, psychologists, perhaps psychiatrists, and sleep specialists may all be involved

Getting migraine under control often cannot be accomplished in just one visit; it can take time, as medications might need to be added or adjusted, sleep, diet, and physical activity modified along with stressors identified and managed. Helping patients optimize their acute treatment regimen is critical so they get quick relief while limiting overuse. Overuse of either prescription or OTC medications can lead to medication overuse headache (MOH). MOH can increase headache frequency and reduce the effectiveness of some preventive medications as well as other therapies. 

All these steps require good communication strategies by the physician and an understanding of the benefit of comprehensive treatment strategies that include behavioral therapies.

Helping motivation to change

Readiness to change will vary with different patients. Some people will be open to treating stress-related issues in an initial session while others will require many sessions in which the physician gently explores these concerns. It is helpful for the physician to ask open-ended questions, helping patients to “tell their stories.” The clinician needs to actively listen and accurately reflect patient’s thoughts and feelings (“it sounds like you…”) Avoiding overinterpretation and occasionally summarizing ensures clear communication. Both patients and physicians have identified high quality communication in the patient-physician relationship to be a key factor in adherence with acute headache medications.

Anxiety is common in migraine sufferers and predicts long-term migraine persistence. Some individuals with high levels of anxiety may overuse immediate relief medications because of worry about getting a migraine. Many migraineurs have a significant amount of fear about any sensation that may herald a migraine. Consequently, some medicate fear, preemptively. Patients also can fear side effects to new medications, thereby reducing their willingness to change existing therapy for a potentially more effective treatment.

Biological rhythms, sleep and coping skills

Managing migraine also includes managing consistent biological rhythms. The literature has shown that chronobiological issues can be a driver of headache frequency and may also contribute to mood and anxiety disorders. Studies have shown that a simple cognitive-behavioral treatment for insomnia has transformed many migraineurs from chronic migraine to episodic migraine. 

Studies have demonstrated that a combination of optimal medication and cognitive behavioral therapy can be very effective. Behavioral therapies increase self-efficacy, a belief that patients have the requisite skills to manage a complicated disorder like migraine. A few sessions of stress management training combined with preventive medications and maximizing acute care options may have significant added value—reducing migraine frequency and related disability and ensuring better disease-coping mechanisms.

Final notes

Migraine is a biobehavioral disorder and it is important for the clinician to evaluate a diverse set of factors and come up with a comprehensive plan. This is particularly important for the patient with high frequency migraine who exhibits stress-related factors and possible psychiatric comorbidities. There are numerous cognitive behavioral therapies incorporating relaxation strategies and stress management techniques that can be very effective in caring for these complicated patients.   

Consider the following clinical scenarios.

Ellen, a 42-year-old married woman, presents to Dr. H’s office with a recent increase in her migraines. She looks sad and worried.

Dr. H. walks into the room, introduces himself, and immediately opens the electronic record to review her medical history forms. Her migraine episodes have increased from once biweekly to 1 to 2 times weekly; with additional less intense headaches on many other days. She uses both a triptan and an over-the-counter medication to control the pain–she gets a limited number of sumatriptan each month and is beginning to escalate her OTC usage. Dr. H. asks her about the intensity and duration of her headaches, reviews her medication use, and questions her about associated symptoms such as nausea or light and sound sensitivity? Ellen responds with yes and no answers. Dr. H. reviews different medication options, prescribes an older preventative medication and renews her sumatriptan.

In the second scenario, Ellen is in Dr. J’s office. When Dr. J enters the doorway to her office, she introduces herself and is welcoming and seated in a less formal manner. Dr. J is making eye contact with Ellen and not looking at her computer.

Instead of asking her questions that require a yes or no reply, she asks Ellen to walk her through her migraine experiences. She learns that the patient has been under much stress with work, and hears about troubling family issues, and that she is worried about her increased number of headaches and decreased functionality. Dr. J says, let’s talk about options. She tells her the first thing is to optimize acute care in order treat the acute attacks effectively. Simply “taking” a medication is insufficient to know whether a patient is taking that medication optimally. She asks Ellen to take her through her process in treating a migraine.

Ellen, Dr. J surmises, has a penchant for treating any sensation associated with a possible approaching headache with OTCs, which needs to be curtailed. Her use of OTCs could be at medication overuse levels thereby contributing to her headaches. Dr. J explains and shows Ellen a simple headache diary. Dr. J then discusses the future: the two of them will develop a plan to control the migraine frequency for the long term. The plan will include ways to control the stressors in Ellen’s life. Dr. J provides Ellen with names of psychologists with expertise in cognitive behavior therapies and relaxation-based treatments; they can help Ellen manage stressors that could be impacting her headaches. Dr. J communicates that migraine management requires a comprehensive approach that can involve behavioral as well as pharmacological therapies to maximize both headache relief and reduce disability. 

Migraine is a brain disease that can often be fueled by behavioral issues. Psychological stress, sleep problems, mood and anxiety issues can transform migraine from episodic to chronic. The operative word here is can. Patients with migraine who learn to better manage stress, employ simple relaxation strategies, and identify and treat comorbid psychiatric issues may show significant improvement. Migraine treatment can require more than one health care professional asheadache specialists, psychologists, perhaps psychiatrists, and sleep specialists may all be involved

Getting migraine under control often cannot be accomplished in just one visit; it can take time, as medications might need to be added or adjusted, sleep, diet, and physical activity modified along with stressors identified and managed. Helping patients optimize their acute treatment regimen is critical so they get quick relief while limiting overuse. Overuse of either prescription or OTC medications can lead to medication overuse headache (MOH). MOH can increase headache frequency and reduce the effectiveness of some preventive medications as well as other therapies. 

All these steps require good communication strategies by the physician and an understanding of the benefit of comprehensive treatment strategies that include behavioral therapies.

Helping motivation to change

Readiness to change will vary with different patients. Some people will be open to treating stress-related issues in an initial session while others will require many sessions in which the physician gently explores these concerns. It is helpful for the physician to ask open-ended questions, helping patients to “tell their stories.” The clinician needs to actively listen and accurately reflect patient’s thoughts and feelings (“it sounds like you…”) Avoiding overinterpretation and occasionally summarizing ensures clear communication. Both patients and physicians have identified high quality communication in the patient-physician relationship to be a key factor in adherence with acute headache medications.

Anxiety is common in migraine sufferers and predicts long-term migraine persistence. Some individuals with high levels of anxiety may overuse immediate relief medications because of worry about getting a migraine. Many migraineurs have a significant amount of fear about any sensation that may herald a migraine. Consequently, some medicate fear, preemptively. Patients also can fear side effects to new medications, thereby reducing their willingness to change existing therapy for a potentially more effective treatment.

Biological rhythms, sleep and coping skills

Managing migraine also includes managing consistent biological rhythms. The literature has shown that chronobiological issues can be a driver of headache frequency and may also contribute to mood and anxiety disorders. Studies have shown that a simple cognitive-behavioral treatment for insomnia has transformed many migraineurs from chronic migraine to episodic migraine. 

Studies have demonstrated that a combination of optimal medication and cognitive behavioral therapy can be very effective. Behavioral therapies increase self-efficacy, a belief that patients have the requisite skills to manage a complicated disorder like migraine. A few sessions of stress management training combined with preventive medications and maximizing acute care options may have significant added value—reducing migraine frequency and related disability and ensuring better disease-coping mechanisms.

Final notes

Migraine is a biobehavioral disorder and it is important for the clinician to evaluate a diverse set of factors and come up with a comprehensive plan. This is particularly important for the patient with high frequency migraine who exhibits stress-related factors and possible psychiatric comorbidities. There are numerous cognitive behavioral therapies incorporating relaxation strategies and stress management techniques that can be very effective in caring for these complicated patients.   

When it comes to the acute management of migraines, newer is not necessarily better, according to an analysis of studies comparing triptans – the standard of care – to two newer classifications of medications. The findings, published in JAMA Network Open, “may imply that triptans will remain the current mainstay of specific acute migraine treatment,” suggested senior author Shuu-Jiun Wang, MD, from the National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, and the Taipei Veterans General Hospital, both in Taipei, Taiwan, and his coauthors. However, lasmiditan (a 5-hydroxytryptamine_1F receptor agonist) and rimegepant and ubrogepant (both calcitonin gene-related peptide [CGRP] antagonists) might still have unique advantages, since triptans are contraindicated for patients with cardiovascular risks, they said.

The systemic review and meta-analysis showed that, for the outcome of pain freedom and pain relief at 2 hours after the dose, the three newer agents worked better than placebo, but were inferior to most triptans. However, ubrogepant and rimegepant, which received U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval for the treatment of acute migraine in adults in December 2019 and February 2020, respectively, might be associated with fewer risks of adverse events (AEs), compared with triptans. “These new effective therapeutic options enrich the therapeutic categories of specific acute migraine treatments and may provide an opportunity to decrease the risks of barbiturate or opioid overuse or addiction,” they wrote.

The meta-analysis included 64 randomized, controlled trials involving 46,442 participants (74%-87% female across studies; age range, 36-43 years). All studies examined clinically relevant outcomes in patients with International Headache Society criteria for migraine, and compared currently available migraine-specific acute treatments with each other or placebo. The drugs were examined at doses with widespread clinical use and included: ergotamine, dihydroergotamine, sumatriptan, zolmitriptan, naratriptan, rizatriptan, almotriptan, eletriptan, frovatriptan, lasmiditan, rimegepant, and ubrogepant.

The findings showed that all drug treatments were associated with a higher odds ratio for pain freedom, compared with placebo, except for sumatriptan, 10-mg nasal spray. The most effective drug was eletriptan 40 mg (OR, 5.59), and the least effective was lasmiditan 50 mg (OR, 1.65). Most triptans were associated with higher ORs for both pain freedom and pain relief at 2 hours, compared with lasmiditan, rimegepant, or ubrogepant, while comparisons between lasmiditan, rimegepant, and ubrogepant for these outcomes showed no statistically significant difference, they reported.

Lasmiditan was associated with the highest risk of any AEs, “however, the AEs were tolerable and were not considered serious. … Therefore, we suggest that the benefits should be weighed against the risk of its AEs when considering the clinical application of lasmiditan,” they wrote. Certain triptans (rizatriptan, sumatriptan, and zolmitriptan) were also associated with a higher risk of any AEs, compared with the CGRP antagonists. “Nevertheless, most of the AEs were mild to moderate, and the percentages of serious AEs were low (0.0%-2.1%).”

Finally, the authors noted that their observations of successful treatment with 5-hydroxytriptamine_1F receptor agonists and CGRP antagonists “reveals that vasoconstriction is not essential for antimigraine therapy.” which could have implications for future pharmaceutical development.
 

Older and newer medications each have advantages

“Triptans will be around for a long time, but the newer medications are here to stay,” said Alan M. Rapoport, MD, in reaction to the study. “Before this publication, we knew that the 2-hour efficacy results of the newer medications were not quite as good as the faster-acting triptans; and after this network meta-analysis we are more sure of that,” said Dr. Rapoport, of the department of neurology at University of California, Los Angeles. “But the fact that the three newer medications do not constrict blood vessels and can easily be given even to patients with contraindications to triptans, or patients that simply are at greater risk due to obesity, smoking history, family history, diabetes, lack of exercise, or higher lipid levels, puts them into a desirable category.”

Calling it a “very carefully done” systematic review, Dr. Rapoport had a few caveats about the strength of the research. The trials that were included were not identically designed and were performed in different areas, by different investigators, on different patients, he noted. They were also not head-to-head trials “which ensures that the resultant data are more pure.” The studies also looked only at rapid results at 2 hours after dosing. “In my experience, patients are often satisfied with the response times from these newer agents; and doctors and patients both are happy that they are not vasoconstrictive,” he said. “The researchers also omitted studies looking at zolmitriptan nasal spray, which I have found to be rapid in onset and efficacious with few adverse events.”

Finally, Dr. Rapoport noted that one condition not examined in the review was medication overuse headache (MOH), which is “a major problem with patients that have high-frequency episodic migraine and chronic migraine. To our knowledge thus far, the two gepants (ubrogepant and rimegepant) do not appear to cause MOH when taken frequently, and these agents may end up being a treatment for this condition.”

