ObjectiveTo evaluate non‐invasive vagus nerve stimulation (nVNS) as an acute cluster headache (CH) treatment.BackgroundMany patients with CH experience excruciating attacks at a frequency that is not sufficiently addressed by current symptomatic treatments.MethodsOne hundred fifty subjects were enrolled and randomized (1:1) to receive nVNS or sham treatment for ≤1 month during a double‐blind phase; completers could enter a 3‐month nVNS open‐label phase. The primary end point was response rate, defined as the proportion of subjects who achieved pain relief (pain intensity of 0 or 1) at 15 minutes after treatment initiation for the first CH attack without rescue medication use through 60 minutes. Secondary end points included the sustained response rate (15‐60 minutes). Subanalyses of episodic cluster headache (eCH) and chronic cluster headache (cCH) cohorts were prespecified.ResultsThe intent‐to‐treat population comprised 133 subjects: 60 nVNS‐treated (eCH, n = 38; cCH, n = 22) and 73 sham‐treated (eCH, n = 47; cCH, n = 26). A response was achieved in 26.7% of nVNS‐treated subjects and 15.1% of sham‐treated subjects (P = .1). Response rates were significantly higher with nVNS than with sham for the eCH cohort (nVNS, 34.2%; sham, 10.6%; P = .008) but not the cCH cohort (nVNS, 13.6%; sham, 23.1%; P = .48). Sustained response rates were significantly higher with nVNS for the eCH cohort (P = .008) and total population (P = .04). Adverse device effects (ADEs) were reported by 35/150 (nVNS, 11; sham, 24) subjects in the double‐blind phase and 18/128 subjects in the open‐label phase. No serious ADEs occurred.ConclusionsIn one of the largest randomized sham‐controlled studies for acute CH treatment, the response rate was not significantly different (vs sham) for the total population; nVNS provided significant, clinically meaningful, rapid, and sustained benefits for eCH but not for cCH, which affected results in the total population. This safe and well‐tolerated treatment represents a novel and promising option for eCH. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01792817.

No abstract

Summary:Purpose: Reversible posterior leukoencephalopathy syndrome (RPLS) is an increasingly recognized brain disorder most commonly associated with malignant hypertension, toxemia of pregnancy, or the use of immunosuppressive agents. When associated with acute hypertension, RPLS typically occurs concurrently with the fulminant clinical syndrome of hypertensive encephalopathy. We describe occipital lobe seizures, in the setting of only moderate elevations of blood pressure, as the major clinical manifestation of RPLS.Methods: Two patients from the Dent Neurologic Institute are presented with clinical and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) correlation.Results: New onset secondarily generalized occipital seizures were noted, with MRI findings consistent with RPLS. Both of the patients had chronic renal failure and a moderate acute exacerbation of chronic hypertension. Other features of hypertensive encephalopathy were lacking, such as headache, nausea, papilledema, and an altered sensorium. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) showed edematous lesions primarily involving the posterior supratentorial white matter and corticomedullary junction, consistent with RPLS. With lowered blood pressure, the MRI lesions resolved and the patients became seizure-free without requiring chronic anticonvulsant therapy.Conclusions: Occipital seizures may represent the only major neurologic manifestation of RPLS due to acute hypertension, especially in patients with renal failure. Other evidence of hypertensive encephalopathy, such as cerebral signs and symptoms, need not be present. Blood pressure elevations may be only moderate. Early recognition of this readily treatable cause of occipital seizures may obviate the need for extensive, invasive investigations. Despite the impressive lesions on MRI, prompt treatment of this disorder carries a favorable prognosis. Key Words: Hypertensive encephalopathy-leukoencephalopathy-MRI-Seizures-Occipital lobe.Occipital lobe seizures are a rare form of partial epilepsy (I), with a variety of underlying causes that may be detected by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Commonly recognized etiologies include fixed causes such as traumatic brain injury, mass lesions, developmental anomalies, and chronic encephalitis (1-3). In addition, reversible posterior leukoencephalopathy syndrome (RLPS), elaborated by Hinchey et al. (4), is an increasingly recognized brain disorder of various etiologies which may include occipital lobe dysfunction and seizures accompanied by posterior MRI brain lesions (5)(6)(7)(8)(9)(10)(11)(12)(13)(14)(15)(16)(17)(18)(19)(20). When secondary to malignant hypertension, RPLS typically occurs on MRI along with the fulminant clinical syndrome of hypertensive encephalopathy (4,12-15,2 1,22 hypertension who developed new-onset, secondarily generalized occipital seizures with disappearing posteriorly-predominant MRI brain lesions. Occipital lobe epilepsy is a known manifestation of RPLS-eclampsia (23). However, occipital seizures have not been previously reported as the major manifestatio...

