Objective To describe a standardized methodology for the performance of peripheral nerve blocks (PNBs) in the treatment of headache disorders. Background PNBs have long been employed in the management of headache disorders, but a wide variety of techniques are utilized in literature reports and clinical practice. Methods The American Headache Society Special Interest Section for PNBs and other Interventional Procedures convened meetings during 2010‐2011 featuring formal discussions and agreements about the procedural details for occipital and trigeminal PNBs. A subcommittee then generated a narrative review detailing the methodology. Results PNB indications may include select primary headache disorders, secondary headache disorders, and cranial neuralgias. Special procedural considerations may be necessary in certain patient populations, including pregnancy, the elderly, anesthetic allergy, prior vasovagal attacks, an open skull defect, antiplatelet/anticoagulant use, and cosmetic concerns. PNBs described include greater occipital, lesser occipital, supratrochlear, supraorbital, and auriculotemporal injections. Technical success of the PNB should result in cutaneous anesthesia. Targeted clinical outcomes depend on the indication, and include relief of an acute headache attack, terminating a headache cycle, and transitioning out of a medication‐overuse pattern. Reinjection frequency is variable, depending on the indications and agents used, and the addition of corticosteroids may be most appropriate when treating cluster headache. Conclusions These recommendations from the American Headache Society Special Interest Section for PNBs and other Interventional Procedures members for PNB methodology in headache disorder treatment are derived from the available literature and expert consensus. With the exception of cluster headache, there is a paucity of evidence, and further research may result in the revision of these recommendations to improve the outcome and safety of these interventions.

Both BoNTA and DVPX significantly reduced disability associated with migraine; BoNTA had a favorable tolerability profile compared with DVPX.

Introduction Combination use of onabotulinumtoxinA and calcitonin gene–related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) has the potential to be more effective than either therapy alone for migraine prevention. Methods This retrospective, longitudinal chart review included adults with chronic migraine treated at one clinical site with ≥ 2 consecutive cycles of onabotulinumtoxinA and ≥ 1 month of subsequent combination treatment with CGRP mAbs. Charts at time of mAb prescription (baseline) and up to four visits ~ 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-baseline were reviewed for safety, tolerability, and outcome measures (monthly headache days [MHDs], headache intensity, and migraine-related disability [MIDAS]). Results Of 300 charts reviewed, 257 patients met eligibility criteria (mean age: 50 years; 82% women). Average headache frequency was 21.5 MHDs before initiation of onabotulinumtoxinA and 12.1 MHDs before adding CGRP mAb therapy. Prescribed mAbs were erenumab (78%), fremanezumab (6%), and galcanezumab (16%). Over the entire study, patients discontinued CGRP mAb more frequently than onabotulinumtoxinA (23 vs. 3%). Adverse events occurred in 28% of patients, most commonly constipation (9%). Compared with onabotulinumtoxinA alone (baseline), MHDs decreased significantly at all visits (mean decrease: 3.5–4.0 MHDs over ~ 6–12 months of combination treatment); 45.1% of patients had clinically meaningful improvement in migraine-related disability (≥ 5-point reduction in MIDAS score) after ~ 6 months. Conclusions In this real-world study, combination treatment with onabotulinumtoxinA and CGRP mAbs was well tolerated, with no new safety signals identified, and was associated with additional clinically meaningful benefits. More real-world and controlled trials should be considered to further assess safety and potential benefits of combination treatment. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40122-021-00264-x.

ObjectiveTo study the efficacy and safety of lasmiditan for acute treatment of migraine in patients using migraine preventive medications.BackgroundWhile lasmiditan has been proven to be an effective acute treatment for migraine, its effectiveness has not been examined when used concurrently with migraine preventives.MethodsSAMURAI and SPARTAN were similarly designed, double-blind, phase 3, placebo-controlled studies of patients 18 years or older with 3 to 8 migraine attacks per month. Patients were randomized to treat a migraine attack with oral lasmiditan 50 mg (SPARTAN only), 100 mg, 200 mg, or placebo. Migraine preventives were allowed as long as doses were stable for 3 months prior to screening and were unchanged during the study. Preventive medications with established or probable efficacy, as recommended by the American Academy of Neurology, the American Headache Society, and the European Headache Federation, plus botulinum toxin type A and candesartan, were included. Within the subgroups of patients using and not using preventive therapies, lasmiditan and placebo groups were analyzed for the outcome of pain-free at 2 h and other efficacy outcomes. The subgroups of patients using and not using preventive therapies were compared and interaction p-values were calculated for safety and efficacy outcomes.ResultsIn these trials, 698 of 3981 patients (17.5%) used migraine preventive treatments. Among patients using preventives, all lasmiditan doses resulted in significantly more patients being pain-free at 2 h, compared to placebo (p < 0.05). Primary efficacy outcome (pain-free at 2 h), key secondary outcome (most bothersome symptom-free at 2 h) and all other efficacy outcomes were not significantly different between patients using or not using migraine preventives (all interaction p-values ≥0.1). Rates of adverse events were similar for patients using and not using preventive medications.ConclusionsLasmiditan was more effective than placebo for the acute treatment of migraine in patients concurrently using migraine preventive medications. Lasmiditan efficacy and safety measures were similar for patients using and not using preventive medications.Trial registrationSAMURAI (NCT02439320) and SPARTAN (NCT02605174). Registered 18 March 2015.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s10194-019-1032-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