Dr Wang reported receiving personal fees from Eli Lilly, Daiichi-Sankyo, Norvatis Taiwan, Biogen, Pfizer, and Bayer; and grants from AbbVie, Norvatis, Eli Lilly, Taiwan Ministry of Technology and Science, Brain Research Center, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, and Taipei Veterans General Hospital outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported. Dr. Rapoport serves as an advisor for AbbVie, Amgen, Biohaven, Cala Health, Satsuma, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Theranica, Xoc and Zosano; he is on the Speakers Bureau of AbbVie, Amgen, Biohaven, Lundbeck and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries. He is Editor-in-Chief of Neurology Reviews.

The study was funded by the Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan, Ministry of Education, Taiwan, and the Brain Research Center, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University.

When it comes to the acute management of migraines, newer is not necessarily better, according to an analysis of studies comparing triptans – the standard of care – to two newer classifications of medications. The findings, published in JAMA Network Open, “may imply that triptans will remain the current mainstay of specific acute migraine treatment,” suggested senior author Shuu-Jiun Wang, MD, from the National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, and the Taipei Veterans General Hospital, both in Taipei, Taiwan, and his coauthors. However, lasmiditan (a 5-hydroxytryptamine_1F receptor agonist) and rimegepant and ubrogepant (both calcitonin gene-related peptide [CGRP] antagonists) might still have unique advantages, since triptans are contraindicated for patients with cardiovascular risks, they said.

The systemic review and meta-analysis showed that, for the outcome of pain freedom and pain relief at 2 hours after the dose, the three newer agents worked better than placebo, but were inferior to most triptans. However, ubrogepant and rimegepant, which received U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval for the treatment of acute migraine in adults in December 2019 and February 2020, respectively, might be associated with fewer risks of adverse events (AEs), compared with triptans. “These new effective therapeutic options enrich the therapeutic categories of specific acute migraine treatments and may provide an opportunity to decrease the risks of barbiturate or opioid overuse or addiction,” they wrote.

The meta-analysis included 64 randomized, controlled trials involving 46,442 participants (74%-87% female across studies; age range, 36-43 years). All studies examined clinically relevant outcomes in patients with International Headache Society criteria for migraine, and compared currently available migraine-specific acute treatments with each other or placebo. The drugs were examined at doses with widespread clinical use and included: ergotamine, dihydroergotamine, sumatriptan, zolmitriptan, naratriptan, rizatriptan, almotriptan, eletriptan, frovatriptan, lasmiditan, rimegepant, and ubrogepant.

The findings showed that all drug treatments were associated with a higher odds ratio for pain freedom, compared with placebo, except for sumatriptan, 10-mg nasal spray. The most effective drug was eletriptan 40 mg (OR, 5.59), and the least effective was lasmiditan 50 mg (OR, 1.65). Most triptans were associated with higher ORs for both pain freedom and pain relief at 2 hours, compared with lasmiditan, rimegepant, or ubrogepant, while comparisons between lasmiditan, rimegepant, and ubrogepant for these outcomes showed no statistically significant difference, they reported.

Lasmiditan was associated with the highest risk of any AEs, “however, the AEs were tolerable and were not considered serious. … Therefore, we suggest that the benefits should be weighed against the risk of its AEs when considering the clinical application of lasmiditan,” they wrote. Certain triptans (rizatriptan, sumatriptan, and zolmitriptan) were also associated with a higher risk of any AEs, compared with the CGRP antagonists. “Nevertheless, most of the AEs were mild to moderate, and the percentages of serious AEs were low (0.0%-2.1%).”

Finally, the authors noted that their observations of successful treatment with 5-hydroxytriptamine_1F receptor agonists and CGRP antagonists “reveals that vasoconstriction is not essential for antimigraine therapy.” which could have implications for future pharmaceutical development.
 

Older and newer medications each have advantages

“Triptans will be around for a long time, but the newer medications are here to stay,” said Alan M. Rapoport, MD, in reaction to the study. “Before this publication, we knew that the 2-hour efficacy results of the newer medications were not quite as good as the faster-acting triptans; and after this network meta-analysis we are more sure of that,” said Dr. Rapoport, of the department of neurology at University of California, Los Angeles. “But the fact that the three newer medications do not constrict blood vessels and can easily be given even to patients with contraindications to triptans, or patients that simply are at greater risk due to obesity, smoking history, family history, diabetes, lack of exercise, or higher lipid levels, puts them into a desirable category.”

Calling it a “very carefully done” systematic review, Dr. Rapoport had a few caveats about the strength of the research. The trials that were included were not identically designed and were performed in different areas, by different investigators, on different patients, he noted. They were also not head-to-head trials “which ensures that the resultant data are more pure.” The studies also looked only at rapid results at 2 hours after dosing. “In my experience, patients are often satisfied with the response times from these newer agents; and doctors and patients both are happy that they are not vasoconstrictive,” he said. “The researchers also omitted studies looking at zolmitriptan nasal spray, which I have found to be rapid in onset and efficacious with few adverse events.”

Finally, Dr. Rapoport noted that one condition not examined in the review was medication overuse headache (MOH), which is “a major problem with patients that have high-frequency episodic migraine and chronic migraine. To our knowledge thus far, the two gepants (ubrogepant and rimegepant) do not appear to cause MOH when taken frequently, and these agents may end up being a treatment for this condition.”

Dr Wang reported receiving personal fees from Eli Lilly, Daiichi-Sankyo, Norvatis Taiwan, Biogen, Pfizer, and Bayer; and grants from AbbVie, Norvatis, Eli Lilly, Taiwan Ministry of Technology and Science, Brain Research Center, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, and Taipei Veterans General Hospital outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported. Dr. Rapoport serves as an advisor for AbbVie, Amgen, Biohaven, Cala Health, Satsuma, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Theranica, Xoc and Zosano; he is on the Speakers Bureau of AbbVie, Amgen, Biohaven, Lundbeck and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries. He is Editor-in-Chief of Neurology Reviews.

The study was funded by the Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan, Ministry of Education, Taiwan, and the Brain Research Center, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University.

When it comes to the acute management of migraines, newer is not necessarily better, according to an analysis of studies comparing triptans – the standard of care – to two newer classifications of medications. The findings, published in JAMA Network Open, “may imply that triptans will remain the current mainstay of specific acute migraine treatment,” suggested senior author Shuu-Jiun Wang, MD, from the National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, and the Taipei Veterans General Hospital, both in Taipei, Taiwan, and his coauthors. However, lasmiditan (a 5-hydroxytryptamine_1F receptor agonist) and rimegepant and ubrogepant (both calcitonin gene-related peptide [CGRP] antagonists) might still have unique advantages, since triptans are contraindicated for patients with cardiovascular risks, they said.

The systemic review and meta-analysis showed that, for the outcome of pain freedom and pain relief at 2 hours after the dose, the three newer agents worked better than placebo, but were inferior to most triptans. However, ubrogepant and rimegepant, which received U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval for the treatment of acute migraine in adults in December 2019 and February 2020, respectively, might be associated with fewer risks of adverse events (AEs), compared with triptans. “These new effective therapeutic options enrich the therapeutic categories of specific acute migraine treatments and may provide an opportunity to decrease the risks of barbiturate or opioid overuse or addiction,” they wrote.

The meta-analysis included 64 randomized, controlled trials involving 46,442 participants (74%-87% female across studies; age range, 36-43 years). All studies examined clinically relevant outcomes in patients with International Headache Society criteria for migraine, and compared currently available migraine-specific acute treatments with each other or placebo. The drugs were examined at doses with widespread clinical use and included: ergotamine, dihydroergotamine, sumatriptan, zolmitriptan, naratriptan, rizatriptan, almotriptan, eletriptan, frovatriptan, lasmiditan, rimegepant, and ubrogepant.

The findings showed that all drug treatments were associated with a higher odds ratio for pain freedom, compared with placebo, except for sumatriptan, 10-mg nasal spray. The most effective drug was eletriptan 40 mg (OR, 5.59), and the least effective was lasmiditan 50 mg (OR, 1.65). Most triptans were associated with higher ORs for both pain freedom and pain relief at 2 hours, compared with lasmiditan, rimegepant, or ubrogepant, while comparisons between lasmiditan, rimegepant, and ubrogepant for these outcomes showed no statistically significant difference, they reported.

Lasmiditan was associated with the highest risk of any AEs, “however, the AEs were tolerable and were not considered serious. … Therefore, we suggest that the benefits should be weighed against the risk of its AEs when considering the clinical application of lasmiditan,” they wrote. Certain triptans (rizatriptan, sumatriptan, and zolmitriptan) were also associated with a higher risk of any AEs, compared with the CGRP antagonists. “Nevertheless, most of the AEs were mild to moderate, and the percentages of serious AEs were low (0.0%-2.1%).”

Finally, the authors noted that their observations of successful treatment with 5-hydroxytriptamine_1F receptor agonists and CGRP antagonists “reveals that vasoconstriction is not essential for antimigraine therapy.” which could have implications for future pharmaceutical development.
 

Older and newer medications each have advantages

“Triptans will be around for a long time, but the newer medications are here to stay,” said Alan M. Rapoport, MD, in reaction to the study. “Before this publication, we knew that the 2-hour efficacy results of the newer medications were not quite as good as the faster-acting triptans; and after this network meta-analysis we are more sure of that,” said Dr. Rapoport, of the department of neurology at University of California, Los Angeles. “But the fact that the three newer medications do not constrict blood vessels and can easily be given even to patients with contraindications to triptans, or patients that simply are at greater risk due to obesity, smoking history, family history, diabetes, lack of exercise, or higher lipid levels, puts them into a desirable category.”

Calling it a “very carefully done” systematic review, Dr. Rapoport had a few caveats about the strength of the research. The trials that were included were not identically designed and were performed in different areas, by different investigators, on different patients, he noted. They were also not head-to-head trials “which ensures that the resultant data are more pure.” The studies also looked only at rapid results at 2 hours after dosing. “In my experience, patients are often satisfied with the response times from these newer agents; and doctors and patients both are happy that they are not vasoconstrictive,” he said. “The researchers also omitted studies looking at zolmitriptan nasal spray, which I have found to be rapid in onset and efficacious with few adverse events.”

Finally, Dr. Rapoport noted that one condition not examined in the review was medication overuse headache (MOH), which is “a major problem with patients that have high-frequency episodic migraine and chronic migraine. To our knowledge thus far, the two gepants (ubrogepant and rimegepant) do not appear to cause MOH when taken frequently, and these agents may end up being a treatment for this condition.”

Dr Wang reported receiving personal fees from Eli Lilly, Daiichi-Sankyo, Norvatis Taiwan, Biogen, Pfizer, and Bayer; and grants from AbbVie, Norvatis, Eli Lilly, Taiwan Ministry of Technology and Science, Brain Research Center, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, and Taipei Veterans General Hospital outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported. Dr. Rapoport serves as an advisor for AbbVie, Amgen, Biohaven, Cala Health, Satsuma, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Theranica, Xoc and Zosano; he is on the Speakers Bureau of AbbVie, Amgen, Biohaven, Lundbeck and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries. He is Editor-in-Chief of Neurology Reviews.

The study was funded by the Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan, Ministry of Education, Taiwan, and the Brain Research Center, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University.

The use of opiates in the treatment of headache has a controversial history, and it remains a matter of debate today. Some believe that the medications, though risky, can be a useful tool in the neurologist’s treatment arsenal, while others argue that opioids are just too risky when there are other, safer alternatives available.

Those were the cruxes of arguments put forward by Paul Rizzoli, MD, and Christopher H. Gottschalk, MD, who conducted individual talks at the 2021 Scottsdale Headache Symposium. Dr. Rizzoli, associate professor of neurology at Harvard Medical School, Boston, argued in favor of the use of opioids and butalbital-containing medications. Dr. Gottschalk, assistant professor of neurology at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., argued against their use.

In certain situations opioids are worth the risk

Whether or not to use opioids in the treatment of headache is “a reasonable question, because these medications can clearly be seen as having risk. So perhaps another way to frame this question is as a risk-benefit issue. Are these medications worth the risk? How useful is the benefit of opioids, if the consequence is dependence or addiction?” Dr. Rizzoli began.

Although reviews show effectiveness of opioids in treating migraine, a three-part review in 2012 found greater efficacy of dihydroergotamine (DHE), ketorolac, and chlorpromazine. That’s not surprising, said Dr. Rizzoli, since those competing drugs are migraine-specific.

Dr. Rizzoli quoted a 2014 review indicating that there were incomplete data on the relative efficacy of opioids versus other analgesics, and for some patients opioids would likely be the optimal treatment, such as those who have contraindications to ergot-type medications or neuroleptic medications, pregnant women, or patients who don’t respond to other medications.

Dr. Rizzoli noted that The International Association for the Study of Pain has concluded that no other oral medications provide immediate and effective pain relief, and that short-term use rarely leads to addiction.

“So, to me, the answer is not to avoid opioids or outlaw them but instead to use them judiciously and infrequently, and in a short term or rescue fashion,” said Dr. Rizzoli.

He pointed out that physicians accept risks of other medications, and act to mitigate those risks. He said that risk mitigation with opioids can take the form of avoiding prescriptions in some situations, like when patients have a personal or family history of substance abuse, or in cases of some behavioral or emotional disorders.

Dr. Rizzoli went on to discuss the use of butalbital, which acts as a CNS depressant and has a variety of effects, including sedation, anxiolytic, hypnotic, and antiepileptic effects, but it is only a weak analgesic, but it nevertheless works in headache, said Dr. Rizzoli, citing patient reports and personal experience.

“It’s difficult to appreciate this theme of efficacy behind all the hype in the literature and in the press against butalbital, and the fact that it has not been adequately studied. But I would submit that the fact that we are even having this discussion is support enough for the use of butalbital. If butalbital either didn’t work or was simply a drug of abuse, it would likely have faded away by now,” said Dr. Rizzoli. He conceded that butalbital can be overused and may lead episodic headache to become chronic daily headache, but he noted that Seymour Solomon, MD, professor emeritus at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, has estimated that removal of butalbital from the market would reduce chronic headache in the general population by only a small fraction of one percent.

Butalbital also has another interesting effect, which is that patients may quickly return to normal functioning after the headache resolves. “Maybe this is all due to management of anxiety, the presumed mechanism of action of barbiturates. So, instead of lobbying for its removal, I would propose that we should take a closer look at what’s going on here, and what the mechanism of action of this fairly interesting compound might be,” said Dr. Rizzoli.

Dr. Rizzoli also said there is some evidence that migraine-specific drugs also affect the tolerance to opioid drugs. “Somehow, they seem to interact with the opioid pain system. If that’s true, the implication is that you probably cannot escape the opioid receptors in the management of migraine,” said Dr. Rizzoli.

Ultimately, he supports the judicious use of opioids and butalbital containing-medications for headache relief. “My argument is that it is just too simplistic to cease use of these meds. Yes, they should be used in a restricted and careful way, but not abandoned,” said Dr. Rizzoli.
 

Opiates should be avoided

Following Dr. Rizzoli’s presentation, Dr. Gottschalk presented an argument against the use of opioids in the treatment of headache.

He began by quoting the ABIM Choosing Wisely Campaign of 2012, which concluded that fioricet and narcotics should be avoided in headache unless the patient is desperate. “As a headache specialist, I can tell you that I have not faced situations sufficiently desperate to use any of these. The American Headache Society in a series of evidence assessments has concluded similarly, that they are of no use,” said Dr. Gottschalk.

Opiates and barbiturates may also increase risk of migraine chronification. One study found that triptans are associated with low rates of chronification, at just a few percent when used fewer than 4 days a month, and about 20% per year when used 10-14 days per month. Opiate use showed a broadly similar pattern, while barbiturates showed a particularly alarming pattern: “Every level of use was associated with astronomically high rates and measurably higher at the highest level of use. For opiates, the odds ratio was about 2 – statistically significant. For barbiturates it was clearly greater than 2, whereas with triptans, the odds ratio showed a nonsignificant, slight increase in risk. And for NSAIDs, the odds ratio was, if anything, less than 1,” said Dr. Gottschalk.

He also discussed aspects of behavioral pharmacology, in which positive reinforcement associated with decreased headache may encourage repeated use of the drug. “Given these, it should be no surprise to anyone that emergency room treatment with opiates for acute migraine is clearly associated with increased recidivism for patients given those drugs,” said Dr. Gottschalk.

Opiate use is associated with increased pain sensitivity, and in the case of migraine, it may interfere with the activity of other treatments.

As for butalbital-containing compounds, they are positive-reinforcing drugs, and they are not indicated for migraine, only tension headache. There is no evidence of benefit in migraine, but butalbital is anxiolytic, which could lead an individual to increase its use.

A recent meta-analysis of therapies for episodic migraine found that hydromorphone and meperidine are less effective than standard therapies such as prochlorperazine or metoclopramide. Another study suggested that opioid use may interfere with the efficacy of NSAIDs in the emergency room environment, while a post hoc analysis of rizatriptan clinical trials found that recent opiate use was associated with a lower response rate, and the effect was more pronounced in women.

Among patients with chronic migraine, a 2004 study found that opiates were the most commonly used medication, and other studies found that chronic migraine does not arise in nonmigraine patients treated with opiates, “suggesting that migraine is specifically prone to opiate-induced hyperalgesia of migraine itself,” said Dr. Gottschalk.

Even under careful monitoring, misuse occurs in more than 50% of patients, “suggesting that even under the best circumstances, it is difficult to use this class of drugs safely in long term,” said Dr. Gottschalk.

He pointed out that the risk of drug addiction rises with various clinical and socioeconomic factors, including living in impoverished environments, adverse childhood experiences, low socioeconomic status, exposure to pollutants, and stressors. “In other words, all features associated with systemic racism are clearly associated with an increased risk of addiction,” said Dr. Gottschalk. Other factors include availability of the drug, such as whether or not a physician prescribes it, and repeated use.

These concerns, combined with positive-reinforcing properties of opiates and association with migraine progression and refractoriness, and the lack of progression risk found with use of NSAIDs and triptans, and the fact that effective acute therapy is associated with a lower risk of progression, argue against the use of opiates, said Dr. Gottschalk.

There is even a potential risk that the experience of migraine and its relief due to self-administration may become a rewarding experience that propagates the problem. It’s possible that anticipatory anxiety related to fear stressors could lead to migraine, or to physical sensations interpreted as migraine prodrome. “[It] raises the question of whether or not positive reinforcement by drugs makes migraine itself a rewarding experience and therefore more likely to occur as a cue for drug self-administration. The question I pose is: Is there any reason to test this theory in drugs of no proven benefit in the treatment of migraine? I would say very clearly, No,” said Dr. Gottschalk.
 

Clarifying the finer points of the debate

In the Q&A session after the talk, Dr. Rizzoli said that he doesn’t advocate for long-term use of opiates, except in rare cases where the diagnosis gets changed to a chronic pain syndrome. “We’re talking about intermittent use for treatment of an acute event. Do we put limits on them? I think the answer is clearly Yes, and the limits are more strict than those for triptans. My own sense as a clinician is I want all of the available tools. From a clinical perspective, there are a large number of people who do just fine with intermittent use of these medicines, and so I wouldn’t restrict them,” said Dr. Rizzoli.

Dr. Gottschalk agreed that opiates may make sense for some patients, but expressed concerns about any and all physicians prescribing them. “The part about the tools is partly a question of: Who gets to use them? In the hands of a headache specialist in those isolated cases with careful restrictions, sure. But what I’m making is a slippery slope argument: What we know is that in emergency rooms, these are used routinely, and that [those] patients are precisely the ones who are at higher risk of addiction. So in some sense, I’m just saying I think we need to have much clearer boundaries,” he said.

Dr. Rizzoli has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Gottschalk has been on the advisory boards of Alder, AbbVie, Amgen/Novartis, Biohaven, Theranica, Upsher-Smith, Axsome, Vorso, Currax, and Impel. He has been a consultant for Alder, Alexion, and Spherix Global Insights. He has received research support from Relivion.

The use of opiates in the treatment of headache has a controversial history, and it remains a matter of debate today. Some believe that the medications, though risky, can be a useful tool in the neurologist’s treatment arsenal, while others argue that opioids are just too risky when there are other, safer alternatives available.

Those were the cruxes of arguments put forward by Paul Rizzoli, MD, and Christopher H. Gottschalk, MD, who conducted individual talks at the 2021 Scottsdale Headache Symposium. Dr. Rizzoli, associate professor of neurology at Harvard Medical School, Boston, argued in favor of the use of opioids and butalbital-containing medications. Dr. Gottschalk, assistant professor of neurology at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., argued against their use.

In certain situations opioids are worth the risk

Whether or not to use opioids in the treatment of headache is “a reasonable question, because these medications can clearly be seen as having risk. So perhaps another way to frame this question is as a risk-benefit issue. Are these medications worth the risk? How useful is the benefit of opioids, if the consequence is dependence or addiction?” Dr. Rizzoli began.

Although reviews show effectiveness of opioids in treating migraine, a three-part review in 2012 found greater efficacy of dihydroergotamine (DHE), ketorolac, and chlorpromazine. That’s not surprising, said Dr. Rizzoli, since those competing drugs are migraine-specific.

Dr. Rizzoli quoted a 2014 review indicating that there were incomplete data on the relative efficacy of opioids versus other analgesics, and for some patients opioids would likely be the optimal treatment, such as those who have contraindications to ergot-type medications or neuroleptic medications, pregnant women, or patients who don’t respond to other medications.

Dr. Rizzoli noted that The International Association for the Study of Pain has concluded that no other oral medications provide immediate and effective pain relief, and that short-term use rarely leads to addiction.

“So, to me, the answer is not to avoid opioids or outlaw them but instead to use them judiciously and infrequently, and in a short term or rescue fashion,” said Dr. Rizzoli.

He pointed out that physicians accept risks of other medications, and act to mitigate those risks. He said that risk mitigation with opioids can take the form of avoiding prescriptions in some situations, like when patients have a personal or family history of substance abuse, or in cases of some behavioral or emotional disorders.

Dr. Rizzoli went on to discuss the use of butalbital, which acts as a CNS depressant and has a variety of effects, including sedation, anxiolytic, hypnotic, and antiepileptic effects, but it is only a weak analgesic, but it nevertheless works in headache, said Dr. Rizzoli, citing patient reports and personal experience.

“It’s difficult to appreciate this theme of efficacy behind all the hype in the literature and in the press against butalbital, and the fact that it has not been adequately studied. But I would submit that the fact that we are even having this discussion is support enough for the use of butalbital. If butalbital either didn’t work or was simply a drug of abuse, it would likely have faded away by now,” said Dr. Rizzoli. He conceded that butalbital can be overused and may lead episodic headache to become chronic daily headache, but he noted that Seymour Solomon, MD, professor emeritus at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, has estimated that removal of butalbital from the market would reduce chronic headache in the general population by only a small fraction of one percent.

Butalbital also has another interesting effect, which is that patients may quickly return to normal functioning after the headache resolves. “Maybe this is all due to management of anxiety, the presumed mechanism of action of barbiturates. So, instead of lobbying for its removal, I would propose that we should take a closer look at what’s going on here, and what the mechanism of action of this fairly interesting compound might be,” said Dr. Rizzoli.

Dr. Rizzoli also said there is some evidence that migraine-specific drugs also affect the tolerance to opioid drugs. “Somehow, they seem to interact with the opioid pain system. If that’s true, the implication is that you probably cannot escape the opioid receptors in the management of migraine,” said Dr. Rizzoli.

Ultimately, he supports the judicious use of opioids and butalbital containing-medications for headache relief. “My argument is that it is just too simplistic to cease use of these meds. Yes, they should be used in a restricted and careful way, but not abandoned,” said Dr. Rizzoli.
 

Opiates should be avoided

Following Dr. Rizzoli’s presentation, Dr. Gottschalk presented an argument against the use of opioids in the treatment of headache.

