Introduction Headache is the most prevalent neurological manifestation in adults and one of the leading causes of disability worldwide. In children and adolescents, headaches are arguably responsible for a remarkable impact on physical and psychological issues, yet high-quality evidence is scarce. Material and methods We searched cross-sectional and cohort studies in Embase, Medline, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases from January 1988 to June 2022 to identify the prevalence of headaches in 8–18 years old individuals. The risk of bias was examined with the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) scale. A random-effects model was used to estimate the pooled prevalence of pediatric headache. Subgroup analyses based on headache subtypes were also conducted. Results Out of 5,486 papers retrieved electronically, we identified 48 studies that fulfilled our inclusion criteria. The pooled prevalence of primary headaches was 11% for migraine overall [95%CI: 9–14%], 8% for migraine without aura (MwoA) [95%CI: 5–12%], 3% for migraine with aura (MwA) [95%CI:2–4%] and 17% for tension-type headache (TTH) [95% CI: 12–23%]. The pooled prevalence of overall primary headache in children and adolescents was 62% [95% CI: 53–70%], with prevalence in females and males of 38% [95% CI: 16–66%] and 27% [95% CI: 11–53%] respectively. After the removal of studies ranked as low-quality according to the JBI scale, prevalence rates were not substantially different. Epidemiological data on less common primary headaches, such as trigeminal autonomic cephalalgias, were lacking. Conclusion We found an overall remarkably high prevalence of primary headaches in children and adolescents, even if flawed by a high degree of heterogeneity. Further up-to-date studies are warranted to complete the picture of pediatric headache-related burden to enhance specific public interventions.

Background Triptans are migraine-specific acute treatments. A well-accepted definition of triptan failure is needed in clinical practice and for research. The primary aim of the present Consensus was to provide a definition of triptan failure. To develop this definition, we deemed necessary to develop as first a consensus definition of effective treatment of an acute migraine attack and of triptan-responder. Main body The Consensus process included a preliminary literature review, a Delphi round and a subsequent open discussion. According to the Consensus Panel, effective treatment of a migraine attack is to be defined on patient well-being featured by a) improvement of headache, b) relief of non-pain symptoms and c) absence of adverse events. An attack is considered effectively treated if patient’s well-being, as defined above, is restored within 2 hours and for at least 24 hours. An individual with migraine is considered as triptan-responder when the given triptan leads to effective acute attack treatment in at least three out of four migraine attacks. On the other hand, an individual with migraine is considered triptan non-responder in the presence of failure of a single triptan (not matching the definition of triptan-responder). The Consensus Panel defined an individual with migraine as triptan-resistant in the presence of failure of at least 2 triptans; triptan refractory, in the presence of failure to at least 3 triptans, including subcutaneous formulation; triptan ineligibile in the presence of an acknowledged contraindication to triptan use, as specified in the summary of product characteristics. Conclusions The novel definitions can be useful in clinical practice for the assessment of acute attack treatments patients with migraine. They may be helpful in identifying people not responding to triptans and in need for novel acute migraine treatments. The definitions will also be of help in standardizing research on migraine acute care.

Introduction Migraine prophylactic therapy has changed over recent years with the development and approval of monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) targeting the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) pathway. As new therapies emerged, leading headache societies have been providing guidelines on the initiation and escalation of such therapies. However, there is a lack of robust evidence looking at the duration of successful prophylaxis and the effects of therapy discontinuation. In this narrative review we explore both the biological and clinical rationale for prophylactic therapy discontinuation to provide a basis for clinical decision-making. Methods Three different literature search strategies were conducted for this narrative review. These include i) stopping rules in comorbidities of migraine in which overlapping preventives are prescribed, notably depression and epilepsy; ii) stopping rules of oral treatment and botox; iii) stopping rules of antibodies targeting the CGRP (receptor). Keywords were utilized in the following databases: Embase, Medline ALL, Web of Science Core collection, Cochran Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Google Scholar. Discussion Reasons to guide decision-making in stopping prophylactic migraine therapies include adverse events, efficacy failure, drug holiday following long-term administration, and patient-specific reasons. Certain guidelines contain both positive and negative stopping rules. Following withdrawal of migraine prophylaxis, migraine burden may return to pre-treatment level, remain unchanged, or lie somewhere in-between. The current suggestion to discontinue CGRP(-receptor) targeted mAbs after 6 to 12 months is based on expert opinion, as opposed to robust scientific evidence. Current guidelines advise the clinician to assess the success of CGRP(-receptor) targeted mAbs after three months. Based on excellent tolerability data and the absence of scientific data, we propose if no other reasons apply, to stop the use of mAbs when the number of migraine days decreases to four or fewer migraine days per month. There is a higher likelihood of developing side effects with oral migraine preventatives, and so we suggest stopping these drugs according to the national guidelines if they are well tolerated. Conclusion Translational and basic studies are warranted to investigate the long-term effects of a preventive drug after its discontinuation, starting from what is known about the biology of migraine. In addition, observational studies and, eventually, clinical trials focusing on the effect of discontinuation of migraine prophylactic therapies, are essential to substantiate evidence-based recommendations on stopping rules for both oral preventives and CGRP(-receptor) targeted therapies in migraine. Graphical Abstract