In this pilot study, there were no safety concerns related to the combination of t-PA and clomethiazole. The combination paradigm proved feasible, although many patients received clomethiazole several hours after thrombolysis; future studies must require prompt administration of the neuroprotectant either before or during administration of the thrombolytic. Patients with major strokes (TACS) may have the potential to benefit from the combination of t-PA and clomethiazole.

Introduction Erenumab, a first-in-class monoclonal antibody targeting the calcitonin gene-related peptide pathway, was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2018 for the prevention of migraine in adults. There is limited data available on its impact in real-world settings. The study aim was to characterize the real-world treatment profiles, clinical outcomes, and healthcare resource utilization of patients prescribed erenumab from select major US headache centers. Methods A retrospective chart review of patients with migraine treated with erenumab for at least 3 months across five major headache centers was conducted. Data was collected from patient charts between April 2019 and April 2020 and included patient and clinical characteristics, migraine medication use, and outpatient visits. The date of the first prescription fill of erenumab was defined as the index date. The baseline period comprised the 3 months prior to the index date and the study period comprised the at least 3 months on erenumab treatment. Results Data from a total of 1034 patients with chronic migraine with a mean of 9.3 months of erenumab treatment were analyzed. Patients were on average 48 years old, 86% were female, and 79% were white. Patients had a mean of 5 preventive treatment failures prior to erenumab initiation. Patients used a mean of 2 preventive treatments (excluding erenumab) and 2 acute treatments during baseline and study periods. Among patients with effectiveness data, 45% of patients had improvement in physician-reported migraine severity and 35% experienced at least 50% reduction in mean headache/migraine days per month. The average number of monthly outpatient visits was 0.43 and 0.30 before and after erenumab initiation, respectively. Conclusion In this predominantly refractory chronic migraine population treated in select headache centers, patients had fewer headache/migraine days per month and outpatient visits after initiating erenumab. However, patients largely continued to be managed via a polypharmacy approach after erenumab initiation.

Primary headache disorders include tension-type headache and migraine. These headache types can be differentiated based on strict clinical definitions that depend on the patient's signs and symptoms. However, some of the clinical features can overlap, and in addition, the same comorbid conditions can occur in both headache types. Distinction between these headache types on occasion can be difficult due to comorbid conditions such as temporomandibular joint disorders and myofascial pain with forward head posturing, which may be present in both headache disorders, and thus result in similar features in both conditions. Furthermore, chronification, particularly of migraine, leads to a decrease in the associated symptoms of migraine, such as nausea, photophobia, and phonophobia, so that these headaches more closely resemble tension-type headache. Finally, in some patients, both tension-type headache and migraine may occur at different times.

EPIDEMIOLOGY AND DEMOGRAPHICS OF CHRONIC PAINIn the 21st century, pain has become the most common reason that patients seek medical attention, with as many as 50 million people in the United States experiencing chronic pain. 1,2 The prevalence of chronic pain among adults in this country has been estimated to be as high as 40% among the general population, and from 45% to 80% among nursing home residents. 3-5 Routinely, many chronic pain patients complain of failure to achieve adequate relief. 5 A United Kingdom survey that obtained responses from 3605 of 5036 randomly sampled individuals aged 25 to 75 years indicated that the prevalence of self-reported chronic pain in men and women was about the same (48.9% and 51.8%, respectively). The most common types of chronic pain were back pain, pain associated with arthritis, pain due to injury, and angina-related pain. 6 The prevalence of chronic pain appeared to increase with age in both sexes. 6 Thus, the number of individuals with chronic pain, and the costs associated with this condition, can be expected to increase as the population ages. When these data are considered together, chronic pain emerges as a major public health problem. 2,5