He began by quoting the ABIM Choosing Wisely Campaign of 2012, which concluded that fioricet and narcotics should be avoided in headache unless the patient is desperate. “As a headache specialist, I can tell you that I have not faced situations sufficiently desperate to use any of these. The American Headache Society in a series of evidence assessments has concluded similarly, that they are of no use,” said Dr. Gottschalk.

Opiates and barbiturates may also increase risk of migraine chronification. One study found that triptans are associated with low rates of chronification, at just a few percent when used fewer than 4 days a month, and about 20% per year when used 10-14 days per month. Opiate use showed a broadly similar pattern, while barbiturates showed a particularly alarming pattern: “Every level of use was associated with astronomically high rates and measurably higher at the highest level of use. For opiates, the odds ratio was about 2 – statistically significant. For barbiturates it was clearly greater than 2, whereas with triptans, the odds ratio showed a nonsignificant, slight increase in risk. And for NSAIDs, the odds ratio was, if anything, less than 1,” said Dr. Gottschalk.

He also discussed aspects of behavioral pharmacology, in which positive reinforcement associated with decreased headache may encourage repeated use of the drug. “Given these, it should be no surprise to anyone that emergency room treatment with opiates for acute migraine is clearly associated with increased recidivism for patients given those drugs,” said Dr. Gottschalk.

Opiate use is associated with increased pain sensitivity, and in the case of migraine, it may interfere with the activity of other treatments.

As for butalbital-containing compounds, they are positive-reinforcing drugs, and they are not indicated for migraine, only tension headache. There is no evidence of benefit in migraine, but butalbital is anxiolytic, which could lead an individual to increase its use.

A recent meta-analysis of therapies for episodic migraine found that hydromorphone and meperidine are less effective than standard therapies such as prochlorperazine or metoclopramide. Another study suggested that opioid use may interfere with the efficacy of NSAIDs in the emergency room environment, while a post hoc analysis of rizatriptan clinical trials found that recent opiate use was associated with a lower response rate, and the effect was more pronounced in women.

Among patients with chronic migraine, a 2004 study found that opiates were the most commonly used medication, and other studies found that chronic migraine does not arise in nonmigraine patients treated with opiates, “suggesting that migraine is specifically prone to opiate-induced hyperalgesia of migraine itself,” said Dr. Gottschalk.

Even under careful monitoring, misuse occurs in more than 50% of patients, “suggesting that even under the best circumstances, it is difficult to use this class of drugs safely in long term,” said Dr. Gottschalk.

He pointed out that the risk of drug addiction rises with various clinical and socioeconomic factors, including living in impoverished environments, adverse childhood experiences, low socioeconomic status, exposure to pollutants, and stressors. “In other words, all features associated with systemic racism are clearly associated with an increased risk of addiction,” said Dr. Gottschalk. Other factors include availability of the drug, such as whether or not a physician prescribes it, and repeated use.

These concerns, combined with positive-reinforcing properties of opiates and association with migraine progression and refractoriness, and the lack of progression risk found with use of NSAIDs and triptans, and the fact that effective acute therapy is associated with a lower risk of progression, argue against the use of opiates, said Dr. Gottschalk.

There is even a potential risk that the experience of migraine and its relief due to self-administration may become a rewarding experience that propagates the problem. It’s possible that anticipatory anxiety related to fear stressors could lead to migraine, or to physical sensations interpreted as migraine prodrome. “[It] raises the question of whether or not positive reinforcement by drugs makes migraine itself a rewarding experience and therefore more likely to occur as a cue for drug self-administration. The question I pose is: Is there any reason to test this theory in drugs of no proven benefit in the treatment of migraine? I would say very clearly, No,” said Dr. Gottschalk.
 

Clarifying the finer points of the debate

In the Q&A session after the talk, Dr. Rizzoli said that he doesn’t advocate for long-term use of opiates, except in rare cases where the diagnosis gets changed to a chronic pain syndrome. “We’re talking about intermittent use for treatment of an acute event. Do we put limits on them? I think the answer is clearly Yes, and the limits are more strict than those for triptans. My own sense as a clinician is I want all of the available tools. From a clinical perspective, there are a large number of people who do just fine with intermittent use of these medicines, and so I wouldn’t restrict them,” said Dr. Rizzoli.

Dr. Gottschalk agreed that opiates may make sense for some patients, but expressed concerns about any and all physicians prescribing them. “The part about the tools is partly a question of: Who gets to use them? In the hands of a headache specialist in those isolated cases with careful restrictions, sure. But what I’m making is a slippery slope argument: What we know is that in emergency rooms, these are used routinely, and that [those] patients are precisely the ones who are at higher risk of addiction. So in some sense, I’m just saying I think we need to have much clearer boundaries,” he said.

Dr. Rizzoli has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Gottschalk has been on the advisory boards of Alder, AbbVie, Amgen/Novartis, Biohaven, Theranica, Upsher-Smith, Axsome, Vorso, Currax, and Impel. He has been a consultant for Alder, Alexion, and Spherix Global Insights. He has received research support from Relivion.

The use of opiates in the treatment of headache has a controversial history, and it remains a matter of debate today. Some believe that the medications, though risky, can be a useful tool in the neurologist’s treatment arsenal, while others argue that opioids are just too risky when there are other, safer alternatives available.

Those were the cruxes of arguments put forward by Paul Rizzoli, MD, and Christopher H. Gottschalk, MD, who conducted individual talks at the 2021 Scottsdale Headache Symposium. Dr. Rizzoli, associate professor of neurology at Harvard Medical School, Boston, argued in favor of the use of opioids and butalbital-containing medications. Dr. Gottschalk, assistant professor of neurology at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., argued against their use.

In certain situations opioids are worth the risk

Whether or not to use opioids in the treatment of headache is “a reasonable question, because these medications can clearly be seen as having risk. So perhaps another way to frame this question is as a risk-benefit issue. Are these medications worth the risk? How useful is the benefit of opioids, if the consequence is dependence or addiction?” Dr. Rizzoli began.

Although reviews show effectiveness of opioids in treating migraine, a three-part review in 2012 found greater efficacy of dihydroergotamine (DHE), ketorolac, and chlorpromazine. That’s not surprising, said Dr. Rizzoli, since those competing drugs are migraine-specific.

Dr. Rizzoli quoted a 2014 review indicating that there were incomplete data on the relative efficacy of opioids versus other analgesics, and for some patients opioids would likely be the optimal treatment, such as those who have contraindications to ergot-type medications or neuroleptic medications, pregnant women, or patients who don’t respond to other medications.

Dr. Rizzoli noted that The International Association for the Study of Pain has concluded that no other oral medications provide immediate and effective pain relief, and that short-term use rarely leads to addiction.

“So, to me, the answer is not to avoid opioids or outlaw them but instead to use them judiciously and infrequently, and in a short term or rescue fashion,” said Dr. Rizzoli.

He pointed out that physicians accept risks of other medications, and act to mitigate those risks. He said that risk mitigation with opioids can take the form of avoiding prescriptions in some situations, like when patients have a personal or family history of substance abuse, or in cases of some behavioral or emotional disorders.

Dr. Rizzoli went on to discuss the use of butalbital, which acts as a CNS depressant and has a variety of effects, including sedation, anxiolytic, hypnotic, and antiepileptic effects, but it is only a weak analgesic, but it nevertheless works in headache, said Dr. Rizzoli, citing patient reports and personal experience.

“It’s difficult to appreciate this theme of efficacy behind all the hype in the literature and in the press against butalbital, and the fact that it has not been adequately studied. But I would submit that the fact that we are even having this discussion is support enough for the use of butalbital. If butalbital either didn’t work or was simply a drug of abuse, it would likely have faded away by now,” said Dr. Rizzoli. He conceded that butalbital can be overused and may lead episodic headache to become chronic daily headache, but he noted that Seymour Solomon, MD, professor emeritus at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, has estimated that removal of butalbital from the market would reduce chronic headache in the general population by only a small fraction of one percent.

Butalbital also has another interesting effect, which is that patients may quickly return to normal functioning after the headache resolves. “Maybe this is all due to management of anxiety, the presumed mechanism of action of barbiturates. So, instead of lobbying for its removal, I would propose that we should take a closer look at what’s going on here, and what the mechanism of action of this fairly interesting compound might be,” said Dr. Rizzoli.

Dr. Rizzoli also said there is some evidence that migraine-specific drugs also affect the tolerance to opioid drugs. “Somehow, they seem to interact with the opioid pain system. If that’s true, the implication is that you probably cannot escape the opioid receptors in the management of migraine,” said Dr. Rizzoli.

Ultimately, he supports the judicious use of opioids and butalbital containing-medications for headache relief. “My argument is that it is just too simplistic to cease use of these meds. Yes, they should be used in a restricted and careful way, but not abandoned,” said Dr. Rizzoli.
 

Opiates should be avoided

Following Dr. Rizzoli’s presentation, Dr. Gottschalk presented an argument against the use of opioids in the treatment of headache.

He began by quoting the ABIM Choosing Wisely Campaign of 2012, which concluded that fioricet and narcotics should be avoided in headache unless the patient is desperate. “As a headache specialist, I can tell you that I have not faced situations sufficiently desperate to use any of these. The American Headache Society in a series of evidence assessments has concluded similarly, that they are of no use,” said Dr. Gottschalk.

Opiates and barbiturates may also increase risk of migraine chronification. One study found that triptans are associated with low rates of chronification, at just a few percent when used fewer than 4 days a month, and about 20% per year when used 10-14 days per month. Opiate use showed a broadly similar pattern, while barbiturates showed a particularly alarming pattern: “Every level of use was associated with astronomically high rates and measurably higher at the highest level of use. For opiates, the odds ratio was about 2 – statistically significant. For barbiturates it was clearly greater than 2, whereas with triptans, the odds ratio showed a nonsignificant, slight increase in risk. And for NSAIDs, the odds ratio was, if anything, less than 1,” said Dr. Gottschalk.

He also discussed aspects of behavioral pharmacology, in which positive reinforcement associated with decreased headache may encourage repeated use of the drug. “Given these, it should be no surprise to anyone that emergency room treatment with opiates for acute migraine is clearly associated with increased recidivism for patients given those drugs,” said Dr. Gottschalk.

Opiate use is associated with increased pain sensitivity, and in the case of migraine, it may interfere with the activity of other treatments.

As for butalbital-containing compounds, they are positive-reinforcing drugs, and they are not indicated for migraine, only tension headache. There is no evidence of benefit in migraine, but butalbital is anxiolytic, which could lead an individual to increase its use.

A recent meta-analysis of therapies for episodic migraine found that hydromorphone and meperidine are less effective than standard therapies such as prochlorperazine or metoclopramide. Another study suggested that opioid use may interfere with the efficacy of NSAIDs in the emergency room environment, while a post hoc analysis of rizatriptan clinical trials found that recent opiate use was associated with a lower response rate, and the effect was more pronounced in women.

Among patients with chronic migraine, a 2004 study found that opiates were the most commonly used medication, and other studies found that chronic migraine does not arise in nonmigraine patients treated with opiates, “suggesting that migraine is specifically prone to opiate-induced hyperalgesia of migraine itself,” said Dr. Gottschalk.

Even under careful monitoring, misuse occurs in more than 50% of patients, “suggesting that even under the best circumstances, it is difficult to use this class of drugs safely in long term,” said Dr. Gottschalk.

He pointed out that the risk of drug addiction rises with various clinical and socioeconomic factors, including living in impoverished environments, adverse childhood experiences, low socioeconomic status, exposure to pollutants, and stressors. “In other words, all features associated with systemic racism are clearly associated with an increased risk of addiction,” said Dr. Gottschalk. Other factors include availability of the drug, such as whether or not a physician prescribes it, and repeated use.

These concerns, combined with positive-reinforcing properties of opiates and association with migraine progression and refractoriness, and the lack of progression risk found with use of NSAIDs and triptans, and the fact that effective acute therapy is associated with a lower risk of progression, argue against the use of opiates, said Dr. Gottschalk.

There is even a potential risk that the experience of migraine and its relief due to self-administration may become a rewarding experience that propagates the problem. It’s possible that anticipatory anxiety related to fear stressors could lead to migraine, or to physical sensations interpreted as migraine prodrome. “[It] raises the question of whether or not positive reinforcement by drugs makes migraine itself a rewarding experience and therefore more likely to occur as a cue for drug self-administration. The question I pose is: Is there any reason to test this theory in drugs of no proven benefit in the treatment of migraine? I would say very clearly, No,” said Dr. Gottschalk.
 

Clarifying the finer points of the debate

In the Q&A session after the talk, Dr. Rizzoli said that he doesn’t advocate for long-term use of opiates, except in rare cases where the diagnosis gets changed to a chronic pain syndrome. “We’re talking about intermittent use for treatment of an acute event. Do we put limits on them? I think the answer is clearly Yes, and the limits are more strict than those for triptans. My own sense as a clinician is I want all of the available tools. From a clinical perspective, there are a large number of people who do just fine with intermittent use of these medicines, and so I wouldn’t restrict them,” said Dr. Rizzoli.

Dr. Gottschalk agreed that opiates may make sense for some patients, but expressed concerns about any and all physicians prescribing them. “The part about the tools is partly a question of: Who gets to use them? In the hands of a headache specialist in those isolated cases with careful restrictions, sure. But what I’m making is a slippery slope argument: What we know is that in emergency rooms, these are used routinely, and that [those] patients are precisely the ones who are at higher risk of addiction. So in some sense, I’m just saying I think we need to have much clearer boundaries,” he said.

Dr. Rizzoli has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Gottschalk has been on the advisory boards of Alder, AbbVie, Amgen/Novartis, Biohaven, Theranica, Upsher-Smith, Axsome, Vorso, Currax, and Impel. He has been a consultant for Alder, Alexion, and Spherix Global Insights. He has received research support from Relivion.

‘Grainy’ or ‘pixelated’ vision can be an alarming symptom for patients. The phenomenon is called visual snow, and although it was first described only recently, it is fairly common.

“This is a symptom of vision where patients describe numerous flickering dots throughout their vision. Sometimes they’ll use the term grainy or pixelated vision. Many times there’s a dynamic moving component to this. Many patients will describe this as like a TV static overlay on their vision,” Carrie Robertson, MD, said during a presentation on the topic at the 2021 Scottsdale Headache Symposium. Dr. Robertson is a neurologist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.

“It turns out that a little over 3% of us probably see this in our vision. So even if you haven’t seen this in the clinic yet, it’s likely that you will in the future,” said Dr. Robertson.

The first report describing visual snow appeared in 1995, among migraine patients. As of 2014 there were only 10 cases described in the literature. Although the condition was initially thought of as an unusual feature of migraine, a 2014 combined chart review and survey found that 15 of 22 patients had additional visual symptoms, such as photophobia or difficulty with night vision. Twenty of the 22 patients had comorbid migraine. Other symptoms include visual ghosts that persist after looking away from an object, as well as a higher frequency of experiencing floaters.

Symptoms aren’t restricted to the visual domain. Migraine, tinnitus, dizziness, and impaired concentration also occur.

The condition is more common than many suspect. “We used to think it was very rare. Now we assume that this was just under recognized,” said Dr. Robertson. One survey in the United Kingdom found that 3.7% of respondents reported visual snow, and 2.2% met the criteria for the syndrome.
 

A common and typically benign problem

It is a common clinical problem, according to Andrew Charles, MD, professor of neurology at the University of California, Los Angeles, and director of the UCLA Goldberg Migraine Program. “Almost every week I personally see somebody and then in our group, we have a whole host of them,” he said.

“When you see these patients in clinic, it’s important to remember that this is a heterogeneous disorder,” said Dr. Robertson. “Some patients will say, ‘Oh yeah, I’ve seen visual snow for as long as I can remember, I didn’t even know it was abnormal.’ Some will describe a family history of visual snow. Others will show up in clinic panicked because their visual snow just started or sometimes it’ll start after a triggering events like a head injury or hallucinogen use, and they’re worried that they’re going to go blind.”

It’s important to rule out other potential causes. Dr. Robertson’s group examined 248 cases of visual snow and found that 89 had a comorbidity that explained the condition. Issues within the retina, cornea, and the optical nerve can cause visual snow, which makes it critical that patients be seen by an ophthalmologist.

Some patients reported improvement when they stopped a new medication. “I always ask if there was a specific medicine that they started at the onset of their symptoms,” said Dr. Robertson. Other rare conditions associated with visual snow include idiopathic intracranial hypertension, posterior cortical atrophy, and even the Heidenhain variant of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease.

In the absence of a secondary cause, and the if condition doesn’t worsen, physicians should reassure patients that the condition is typically benign. “Many of these patients are panicked that they’re going to lose their vision, and that’s what brings them to your office. It’s important to stress that visual snow is real, that you believe them, that they’re seeing what they say that they’re seeing. It’s not a migraine aura, but it’s typically benign. I like to give the analogy that it’s similar to tinnitus because I think that that’s helpful for patients to put it in that category of benign but very annoying,” said Dr. Robertson.
 

Limited treatment options

Unfortunately, there is little evidence on medications to treat the problem. According to Dr. Robertson, the best available evidence – from case reports – is for lamotrigine. Nearly 20% of patients achieve a partial response, and complete responses are rare.

Clinical trials are a possibility, but patients should be made aware that medications have the potential to worsen visual snow.

Nonpharmaceutical approaches include visual and mental distraction, along with manipulation of lighting at work and at home. Stress reduction may help, and Dr. Robertson may send patients with dizziness for visual vestibular therapy to work on visual motion desensitization exercises.

There are visual snow relief videos available on YouTube, which may provide temporary relief. “It’s probably similar to white noise therapy for tinnitus,” said Dr. Robertson.

Colored glass lenses may be helpful. “I’m having the best success at this point with FL-41 lenses. Some prefer amber, and others prefer the rose-tinted, just like migraine. I usually start with that,” said Dr. Robertson. Yellow lenses may help with nyctalopia.

She recommends that patients avoid consuming too much caffeine, and that they avoid stimulants, especially attention-deficit disorder (ADD) medications. “I’ve had a lot of patients worsen with ADD medication,” said Dr. Robertson. She also warns patients away from marijuana and hallucinogens.

There is a large community available for patients with visual snow, including more than 60 Facebook groups, and many YouTube videos of patients describing their experiences. There is even a visual snow simulator that neurologists can show patients to confirm what they are seeing. “It’s very validating for the patient,” said Dr. Robertson.

Dr. Charles noted the relatively few treatment options and poor understanding of the mechanisms behind the condition. “It’s incredibly frustrating that we have to tell them that we have so little understanding of basic mechanisms, and no really clear therapeutic strategy that we can apply across all patients and expect results,” said Dr. Charles.

The heightened interest in the condition does represent some hope. “It’s very much reassuring to people that, number one, we’re starting to understand it – but number two, that they’re not crazy. It’s very much validating to hear that it’s now a topic of much more rigorous investigation,” said Dr. Charles.

Dr. Robertson and Dr. Charles have no relevant financial disclosures.

‘Grainy’ or ‘pixelated’ vision can be an alarming symptom for patients. The phenomenon is called visual snow, and although it was first described only recently, it is fairly common.

“This is a symptom of vision where patients describe numerous flickering dots throughout their vision. Sometimes they’ll use the term grainy or pixelated vision. Many times there’s a dynamic moving component to this. Many patients will describe this as like a TV static overlay on their vision,” Carrie Robertson, MD, said during a presentation on the topic at the 2021 Scottsdale Headache Symposium. Dr. Robertson is a neurologist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.

“It turns out that a little over 3% of us probably see this in our vision. So even if you haven’t seen this in the clinic yet, it’s likely that you will in the future,” said Dr. Robertson.

The first report describing visual snow appeared in 1995, among migraine patients. As of 2014 there were only 10 cases described in the literature. Although the condition was initially thought of as an unusual feature of migraine, a 2014 combined chart review and survey found that 15 of 22 patients had additional visual symptoms, such as photophobia or difficulty with night vision. Twenty of the 22 patients had comorbid migraine. Other symptoms include visual ghosts that persist after looking away from an object, as well as a higher frequency of experiencing floaters.

Symptoms aren’t restricted to the visual domain. Migraine, tinnitus, dizziness, and impaired concentration also occur.

The condition is more common than many suspect. “We used to think it was very rare. Now we assume that this was just under recognized,” said Dr. Robertson. One survey in the United Kingdom found that 3.7% of respondents reported visual snow, and 2.2% met the criteria for the syndrome.
 

A common and typically benign problem

It is a common clinical problem, according to Andrew Charles, MD, professor of neurology at the University of California, Los Angeles, and director of the UCLA Goldberg Migraine Program. “Almost every week I personally see somebody and then in our group, we have a whole host of them,” he said.

“When you see these patients in clinic, it’s important to remember that this is a heterogeneous disorder,” said Dr. Robertson. “Some patients will say, ‘Oh yeah, I’ve seen visual snow for as long as I can remember, I didn’t even know it was abnormal.’ Some will describe a family history of visual snow. Others will show up in clinic panicked because their visual snow just started or sometimes it’ll start after a triggering events like a head injury or hallucinogen use, and they’re worried that they’re going to go blind.”

It’s important to rule out other potential causes. Dr. Robertson’s group examined 248 cases of visual snow and found that 89 had a comorbidity that explained the condition. Issues within the retina, cornea, and the optical nerve can cause visual snow, which makes it critical that patients be seen by an ophthalmologist.

Some patients reported improvement when they stopped a new medication. “I always ask if there was a specific medicine that they started at the onset of their symptoms,” said Dr. Robertson. Other rare conditions associated with visual snow include idiopathic intracranial hypertension, posterior cortical atrophy, and even the Heidenhain variant of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease.

In the absence of a secondary cause, and the if condition doesn’t worsen, physicians should reassure patients that the condition is typically benign. “Many of these patients are panicked that they’re going to lose their vision, and that’s what brings them to your office. It’s important to stress that visual snow is real, that you believe them, that they’re seeing what they say that they’re seeing. It’s not a migraine aura, but it’s typically benign. I like to give the analogy that it’s similar to tinnitus because I think that that’s helpful for patients to put it in that category of benign but very annoying,” said Dr. Robertson.
 

Limited treatment options

Unfortunately, there is little evidence on medications to treat the problem. According to Dr. Robertson, the best available evidence – from case reports – is for lamotrigine. Nearly 20% of patients achieve a partial response, and complete responses are rare.

Clinical trials are a possibility, but patients should be made aware that medications have the potential to worsen visual snow.

Nonpharmaceutical approaches include visual and mental distraction, along with manipulation of lighting at work and at home. Stress reduction may help, and Dr. Robertson may send patients with dizziness for visual vestibular therapy to work on visual motion desensitization exercises.

There are visual snow relief videos available on YouTube, which may provide temporary relief. “It’s probably similar to white noise therapy for tinnitus,” said Dr. Robertson.

Colored glass lenses may be helpful. “I’m having the best success at this point with FL-41 lenses. Some prefer amber, and others prefer the rose-tinted, just like migraine. I usually start with that,” said Dr. Robertson. Yellow lenses may help with nyctalopia.

She recommends that patients avoid consuming too much caffeine, and that they avoid stimulants, especially attention-deficit disorder (ADD) medications. “I’ve had a lot of patients worsen with ADD medication,” said Dr. Robertson. She also warns patients away from marijuana and hallucinogens.

There is a large community available for patients with visual snow, including more than 60 Facebook groups, and many YouTube videos of patients describing their experiences. There is even a visual snow simulator that neurologists can show patients to confirm what they are seeing. “It’s very validating for the patient,” said Dr. Robertson.

Dr. Charles noted the relatively few treatment options and poor understanding of the mechanisms behind the condition. “It’s incredibly frustrating that we have to tell them that we have so little understanding of basic mechanisms, and no really clear therapeutic strategy that we can apply across all patients and expect results,” said Dr. Charles.

