ObjectiveThe aim of this paper is to critically re-appraise the published trials assessing amitriptyline for migraine prophylaxis.MethodsWe report our methods and results following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews (PRISMA), by searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, and ClinicalTrials.gov for randomized trials of pharmacologic treatments for migraine prophylaxis. We included randomized trials that compared amitriptyline with placebo for migraine prophylaxis in adults. Our outcomes of interest were informed by the Outcome Set for preventive intervention trials in chronic and episodic migraine (COSMIG) and include the proportion of patients who experience a 50% or more reduction in migraine days per month, migraine days per month, and adverse events leading to discontinuation.We assessed risk of bias by using a modified Cochrane RoB 2.0 tool and the certainty of evidence by using the GRADE approach.ResultsOur search yielded 10.826 unique records, of which three trials (n = 622) were eligible for data synthesis and analysis. We found moderate certainty evidence that amitriptyline increases the proportion of patients who experience a 50% or more reduction in monthly migraine days, compared to placebo (relative risk: 1.60 (95% CI 1.17 to 2.19); absolute risk difference: 165 more per 1,000 (95% CI 47 more to 327 more). We found moderate certainty evidence that amitriptyline increases the proportion of patients who discontinue due to adverse events compared to placebo (risk difference: 0.05 (95% CI 0.01 to 0.10); absolute risk difference: 50 more per 1,000 (95% CI 10 more to 100 more).ConclusionsOur meta-analysis showed that amitriptyline may have a prophylactic role in migraine patients, however these results are far from robust. This warrants further large-scale research to evaluate the role of amitriptyline in migraine prevention.

Introduction Subcutaneous galcanezumab was an effective, well-tolerated preventive treatment for adults with episodic (EM) or chronic migraine (CM) in 4 phase 3 randomized controlled trials: EVOLVE-1, EVOLVE-2, REGAIN, and CONQUER. Number needed to treat (NNT) and to harm (NNH) are metrics of effect size used to evaluate benefit-risk profiles. This study evaluated NNT, NNH, and benefit-risk profiles (measured as likelihood to be helped or harmed, LHH) of galcanezumab 120 mg versus placebo in patients with EM or CM. Methods Primary efficacy outcomes were responses defined as >= 30%, >= 50%, and >= 75% reductions from baseline in number of monthly migraine headache days in patients with EM (EVOLVE-1; EVOLVE-2; CONQUER) and CM (REGAIN; CONQUER); corresponding NNTs to achieve respective responses; and corresponding NNHs for discontinuations due to adverse events (DCAEs) among the safety population. Secondary efficacy outcomes were responses for patients with >= 2 failed prior preventive treatments due to lack of efficacy and/or for tolerability reasons. All LHHs were based on >= 50% response and DCAEs. Results During double-blind treatment periods with galcanezumab 120 mg, NNT to achieve >= 30% and >= 50% responses ranged from 4 to 10 and NNT to achieve >= 75% responses ranged from 5 to 23 in individual trials. NNH ranged from 93 to 1000, while LHH ranged from 18.6 to 104.6. NNTs were generally more robust among patients with EM than with CM; however, in patients with failure of >= 2 prior preventive treatments, NNTs to achieve >= 30% and >= 50% responses were similar between patients with CM and EM. NNHs were imputed as 1000 for both migraine types. Resulting LHHs were 178.8 (EM) and 127 (CM). Conclusion Across 4 trials, galcanezumab 120 mg demonstrated a favorable benefit-risk profile versus placebo, based on low NNTs to achieve response and high NNHs associated with DCAEs. LHH values consistently far exceeded 1.

Background New treatments are currently offering new opportunities and challenges in clinical management and research in the migraine field. There is the need of homogenous criteria to identify candidates for treatment escalation as well as of reliable criteria to identify refractoriness to treatment. To overcome those issues, the European Headache Federation (EHF) issued a Consensus document to propose criteria to approach difficult-to-treat migraine patients in a standardized way. The Consensus proposed well-defined criteria for resistant migraine (i.e., patients who do not respond to some treatment but who have residual therapeutic opportunities) and refractory migraine (i.e., patients who still have debilitating migraine despite maximal treatment efforts). The aim of this study was to better understand the perceived impact of resistant and refractory migraine and the attitude of physicians involved in migraine care toward those conditions. Methods We conducted a web-questionnaire-based cross-sectional international study involving physicians with interest in headache care. Results There were 277 questionnaires available for analysis. A relevant proportion of participants reported that patients with resistant and refractory migraine were frequently seen in their clinical practice (49.5% for resistant and 28.9% for refractory migraine); percentages were higher when considering only those working in specialized headache centers (75% and 46% respectively). However, many physicians reported low or moderate confidence in managing resistant (8.1% and 43.3%, respectively) and refractory (20.7% and 48.4%, respectively) migraine patients; confidence in treating resistant and refractory migraine patients was different according to the level of care and to the number of patients visited per week. Patients with resistant and refractory migraine were infrequently referred to more specialized centers (12% and 19%, respectively); also in this case, figures were different according to the level of care. Conclusions This report highlights the clinical relevance of difficult-to-treat migraine and the presence of unmet needs in this field. There is the need of more evidence regarding the management of those patients and clear guidance referring to the organization of care and available opportunities.

Objective This internet survey aimed to analyze the activity of midolordecabeza.org, a specialized website for headache stakeholders. