The objective of this study was to evaluate the time-series relationships between stress, sleep duration, and headache pain among patients with chronic headaches. Sleep and stress have long been recognized as potential triggers of episodic headache (< 15 headache days/month), though prospective evidence is inconsistent and absent in patients diagnosed with chronic headaches (≥ 15 days/month). We reanalyzed data from a 28-day observational study of chronic migraine (n = 33) and chronic tension-type headache (n = 22) sufferers. Patients completed the Daily Stress Inventory and recorded headache and sleep variables using a daily sleep/headache diary. Stress ratings, duration of previous nights' sleep, and headache severity were modeled using a series of linear mixed models with random effects to account for individual differences in observed associations. Models were displayed using contour plots. Two consecutive days of either high stress or low sleep were strongly predictive of headache, whereas two days of low stress or adequate sleep were protective. When patterns of stress or sleep were divergent across days, headache risk was increased only when the earlier day was characterized by high stress or poor sleep. As predicted, headache activity in the combined model was highest when high stress and low sleep occurred concurrently during the prior 2 days denoting an additive effect. Future research is needed to expand on current findings among chronic headache patients and to develop individualized models that account for multiple simultaneous influences of headache trigger factors.

Objective To quantitatively synthesize extant literature on perceived triggers of primary headache disorders. Methods A meta-analytic review of headache trigger survey studies was conducted. Endorsement rates, assessment method, and headache and sample characteristics were extracted from included articles. Separate random-effects models were used to assess trigger endorsement rates and post-hoc meta-regressions examined potential moderator variables. Results 85 articles from 1958 to 2015 were included, involving 27,122 participants and querying 420 unique triggers (collapsed into 15 categories). Four-fifths (0.81; 95% CI .75 to .86) of individuals with migraine or tension-type headache endorsed at least one trigger. Rates increased with the number of categories queried (OR: 1.18, 1.08-1.30) and year of publication (OR: 1.04, 1.00-1.08). The triggers most commonly endorsed were stress (.58, .53-.63) and sleep (.41, .36-.47). Conclusions Extreme heterogeneity characterizes the headache trigger literature. Most individuals with a primary headache disorder perceive their attacks to be triggered by one or more precipitants, the most common of which are stress and sleep. However, trigger endorsement is influenced by method of assessment. Enhancing methodological consistency and prioritizing experimental studies would improve our understanding of headache triggers.

Objective To develop and validate a prediction model that forecasts future migraine attacks for an individual headache sufferer. Background Many headache patients and physicians believe that precipitants of headache can be identified and avoided or managed to reduce the frequency of headache attacks. Of the numerous candidate triggers, perceived stress has received considerable attention for its association with the onset of headache in episodic and chronic headache sufferers. However, no evidence is available to support forecasting headache attacks within individuals using any of the candidate headache triggers. Methods This longitudinal cohort with forecasting model development study enrolled 100 participants with episodic migraine with or without aura, and N = 95 contributed 4626 days of electronic diary data and were included in the analysis. Individual headache forecasts were derived from current headache state and current levels of stress using several aspects of the Daily Stress Inventory, a measure of daily hassles that is completed at the end of each day. The primary outcome measure was the presence/absence of any headache attack (head pain > 0 on a numerical rating scale of 0 to 10) over the next 24 hour period. Results After removing missing data (n = 431 days), participants in the study experienced a headache attack on 1613/4195 (38.5%) days. A generalized linear mixed-effects forecast model using either the frequency of stressful events or the perceived intensity of these events fit the data well. This simple forecasting model possessed promising predictive utility with an AUC of 0.73 (95%CI: 0.71 to 0.75) in the training sample and an AUC of 0.65 (95%CI: 0.6 to 0.67) in a leave-one-out validation sample. This forecasting model had a Brier Score of 0.202 and possessed good calibration between forecasted probabilities and observed frequencies but had only low levels of resolution (i.e., sharpness). Conclusions This study demonstrates that future headache attacks can be forecasted for a diverse group of individuals over time. Future work will enhance prediction through improvements in the assessment of stress as well as the development of other candidate domains to use in the models.

While over half of women with migraine report improvement during pregnancy, having a history of migraine may increase the chance of negative health outcomes. The state of pregnancy increases the risk of several dangerous secondary headache disorders, especially those associated with hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, and providers need to know the red flags to diagnose and treat emergently. Non-pharmacological migraine treatments can be instituted in advance of pregnancy as many are considered the safest options during pregnancy, but understanding the safety of medications and dietary supplements ensures appropriate care for the refractory migraine patient. New controversy exists over the safety of several historically routine and safe migraine treatment options in pregnancy, such as magnesium, acetaminophen, ondansetron, and butalbital. While it is not clear if breastfeeding decreases the postpartum recurrence of migraine, understanding safe treatment options during lactation can allow women to continue breastfeeding while achieving migraine relief.