The heightened interest in the condition does represent some hope. “It’s very much reassuring to people that, number one, we’re starting to understand it – but number two, that they’re not crazy. It’s very much validating to hear that it’s now a topic of much more rigorous investigation,” said Dr. Charles.

Dr. Robertson and Dr. Charles have no relevant financial disclosures.

‘Grainy’ or ‘pixelated’ vision can be an alarming symptom for patients. The phenomenon is called visual snow, and although it was first described only recently, it is fairly common.

“This is a symptom of vision where patients describe numerous flickering dots throughout their vision. Sometimes they’ll use the term grainy or pixelated vision. Many times there’s a dynamic moving component to this. Many patients will describe this as like a TV static overlay on their vision,” Carrie Robertson, MD, said during a presentation on the topic at the 2021 Scottsdale Headache Symposium. Dr. Robertson is a neurologist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.

“It turns out that a little over 3% of us probably see this in our vision. So even if you haven’t seen this in the clinic yet, it’s likely that you will in the future,” said Dr. Robertson.

The first report describing visual snow appeared in 1995, among migraine patients. As of 2014 there were only 10 cases described in the literature. Although the condition was initially thought of as an unusual feature of migraine, a 2014 combined chart review and survey found that 15 of 22 patients had additional visual symptoms, such as photophobia or difficulty with night vision. Twenty of the 22 patients had comorbid migraine. Other symptoms include visual ghosts that persist after looking away from an object, as well as a higher frequency of experiencing floaters.

Symptoms aren’t restricted to the visual domain. Migraine, tinnitus, dizziness, and impaired concentration also occur.

The condition is more common than many suspect. “We used to think it was very rare. Now we assume that this was just under recognized,” said Dr. Robertson. One survey in the United Kingdom found that 3.7% of respondents reported visual snow, and 2.2% met the criteria for the syndrome.
 

A common and typically benign problem

It is a common clinical problem, according to Andrew Charles, MD, professor of neurology at the University of California, Los Angeles, and director of the UCLA Goldberg Migraine Program. “Almost every week I personally see somebody and then in our group, we have a whole host of them,” he said.

“When you see these patients in clinic, it’s important to remember that this is a heterogeneous disorder,” said Dr. Robertson. “Some patients will say, ‘Oh yeah, I’ve seen visual snow for as long as I can remember, I didn’t even know it was abnormal.’ Some will describe a family history of visual snow. Others will show up in clinic panicked because their visual snow just started or sometimes it’ll start after a triggering events like a head injury or hallucinogen use, and they’re worried that they’re going to go blind.”

It’s important to rule out other potential causes. Dr. Robertson’s group examined 248 cases of visual snow and found that 89 had a comorbidity that explained the condition. Issues within the retina, cornea, and the optical nerve can cause visual snow, which makes it critical that patients be seen by an ophthalmologist.

Some patients reported improvement when they stopped a new medication. “I always ask if there was a specific medicine that they started at the onset of their symptoms,” said Dr. Robertson. Other rare conditions associated with visual snow include idiopathic intracranial hypertension, posterior cortical atrophy, and even the Heidenhain variant of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease.

In the absence of a secondary cause, and the if condition doesn’t worsen, physicians should reassure patients that the condition is typically benign. “Many of these patients are panicked that they’re going to lose their vision, and that’s what brings them to your office. It’s important to stress that visual snow is real, that you believe them, that they’re seeing what they say that they’re seeing. It’s not a migraine aura, but it’s typically benign. I like to give the analogy that it’s similar to tinnitus because I think that that’s helpful for patients to put it in that category of benign but very annoying,” said Dr. Robertson.
 

Limited treatment options

Unfortunately, there is little evidence on medications to treat the problem. According to Dr. Robertson, the best available evidence – from case reports – is for lamotrigine. Nearly 20% of patients achieve a partial response, and complete responses are rare.

Clinical trials are a possibility, but patients should be made aware that medications have the potential to worsen visual snow.

Nonpharmaceutical approaches include visual and mental distraction, along with manipulation of lighting at work and at home. Stress reduction may help, and Dr. Robertson may send patients with dizziness for visual vestibular therapy to work on visual motion desensitization exercises.

There are visual snow relief videos available on YouTube, which may provide temporary relief. “It’s probably similar to white noise therapy for tinnitus,” said Dr. Robertson.

Colored glass lenses may be helpful. “I’m having the best success at this point with FL-41 lenses. Some prefer amber, and others prefer the rose-tinted, just like migraine. I usually start with that,” said Dr. Robertson. Yellow lenses may help with nyctalopia.

She recommends that patients avoid consuming too much caffeine, and that they avoid stimulants, especially attention-deficit disorder (ADD) medications. “I’ve had a lot of patients worsen with ADD medication,” said Dr. Robertson. She also warns patients away from marijuana and hallucinogens.

There is a large community available for patients with visual snow, including more than 60 Facebook groups, and many YouTube videos of patients describing their experiences. There is even a visual snow simulator that neurologists can show patients to confirm what they are seeing. “It’s very validating for the patient,” said Dr. Robertson.

Dr. Charles noted the relatively few treatment options and poor understanding of the mechanisms behind the condition. “It’s incredibly frustrating that we have to tell them that we have so little understanding of basic mechanisms, and no really clear therapeutic strategy that we can apply across all patients and expect results,” said Dr. Charles.

The heightened interest in the condition does represent some hope. “It’s very much reassuring to people that, number one, we’re starting to understand it – but number two, that they’re not crazy. It’s very much validating to hear that it’s now a topic of much more rigorous investigation,” said Dr. Charles.

Dr. Robertson and Dr. Charles have no relevant financial disclosures.

Post–COVID-19 headache is a common and sometimes persistent problem. It may take the form of new-onset headache, or exacerbations of preexisting headache conditions such as migraine.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has identified it as a sentinel symptom of COVID-19 disease. “A lot of the recommendations surrounding post-COVID headache is that if you identify a patient who has headaches associated with fever, and myalgia, and other systemic symptoms, the specificity of a COVID-19 diagnosis goes up. So [COVID-19] is a really important feature to look out for in patients with headache,” Deena Kuruvilla, MD, said during a presentation on post–COVID-19 headache at the 2021 Scottsdale Headache Symposium.

Estimates of the prevalence of headache in COVID-19 range widely, from 6.5% to 71%, but Dr. Kuruvilla has plenty of personal experience with it. “During my stint on the inpatient neurology service during the peak of COVID, I saw patients with headache being one of the most frequent complaints, [along with] dizziness, stroke, and seizure among many other neurological manifestations,” said Dr. Kuruvilla, director of the Westport (Conn.) Headache Institute.

One meta-analysis showed that 47% of patients with COVID-19 complain of headache within 30 days of diagnosis, and this drops to around 10% at 60-90 days, and around 8% at 180 days.

A survey of 3,458 patients, published in the Journal of Headache Pain, found that migraine is the most common type of post–COVID-19 headache phenotype, and patients reporting anosmia-ageusia were more likely to have post–COVID-19 headache (odds ratio [OR], 5.39; 95% confidence interval, 1.66-17.45).

A case-control study of post–COVID-19 headache patients with and without a history of migraine found that those with a history of migraine were more likely to have post–COVID-19 symptoms (OR, 1.70; P < .001) and fatigue (OR, 2.89; P = .008). “Interestingly, they found no difference in headache as post-COVID symptoms in people who had a history of migraine compared with people without a history of migraine,” said Dr. Kuruvilla.
 

Headache and COVID-19: What is the connection?

Several mechanisms have been proposed for direct invasion of the central nervous system, either via infection through the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE-2) receptor, which is expressed in brain regions including the motor cortex, the posterior cingulate cortex, and the olfactory bulb, among other locations. Another potential mechanism is direct entry through the olfactory nerve and the associated olfactory epithelium. There are various potential mechanisms for spread among the peripheral nervous system, and the blood-brain barrier can be compromised by infection of vascular endothelial cells. According to the literature, neuronal damage seems to occur directly from viral damage rather than from the immune response, said Dr. Kuruvilla.

The virus may also gain entry to the CNS indirectly, as a result of hypoxia and metabolic disturbances, as well as dehydration and systematic inflammation. The cytokine storm associated with COVID-19 infection can activate C-reactive protein and calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP), which plays a key role in migraine pathology. The CGRP receptor antagonist vazegepant is being studied in a phase 2 clinical trial for the treatment of COVID-19–related lung inflammation.
 

Testing and treatment

“If I see patients with new headache, worsening headache from their baseline, or headache with systemic symptoms, I often consider screening them for COVID. If that screening is positive, I proceed with PCR testing. I also consider an MRI of the brain with and without gadolinium just to rule out any secondary causes for headache,” said Dr. Kuruvilla, noting that she has diagnosed patients with venous sinus thrombosis, ischemic stroke, and meningitis following COVID-19.

The existing literature suggests that lumbar puncture in patients with SARS-CoV-2 typically returns normal results, but Dr. Kuruvilla proceeds with it anyway with viral, bacterial, fungal, and autoimmune studies to rule out potential secondary causes for headache.

There are few studies on how to treat post–COVID-19 headache, and the general recommendation is that headache phenotype should drive treatment decisions.

In a case series, three patients with persistent headache following mild COVID-19 infection were treated with onabotulinumtoxinA and amitriptyline. They had daily headaches, along with post–COVID-19 symptoms including fatigue and insomnia. After treatment, each patient converted to episodic headaches.

One retrospective study of 37 patients found that a 5-day course of indomethacin 50 mg twice per day and pantoprazole 40 mg once per day was associated with a 50% or greater improvement in headache on the third day in 36 of the 37 patients. Five patients were free of pain by day 5.
 

A common problem

Neurologists have been involved in the treatment of COVID-19 since the beginning, and post–COVID-19 headache has added another layer. “It’s been a remarkably common clinical problem. And the fact that it’s actually reached the level of headache specialist actually shows that in some cases, it’s really quite a significant problem, in both its severity and persistence. So I think it’s a very, very significant issue,” said Andrew Charles, MD, professor of neurology at the University of California, Los Angeles, and director of the UCLA Goldberg Migraine Program.

Dr. Kuruvilla also discussed the question of whether neurological damage is due to direct damage from the virus, or indirect damage from an immune response. This was debated during the Q&A session following Dr. Kuruvilla’s talk, and it was pointed out that headache is a frequent side effect of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines.

“It’s a huge open question about how much is direct invasion or damage or not even damage, but just change in function with the viral infection, as opposed to inflammation. The fact that very often the response to the vaccine is similar to what you see with COVID suggests that at least some component of it is inflammation. I wouldn’t commit to one mechanism or the other, but I’d say that it’s possible that it’s really both,” said Dr. Charles.

Dr. Kuruvilla has consulted for Cefaly, Neurolief, Theranica, Now What Media, and KX advisors. She has been on the speakers bureau for Abbvie/Allergan, Amgen/Novartis, and Lilly. She has been on advisory boards for Abbvie/Allergan, Lilly, Theranica, and Amgen/Novartis. Dr. Charles has no relevant financial disclosures.

Post–COVID-19 headache is a common and sometimes persistent problem. It may take the form of new-onset headache, or exacerbations of preexisting headache conditions such as migraine.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has identified it as a sentinel symptom of COVID-19 disease. “A lot of the recommendations surrounding post-COVID headache is that if you identify a patient who has headaches associated with fever, and myalgia, and other systemic symptoms, the specificity of a COVID-19 diagnosis goes up. So [COVID-19] is a really important feature to look out for in patients with headache,” Deena Kuruvilla, MD, said during a presentation on post–COVID-19 headache at the 2021 Scottsdale Headache Symposium.

Estimates of the prevalence of headache in COVID-19 range widely, from 6.5% to 71%, but Dr. Kuruvilla has plenty of personal experience with it. “During my stint on the inpatient neurology service during the peak of COVID, I saw patients with headache being one of the most frequent complaints, [along with] dizziness, stroke, and seizure among many other neurological manifestations,” said Dr. Kuruvilla, director of the Westport (Conn.) Headache Institute.

One meta-analysis showed that 47% of patients with COVID-19 complain of headache within 30 days of diagnosis, and this drops to around 10% at 60-90 days, and around 8% at 180 days.