Background.-The American Registry for Migraine Research (ARMR) is a multicenter, prospective, longitudinal patient registry, biorepository, and neuroimaging repository that collects clinical data, electronic health record (EHR) data, blood samples, and brain imaging data from individuals with migraine or other headache types. In this manuscript, we outline ARMR research methods and report baseline data describing an initial cohort of ARMR participants.Methods.-Adults with any International Classification of Headache Disorders (ICHD) diagnosis were prospectively enrolled from one of the 8 participating headache specialty centers. At baseline, ARMR participants complete web-based questionnaires, clinicians enter the participant's ICHD diagnoses, an optional blood specimen is collected, and neuroimaging data are uploaded to the ARMR neuroimaging repository. Participants maintain the ARMR daily headache diary longitudinally and follow-up questionnaires are completed by participants every 3 months. EHR data are integrated into the ARMR database from a subset of ARMR sites. Herein, we describe the ARMR methodology and report the summary data from ARMR participants who had, from February 2016 to May 2019, completed at least 1 baseline questionnaire from which data are reported in this manuscript. Descriptive statistics are used to provide an overview of patient's sociodemographics, headache diagnoses, headache characteristics, most bothersome symptoms other than headache, headache-related disability, comorbidities, and treatments.Results.-Data were available from 996 ARMR participants, enrolled from Mayo Clinic Arizona, Institute. Among ARMR participants, 86.7% (n = 864) were female and the mean age at the time of enrollment was 48.6 years (±13.9; range 18-84). The most common provider-reported diagnosis was chronic migraine (n = 622), followed by migraine without aura (n = 327), migraine with aura (n = 196), and medication overuse headache (n = 65). Average headache frequency was 19.1 ± 9.2 days per month (n = 751), with 68% reporting at least 15 headache days per month. Sensitivity to light was the most frequent (n = 222) most bothersome symptom overall, other than headache, but when present, cognitive dysfunction was most frequently (n = 157) the most bothersome symptom other than headache. Average migraine disability assessment (MIDAS) score was 52 ± 49 (n = 760), (very severe headache-related disability); however, 17% of the ARMR population had MIDAS scores suggesting "no" or "mild" disability. The most common non-headache health issues were allergies (n = 364), back pain (n = 296), neck pain (n = 296), depression (n = 292), and anxiety (n = 278). Nearly 85% (n = 695) of patients were using preventive medications and 24.7% were using non-medication preventive therapy (eg, vitamins and neuromodulation). The most common preventive medication classes were neurotoxins, anticonvulsants, antidepressants, vitamins/supplements, and anticalcitonin gene-related peptide ligand or receptor-targeted monoclonal antibodies. Nearl...

No abstract

No abstract

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.

Sinonasal imaging is performed in 2 major clinical scenarios: inflammatory rhinosinusitis or suspected mass lesion. Rhinosinusitis affects more than 16% of the US population annually. It poses an immense economic burden, accounting for more than 26 million outpatient visits annually and costing more than $4.3 billion annually in direct medical expenses. Most cases of uncomplicated acute and subacute rhinosinusitis are diagnosed clinically and should not require any imaging procedure. CT of the sinuses without contrast is the imaging method of choice in patients with recurrent acute sinusitis or chronic sinusitis. Sinusitis cannot be diagnosed on the basis of imaging findings alone. CT scan findings should be interpreted in conjunction with clinical and endoscopic findings. MRI is currently used for evaluation of sinus disease as a complementary study in cases of aggressive sinus infection with ocular/intracranial complications, potential invasive fungal sinusitis in immunocompromised patients or in the evaluation of a sinonasal mass. The ACR Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed every 2 years by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and review include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer-reviewed journals and the application of a well-established consensus methodology (modified Delphi) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures by the panel. In those instances where evidence is lacking or not definitive, expert opinion may be used to recommend imaging or treatment.