Objective.-To provide updated evidence-based recommendations about when to obtain neuroimaging in patients with migraine.Methods.-Articles were included in the systematic review if they studied adults 18 and over who were seeking outpatient treatment for any type of migraine and who underwent neuroimaging (MRI or CT). Medline, Web of Science, and Cochrane Clinical Trials were searched from 1973 to August 31, 2018. Reviewers identified studies, extracted data, and assessed the quality of the evidence in duplicate. We assessed study quality using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.Results.-The initial search yielded 2269 publications. Twenty three articles met inclusion criteria and were included in the final review. The majority of studies were retrospective cohort or cross-sectional studies. There were 4 prospective observational studies. Ten studies evaluated the utility of CT only, 9 MRI only, and 4 evaluated both. Common abnormalities included chronic ischemia or atrophy with CT and MRI scanning, and non-specific white matter lesions with MRI. Clinically meaningful abnormalities requiring intervention were relatively rare. Clinically significant neuroimaging abnormalities in patients with headaches consistent with migraine without atypical features or red flags appeared no more common than in the general population.Recommendations.-There is no necessity to do neuroimaging in patients with headaches consistent with migraine who have a normal neurologic examination, and there are no atypical features or red flags present. Grade A Neuroimaging may be considered for presumed migraine for the following reasons: unusual, prolonged, or persistent aura; increasing frequency, severity, or change in clinical features, first or worst migraine, migraine with brainstem aura, migraine with confusion, migraine with motor manifestations (hemiplegic migraine), late-life migraine accompaniments, aura without headache, side-locked headache, and posttraumatic headache. Most of these are consensus based with little or no literature support. Grade C.(Headache 2020;60:318-336) OBJECTIVESThe American Headache Society (AHS) develops guidelines and practice parameters for clinicians. This guideline summarizes evidence from the existing literature about when to recommend neuroimaging in patients with migraine. We specifically reviewed Headache Maximum scores: Selection = 5, Comparability = 2, Outcome = 3, Total Quality Score = 10.

BACKGROUND: Early reports associating severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection with adverse pregnancy outcomes were biased by including only women with severe disease without controls. The Society for Obstetric Anesthesia and Perinatology (SOAP) coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) registry was created to compare peripartum outcomes and anesthetic utilization in women with and without SARS-CoV-2 infection delivering at institutions with widespread testing. METHODS: Deliveries from 14 US medical centers, from March 19 to May 31, 2020, were included. Peripartum infection was defined as a positive SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction test within 14 days of delivery. Consecutive SARS-CoV-2–infected patients with randomly selected control patients were sampled (1:2 ratio) with controls delivering during the same day without a positive test. Outcomes were obstetric (eg, delivery mode, hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, and delivery <37 weeks), an adverse neonatal outcome composite measure (primary), and anesthetic utilization (eg, neuraxial labor analgesia and anesthesia). Outcomes were analyzed using generalized estimating equations to account for clustering within centers. Sensitivity analyses compared symptomatic and asymptomatic patients to controls. RESULTS: One thousand four hundred fifty four peripartum women were included: 490 with SARS-CoV-2 infection (176 [35.9%] symptomatic) and 964 were controls. SARS-CoV-2 patients were slightly younger, more likely nonnulliparous, nonwhite, and Hispanic than controls. They were more likely to have diabetes, obesity, or cardiac disease and less likely to have autoimmune disease. After adjustment for confounders, individuals experiencing SARS-CoV-2 infection exhibited an increased risk for delivery <37 weeks of gestation compared to controls, 73 (14.8%) vs 98 (10.2%) (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.47; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.03–2.09). Effect estimates for other obstetric outcomes and the neonatal composite outcome measure were not meaningfully different between SARS-CoV-2 patients versus controls. In sensitivity analyses, compared to controls, symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 patients exhibited increases in cesarean delivery (aOR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.09–2.27), postpartum length of stay (aOR, 1.89; 95% CI, 1.18–2.60), and delivery <37 weeks of gestation (aOR, 2.08; 95% CI, 1.29–3.36). These adverse outcomes were not found in asymptomatic women versus controls. SARS-CoV-2 patients (asymptomatic and symptomatic) were less likely to receive neuraxial labor analgesia (aOR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.35–0.75) and more likely to receive general anesthesia for cesarean delivery (aOR, 3.69; 95% CI, 1.40–9.74) due to maternal respiratory failure. CONCLUSIONS: In this large, multicenter US cohort study of women with and without peripartum SARS-CoV-2 infection, differences in obstetric and neonatal outcomes seem to be mostly driven by symptomatic patients. Lower utilization of neuraxial analgesia in laboring patients with asymptomatic or symptomatic infection compared to patients without infection requires further investigation.

Objective The objective of this study was to explore the conditions necessary to assign causal status to headache triggers. Background The term “headache trigger” is commonly used to label any stimulus that is assumed to cause headaches. However, the assumptions required for determining if a given stimulus in fact has a causal-type relationship in eliciting headaches have not been explicated. Methods A synthesis and application of Rubin’s Causal Model is applied to the context of headache causes. From this application the conditions necessary to infer that one event (trigger) causes another (headache) are outlined using basic assumptions and examples from relevant literature. Results Although many conditions must be satisfied for a causal attribution, three basic assumptions are identified for determining causality in headache triggers: 1) constancy of the sufferer; 2) constancy of the trigger effect; and 3) constancy of the trigger presentation. A valid evaluation of a potential trigger’s effect can only be undertaken once these three basic assumptions are satisfied during formal or informal studies of headache triggers. Conclusions Evaluating these assumptions is extremely difficult or infeasible in clinical practice, and satisfying them during natural experimentation is unlikely. Researchers, practitioners, and headache sufferers are encouraged to avoid natural experimentation to determine the causal effects of headache triggers. Instead, formal experimental designs or retrospective diary studies using advanced statistical modeling techniques provide the best approaches to satisfy the required assumptions and inform causal statements about headache triggers.

No abstract