A survey of 3,458 patients, published in the Journal of Headache Pain, found that migraine is the most common type of post–COVID-19 headache phenotype, and patients reporting anosmia-ageusia were more likely to have post–COVID-19 headache (odds ratio [OR], 5.39; 95% confidence interval, 1.66-17.45).

A case-control study of post–COVID-19 headache patients with and without a history of migraine found that those with a history of migraine were more likely to have post–COVID-19 symptoms (OR, 1.70; P < .001) and fatigue (OR, 2.89; P = .008). “Interestingly, they found no difference in headache as post-COVID symptoms in people who had a history of migraine compared with people without a history of migraine,” said Dr. Kuruvilla.
 

Headache and COVID-19: What is the connection?

Several mechanisms have been proposed for direct invasion of the central nervous system, either via infection through the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE-2) receptor, which is expressed in brain regions including the motor cortex, the posterior cingulate cortex, and the olfactory bulb, among other locations. Another potential mechanism is direct entry through the olfactory nerve and the associated olfactory epithelium. There are various potential mechanisms for spread among the peripheral nervous system, and the blood-brain barrier can be compromised by infection of vascular endothelial cells. According to the literature, neuronal damage seems to occur directly from viral damage rather than from the immune response, said Dr. Kuruvilla.

The virus may also gain entry to the CNS indirectly, as a result of hypoxia and metabolic disturbances, as well as dehydration and systematic inflammation. The cytokine storm associated with COVID-19 infection can activate C-reactive protein and calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP), which plays a key role in migraine pathology. The CGRP receptor antagonist vazegepant is being studied in a phase 2 clinical trial for the treatment of COVID-19–related lung inflammation.
 

Testing and treatment

“If I see patients with new headache, worsening headache from their baseline, or headache with systemic symptoms, I often consider screening them for COVID. If that screening is positive, I proceed with PCR testing. I also consider an MRI of the brain with and without gadolinium just to rule out any secondary causes for headache,” said Dr. Kuruvilla, noting that she has diagnosed patients with venous sinus thrombosis, ischemic stroke, and meningitis following COVID-19.

The existing literature suggests that lumbar puncture in patients with SARS-CoV-2 typically returns normal results, but Dr. Kuruvilla proceeds with it anyway with viral, bacterial, fungal, and autoimmune studies to rule out potential secondary causes for headache.

There are few studies on how to treat post–COVID-19 headache, and the general recommendation is that headache phenotype should drive treatment decisions.

In a case series, three patients with persistent headache following mild COVID-19 infection were treated with onabotulinumtoxinA and amitriptyline. They had daily headaches, along with post–COVID-19 symptoms including fatigue and insomnia. After treatment, each patient converted to episodic headaches.

One retrospective study of 37 patients found that a 5-day course of indomethacin 50 mg twice per day and pantoprazole 40 mg once per day was associated with a 50% or greater improvement in headache on the third day in 36 of the 37 patients. Five patients were free of pain by day 5.
 

A common problem

Neurologists have been involved in the treatment of COVID-19 since the beginning, and post–COVID-19 headache has added another layer. “It’s been a remarkably common clinical problem. And the fact that it’s actually reached the level of headache specialist actually shows that in some cases, it’s really quite a significant problem, in both its severity and persistence. So I think it’s a very, very significant issue,” said Andrew Charles, MD, professor of neurology at the University of California, Los Angeles, and director of the UCLA Goldberg Migraine Program.

Dr. Kuruvilla also discussed the question of whether neurological damage is due to direct damage from the virus, or indirect damage from an immune response. This was debated during the Q&A session following Dr. Kuruvilla’s talk, and it was pointed out that headache is a frequent side effect of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines.

“It’s a huge open question about how much is direct invasion or damage or not even damage, but just change in function with the viral infection, as opposed to inflammation. The fact that very often the response to the vaccine is similar to what you see with COVID suggests that at least some component of it is inflammation. I wouldn’t commit to one mechanism or the other, but I’d say that it’s possible that it’s really both,” said Dr. Charles.

Dr. Kuruvilla has consulted for Cefaly, Neurolief, Theranica, Now What Media, and KX advisors. She has been on the speakers bureau for Abbvie/Allergan, Amgen/Novartis, and Lilly. She has been on advisory boards for Abbvie/Allergan, Lilly, Theranica, and Amgen/Novartis. Dr. Charles has no relevant financial disclosures.

Post–COVID-19 headache is a common and sometimes persistent problem. It may take the form of new-onset headache, or exacerbations of preexisting headache conditions such as migraine.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has identified it as a sentinel symptom of COVID-19 disease. “A lot of the recommendations surrounding post-COVID headache is that if you identify a patient who has headaches associated with fever, and myalgia, and other systemic symptoms, the specificity of a COVID-19 diagnosis goes up. So [COVID-19] is a really important feature to look out for in patients with headache,” Deena Kuruvilla, MD, said during a presentation on post–COVID-19 headache at the 2021 Scottsdale Headache Symposium.

Estimates of the prevalence of headache in COVID-19 range widely, from 6.5% to 71%, but Dr. Kuruvilla has plenty of personal experience with it. “During my stint on the inpatient neurology service during the peak of COVID, I saw patients with headache being one of the most frequent complaints, [along with] dizziness, stroke, and seizure among many other neurological manifestations,” said Dr. Kuruvilla, director of the Westport (Conn.) Headache Institute.

One meta-analysis showed that 47% of patients with COVID-19 complain of headache within 30 days of diagnosis, and this drops to around 10% at 60-90 days, and around 8% at 180 days.

A survey of 3,458 patients, published in the Journal of Headache Pain, found that migraine is the most common type of post–COVID-19 headache phenotype, and patients reporting anosmia-ageusia were more likely to have post–COVID-19 headache (odds ratio [OR], 5.39; 95% confidence interval, 1.66-17.45).

A case-control study of post–COVID-19 headache patients with and without a history of migraine found that those with a history of migraine were more likely to have post–COVID-19 symptoms (OR, 1.70; P < .001) and fatigue (OR, 2.89; P = .008). “Interestingly, they found no difference in headache as post-COVID symptoms in people who had a history of migraine compared with people without a history of migraine,” said Dr. Kuruvilla.
 

Headache and COVID-19: What is the connection?

Several mechanisms have been proposed for direct invasion of the central nervous system, either via infection through the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE-2) receptor, which is expressed in brain regions including the motor cortex, the posterior cingulate cortex, and the olfactory bulb, among other locations. Another potential mechanism is direct entry through the olfactory nerve and the associated olfactory epithelium. There are various potential mechanisms for spread among the peripheral nervous system, and the blood-brain barrier can be compromised by infection of vascular endothelial cells. According to the literature, neuronal damage seems to occur directly from viral damage rather than from the immune response, said Dr. Kuruvilla.

The virus may also gain entry to the CNS indirectly, as a result of hypoxia and metabolic disturbances, as well as dehydration and systematic inflammation. The cytokine storm associated with COVID-19 infection can activate C-reactive protein and calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP), which plays a key role in migraine pathology. The CGRP receptor antagonist vazegepant is being studied in a phase 2 clinical trial for the treatment of COVID-19–related lung inflammation.
 

Testing and treatment

“If I see patients with new headache, worsening headache from their baseline, or headache with systemic symptoms, I often consider screening them for COVID. If that screening is positive, I proceed with PCR testing. I also consider an MRI of the brain with and without gadolinium just to rule out any secondary causes for headache,” said Dr. Kuruvilla, noting that she has diagnosed patients with venous sinus thrombosis, ischemic stroke, and meningitis following COVID-19.

The existing literature suggests that lumbar puncture in patients with SARS-CoV-2 typically returns normal results, but Dr. Kuruvilla proceeds with it anyway with viral, bacterial, fungal, and autoimmune studies to rule out potential secondary causes for headache.

There are few studies on how to treat post–COVID-19 headache, and the general recommendation is that headache phenotype should drive treatment decisions.

In a case series, three patients with persistent headache following mild COVID-19 infection were treated with onabotulinumtoxinA and amitriptyline. They had daily headaches, along with post–COVID-19 symptoms including fatigue and insomnia. After treatment, each patient converted to episodic headaches.

One retrospective study of 37 patients found that a 5-day course of indomethacin 50 mg twice per day and pantoprazole 40 mg once per day was associated with a 50% or greater improvement in headache on the third day in 36 of the 37 patients. Five patients were free of pain by day 5.
 

A common problem

Neurologists have been involved in the treatment of COVID-19 since the beginning, and post–COVID-19 headache has added another layer. “It’s been a remarkably common clinical problem. And the fact that it’s actually reached the level of headache specialist actually shows that in some cases, it’s really quite a significant problem, in both its severity and persistence. So I think it’s a very, very significant issue,” said Andrew Charles, MD, professor of neurology at the University of California, Los Angeles, and director of the UCLA Goldberg Migraine Program.

Dr. Kuruvilla also discussed the question of whether neurological damage is due to direct damage from the virus, or indirect damage from an immune response. This was debated during the Q&A session following Dr. Kuruvilla’s talk, and it was pointed out that headache is a frequent side effect of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines.

“It’s a huge open question about how much is direct invasion or damage or not even damage, but just change in function with the viral infection, as opposed to inflammation. The fact that very often the response to the vaccine is similar to what you see with COVID suggests that at least some component of it is inflammation. I wouldn’t commit to one mechanism or the other, but I’d say that it’s possible that it’s really both,” said Dr. Charles.

Dr. Kuruvilla has consulted for Cefaly, Neurolief, Theranica, Now What Media, and KX advisors. She has been on the speakers bureau for Abbvie/Allergan, Amgen/Novartis, and Lilly. She has been on advisory boards for Abbvie/Allergan, Lilly, Theranica, and Amgen/Novartis. Dr. Charles has no relevant financial disclosures.

Erenumab, a calcitonin-gene related peptide receptor (CGRP) inhibitor, is more tolerable and effective than topiramate for treating patients with migraine, according to data from almost 800 patients in the first head-to-head trial of its kind.

The findings suggest that erenumab may help overcome longstanding issues with migraine medication adherence, and additional supportive data may alter treatment sequencing, reported lead author Uwe Reuter, MD, professor at Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, and colleagues.

“So far, no study has been done in order to compare the efficacy of a monoclonal antibody targeting the CGRP pathway to that of a standard of care oral preventive drug,” the investigators wrote in Cephalalgia.

The phase 4 HER-MES trial aimed to address this knowledge gap by enrolling 777 adult patients with a history of migraine. All patients reported migraine with or without aura for at least 1 year prior to screening. At baseline, most patients (65%) reported 8-14 migraine days per months, followed by 4-7 days (24.0%), and at least 15 days (11.0%). No patients had previously received topiramate or a CGRP-targeting agent.

“HER-MES includes a broad migraine population with two-thirds of the patients in the high-frequency migraine spectrum,” the investigators noted. “Despite a mean disease duration of about 20 years, almost 60% of the patients had not received previous prophylactic treatment, which underlines the long-standing problem of undertreatment in migraine.”

The trial had a double-dummy design; patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive either subcutaneous erenumab (70 or 140 mg/month) plus oral placebo, or oral topiramate (50-100 mg/day) plus subcutaneous placebo. The topiramate dose was uptitrated over the first 6 weeks. Treatments were given for a total of 24 weeks or until discontinuation due to adverse events, which was the primary endpoint. The secondary endpoint was efficacy over months 4-6, defined as at least 50% reduction in monthly migraine days, compared with baseline. Other patient-reported outcomes were also evaluated.

After 24 weeks, 95.1% of patients were still enrolled in the trial. Discontinuations due to adverse events were almost four times as common in the topiramate group than the erenumab group (38.9% vs. 10.6%; odds ratio [OR], 0.19; confidence interval, 0.13-0.27; P less than .001). Efficacy findings followed suit, with 55.4% of patients in the erenumab group reporting at least 50% reduction in monthly migraine days, compared with 31.2% of patients in the topiramate group (OR, 2.76; 95% CI, 2.06-3.71; P less than.001).

Erenumab significantly improved monthly migraine days, headache impact test (HIT-6) scores, and short form health survey version (SF-35v2) scores, including physical and mental components (P less than .001 for all).

