We thank Drs. Prakash and Lakhani for their comments 1 on our recent case report and literature review concerning coexisting trigeminal autonomic cephalalgias and hemicrania continua (HC). 2 Their scrutiny of the fine details of our patient's headache semiology and caution directed to us regarding the diagnosis of 2 rare primary headache disorders is appreciated.We are well aware that both cluster headache (CH) and HC are rare disorders, and our reported patient also had migraine. If these 3 disorders occur together by chance alone, the probability of their coexistence in the same patient in the same year can be crudely estimated by the product of their respective 1-year population prevalences. Therefore, just taking migraine (12%) 3 and CH (0.05%) 4 together, they would coexist in 0.006% of the population. As the population prevalence of HC is unknown, it would encompass a small minority of patients with chronic daily headache. Therefore, even by assigning it a rather generous 1% population prevalence, only 0.00006% of patients should have this combination of primary headache disorders. In a world with an estimated population of 7 billion, 4200 persons should have these 3 headache disorders coexist. Also, if HC and CH occur together with greater than chance frequency, opportunities for concomitant diagnoses expand. Though these diagnostic combinations are rare enough to motivate our report, they are far from impossible, as our patient and these calculations indicate.Having followed this patient and treated her, we are confident that the diagnoses we assigned are correct. We carefully considered alternative diagnostic configurations but they did not fit our observations as we outlined in our original report. Because these disorders may have a common mechanism the co-occurrence of these headache types may not be independent but may reflect a common predisposition.Drs. Prakash and Lakhani comment that we omitted 2 cases of coexisting CH and HC from our literature review. One of these cases was discussed in our report. 5 The other case was deliberately excluded because the patient did not meet our inclusion criteria. This interesting patient described by Rozen 6 had the onset of HC occur during a CH remission period. Our review focused on the simultaneous occurrence of HC and CH and the evolution of one disorder to the other. In this patient with CH responsive to verapamil, HC also responded, suggesting that at least in this patient, the disorders have similar underlying biology.Drs. Prakash and Lakhani also note that we did not reference 2 of their contributions. We regret that we missed their reviews on coexisting headache types 7 and secondary HC 8 and recommend these articles to the interested reader.