Background Migraine is a disabling and chronic neurovascular headache disorder. Trigeminal vascular activation and release of calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) play a pivotal role in the pathogenesis of migraine. This knowledge has led to the development of CGRP(-receptor) therapies. Yet, a substantial proportion of patients do not respond to these treatments. Therefore, alternative targets for future therapies are warranted. The current narrative review provides a comprehensive overview of the pathophysiological role of these possible non-CGRP targets in migraine. Findings We covered targets of the metabotropic receptors (pituitary adenylate cyclase-activating polypeptide (PACAP), vasoactive intestinal peptide (VIP), amylin, and adrenomedullin), intracellular targets (nitric oxide (NO), phosphodiesterase-3 (PDE3) and -5 (PDE5)), and ion channels (potassium, calcium, transient receptor potential (TRP), and acid-sensing ion channels (ASIC)). The majority of non-CGRP targets were able to induce migraine-like attacks, except for (i) calcium channels, as it is not yet possible to directly target channels to elucidate their precise involvement in migraine; (ii) TRP channels, activation of which can induce non-migraine headache; and (iii) ASICs, as their potential in inducing migraine attacks has not been investigated thus far. Drugs that target its receptors exist for PACAP, NO, and the potassium, TRP, and ASIC channels. No selective drugs exist for the other targets, however, some existing (migraine) treatments appear to indirectly antagonize responses to amylin, adrenomedullin, and calcium channels. Drugs against PACAP, NO, potassium channels, TRP channels, and only a PAC1 antibody have been tested for migraine treatment, albeit with ambiguous results. Conclusion While current research on these non-CGRP drug targets has not yet led to the development of efficacious therapies, human provocation studies using these targets have provided valuable insight into underlying mechanisms of migraine headaches and auras. Further studies are needed on these alternative therapies in non-responders of CGRP(-receptor) targeted therapies with the ultimate aim to pave the way towards a headache-free future for all migraine patients.

Multiple drugs targeting the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor have been developed for the treatment of migraine. Here, the effect of the small-molecule CGRP receptor antagonist zavegepant (0.1 nM–1 µM) on CGRP-induced relaxation in isolated human coronary arteries (HCAs) was investigated. A Schild plot was constructed and a pA2 value was calculated to determine the potency of zavegepant. The potency and Schild plot slopes of atogepant, olcegepant, rimegepant, telcagepant, ubrogepant and zavegepant in HCAs and human middle meningeal arteries (HMMAs), obtained from our earlier studies, were compared. Zavegepant shifted the concentration–response curve to CGRP in HCAs. The corresponding Schild plot slope was not different from unity, resulting in a pA2 value of 9.92 ± 0.24. No potency difference between HCAs and HMMAs was observed. Interestingly, olcegepant, atogepant and rimegepant, with a Schild plot slope < 1 in HCAs, were all >1 log unit more potent in HMMAs than in HCAs, while telcagepant, ubrogepant and zavegepant, with a Schild plot slope not different from unity, showed similar (<1 log difference) potency across both tissues. As a Schild plot slope < 1 may point to the involvement of multiple receptors, it is important to further identify the receptors involved in the relaxation to CGRP in HCAs, which may be used to improve the cardiovascular safety of future antimigraine drugs.