Safety profiles aligned with previous findings.

“Compared to topiramate, treatment with erenumab has a superior tolerability profile and a significantly higher efficacy,” the investigators concluded. “HER-MES supports the potential of erenumab in overcoming issues of low adherence in clinical practice observed with topiramate, lessening migraine burden, and improving quality of life in a broad migraine population.”
 

Superior tolerability

Commenting on the study, Alan Rapoport, MD, clinical professor of neurology at the University of California, Los Angeles, and editor-in-chief of Neurology Reviews, said this is “a very important, very well conducted trial that documents what many of us already suspected; erenumab clearly has better tolerability than topiramate as well as better efficacy.”

Dr. Rapoport, a past president of the International Headache Society, said the study highlights an area of unmet need in neurology practice.

“Despite most patients in the trial having chronic headaches for 20 years, 60% of them had never received preventive treatment,” he said, noting that this reflects current practice in the United States.

Dr. Rapoport said primary care providers in the United States prescribe preventive migraine medications to 10%-15% of eligible patients. Prescribing rates for general neurologists are slightly higher, he said, ranging from 35% to 40%, while headache specialists prescribe 70%-90% of the time.

“How can we improve this situation?” Dr. Rapoport asked. “For years we have tried to improve it with education, but we need to do a better job. We need to educate our primary care physicians in more practical ways. We have to teach them how to make a diagnosis of high frequency migraine and chronic migraine and strongly suggest that those patients be put on appropriate preventive medications.”

Barriers to care may be systemic, according to Dr. Rapoport.

“One issue in the U.S. is that patients with commercial insurance are almost always required to fail two or three categories of older oral preventive migraine medications before they can get a monoclonal antibody or gepants for prevention,” he said. “It would be good if we could change that system so that patients that absolutely need the better tolerated, more effective preventive medications could get them sooner rather than later. This will help them feel and function better, with less pain, and eventually bring down the cost of migraine therapy.”

While Dr. Reuter and colleagues concluded that revised treatment sequencing may be warranted after more trials show similar results, Dr. Rapoport suggested that “this was such a large, well-performed, 6-month study with few dropouts, that further trials to confirm these findings are unnecessary, in my opinion.”

The HER-MES trial was funded by Novartis. Dr. Reuter and colleagues disclosed additional relationships with Eli Lilly, Teva Pharmaceutical, Allergan, and others. Dr. Rapoport was involved in early topiramate trials for prevention and migraine, and is a speaker for Amgen.

Erenumab, a calcitonin-gene related peptide receptor (CGRP) inhibitor, is more tolerable and effective than topiramate for treating patients with migraine, according to data from almost 800 patients in the first head-to-head trial of its kind.

The findings suggest that erenumab may help overcome longstanding issues with migraine medication adherence, and additional supportive data may alter treatment sequencing, reported lead author Uwe Reuter, MD, professor at Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, and colleagues.

“So far, no study has been done in order to compare the efficacy of a monoclonal antibody targeting the CGRP pathway to that of a standard of care oral preventive drug,” the investigators wrote in Cephalalgia.

The phase 4 HER-MES trial aimed to address this knowledge gap by enrolling 777 adult patients with a history of migraine. All patients reported migraine with or without aura for at least 1 year prior to screening. At baseline, most patients (65%) reported 8-14 migraine days per months, followed by 4-7 days (24.0%), and at least 15 days (11.0%). No patients had previously received topiramate or a CGRP-targeting agent.

“HER-MES includes a broad migraine population with two-thirds of the patients in the high-frequency migraine spectrum,” the investigators noted. “Despite a mean disease duration of about 20 years, almost 60% of the patients had not received previous prophylactic treatment, which underlines the long-standing problem of undertreatment in migraine.”

The trial had a double-dummy design; patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive either subcutaneous erenumab (70 or 140 mg/month) plus oral placebo, or oral topiramate (50-100 mg/day) plus subcutaneous placebo. The topiramate dose was uptitrated over the first 6 weeks. Treatments were given for a total of 24 weeks or until discontinuation due to adverse events, which was the primary endpoint. The secondary endpoint was efficacy over months 4-6, defined as at least 50% reduction in monthly migraine days, compared with baseline. Other patient-reported outcomes were also evaluated.

After 24 weeks, 95.1% of patients were still enrolled in the trial. Discontinuations due to adverse events were almost four times as common in the topiramate group than the erenumab group (38.9% vs. 10.6%; odds ratio [OR], 0.19; confidence interval, 0.13-0.27; P less than .001). Efficacy findings followed suit, with 55.4% of patients in the erenumab group reporting at least 50% reduction in monthly migraine days, compared with 31.2% of patients in the topiramate group (OR, 2.76; 95% CI, 2.06-3.71; P less than.001).

Erenumab significantly improved monthly migraine days, headache impact test (HIT-6) scores, and short form health survey version (SF-35v2) scores, including physical and mental components (P less than .001 for all).

Safety profiles aligned with previous findings.

“Compared to topiramate, treatment with erenumab has a superior tolerability profile and a significantly higher efficacy,” the investigators concluded. “HER-MES supports the potential of erenumab in overcoming issues of low adherence in clinical practice observed with topiramate, lessening migraine burden, and improving quality of life in a broad migraine population.”
 

Superior tolerability

Commenting on the study, Alan Rapoport, MD, clinical professor of neurology at the University of California, Los Angeles, and editor-in-chief of Neurology Reviews, said this is “a very important, very well conducted trial that documents what many of us already suspected; erenumab clearly has better tolerability than topiramate as well as better efficacy.”

Dr. Rapoport, a past president of the International Headache Society, said the study highlights an area of unmet need in neurology practice.

“Despite most patients in the trial having chronic headaches for 20 years, 60% of them had never received preventive treatment,” he said, noting that this reflects current practice in the United States.

Dr. Rapoport said primary care providers in the United States prescribe preventive migraine medications to 10%-15% of eligible patients. Prescribing rates for general neurologists are slightly higher, he said, ranging from 35% to 40%, while headache specialists prescribe 70%-90% of the time.

“How can we improve this situation?” Dr. Rapoport asked. “For years we have tried to improve it with education, but we need to do a better job. We need to educate our primary care physicians in more practical ways. We have to teach them how to make a diagnosis of high frequency migraine and chronic migraine and strongly suggest that those patients be put on appropriate preventive medications.”

Barriers to care may be systemic, according to Dr. Rapoport.

“One issue in the U.S. is that patients with commercial insurance are almost always required to fail two or three categories of older oral preventive migraine medications before they can get a monoclonal antibody or gepants for prevention,” he said. “It would be good if we could change that system so that patients that absolutely need the better tolerated, more effective preventive medications could get them sooner rather than later. This will help them feel and function better, with less pain, and eventually bring down the cost of migraine therapy.”

While Dr. Reuter and colleagues concluded that revised treatment sequencing may be warranted after more trials show similar results, Dr. Rapoport suggested that “this was such a large, well-performed, 6-month study with few dropouts, that further trials to confirm these findings are unnecessary, in my opinion.”

The HER-MES trial was funded by Novartis. Dr. Reuter and colleagues disclosed additional relationships with Eli Lilly, Teva Pharmaceutical, Allergan, and others. Dr. Rapoport was involved in early topiramate trials for prevention and migraine, and is a speaker for Amgen.

Erenumab, a calcitonin-gene related peptide receptor (CGRP) inhibitor, is more tolerable and effective than topiramate for treating patients with migraine, according to data from almost 800 patients in the first head-to-head trial of its kind.

The findings suggest that erenumab may help overcome longstanding issues with migraine medication adherence, and additional supportive data may alter treatment sequencing, reported lead author Uwe Reuter, MD, professor at Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, and colleagues.

“So far, no study has been done in order to compare the efficacy of a monoclonal antibody targeting the CGRP pathway to that of a standard of care oral preventive drug,” the investigators wrote in Cephalalgia.

The phase 4 HER-MES trial aimed to address this knowledge gap by enrolling 777 adult patients with a history of migraine. All patients reported migraine with or without aura for at least 1 year prior to screening. At baseline, most patients (65%) reported 8-14 migraine days per months, followed by 4-7 days (24.0%), and at least 15 days (11.0%). No patients had previously received topiramate or a CGRP-targeting agent.

“HER-MES includes a broad migraine population with two-thirds of the patients in the high-frequency migraine spectrum,” the investigators noted. “Despite a mean disease duration of about 20 years, almost 60% of the patients had not received previous prophylactic treatment, which underlines the long-standing problem of undertreatment in migraine.”

The trial had a double-dummy design; patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive either subcutaneous erenumab (70 or 140 mg/month) plus oral placebo, or oral topiramate (50-100 mg/day) plus subcutaneous placebo. The topiramate dose was uptitrated over the first 6 weeks. Treatments were given for a total of 24 weeks or until discontinuation due to adverse events, which was the primary endpoint. The secondary endpoint was efficacy over months 4-6, defined as at least 50% reduction in monthly migraine days, compared with baseline. Other patient-reported outcomes were also evaluated.

After 24 weeks, 95.1% of patients were still enrolled in the trial. Discontinuations due to adverse events were almost four times as common in the topiramate group than the erenumab group (38.9% vs. 10.6%; odds ratio [OR], 0.19; confidence interval, 0.13-0.27; P less than .001). Efficacy findings followed suit, with 55.4% of patients in the erenumab group reporting at least 50% reduction in monthly migraine days, compared with 31.2% of patients in the topiramate group (OR, 2.76; 95% CI, 2.06-3.71; P less than.001).

Erenumab significantly improved monthly migraine days, headache impact test (HIT-6) scores, and short form health survey version (SF-35v2) scores, including physical and mental components (P less than .001 for all).

Safety profiles aligned with previous findings.

“Compared to topiramate, treatment with erenumab has a superior tolerability profile and a significantly higher efficacy,” the investigators concluded. “HER-MES supports the potential of erenumab in overcoming issues of low adherence in clinical practice observed with topiramate, lessening migraine burden, and improving quality of life in a broad migraine population.”
 

Superior tolerability

Commenting on the study, Alan Rapoport, MD, clinical professor of neurology at the University of California, Los Angeles, and editor-in-chief of Neurology Reviews, said this is “a very important, very well conducted trial that documents what many of us already suspected; erenumab clearly has better tolerability than topiramate as well as better efficacy.”

Dr. Rapoport, a past president of the International Headache Society, said the study highlights an area of unmet need in neurology practice.

“Despite most patients in the trial having chronic headaches for 20 years, 60% of them had never received preventive treatment,” he said, noting that this reflects current practice in the United States.

Dr. Rapoport said primary care providers in the United States prescribe preventive migraine medications to 10%-15% of eligible patients. Prescribing rates for general neurologists are slightly higher, he said, ranging from 35% to 40%, while headache specialists prescribe 70%-90% of the time.

“How can we improve this situation?” Dr. Rapoport asked. “For years we have tried to improve it with education, but we need to do a better job. We need to educate our primary care physicians in more practical ways. We have to teach them how to make a diagnosis of high frequency migraine and chronic migraine and strongly suggest that those patients be put on appropriate preventive medications.”

Barriers to care may be systemic, according to Dr. Rapoport.

“One issue in the U.S. is that patients with commercial insurance are almost always required to fail two or three categories of older oral preventive migraine medications before they can get a monoclonal antibody or gepants for prevention,” he said. “It would be good if we could change that system so that patients that absolutely need the better tolerated, more effective preventive medications could get them sooner rather than later. This will help them feel and function better, with less pain, and eventually bring down the cost of migraine therapy.”

While Dr. Reuter and colleagues concluded that revised treatment sequencing may be warranted after more trials show similar results, Dr. Rapoport suggested that “this was such a large, well-performed, 6-month study with few dropouts, that further trials to confirm these findings are unnecessary, in my opinion.”

The HER-MES trial was funded by Novartis. Dr. Reuter and colleagues disclosed additional relationships with Eli Lilly, Teva Pharmaceutical, Allergan, and others. Dr. Rapoport was involved in early topiramate trials for prevention and migraine, and is a speaker for Amgen.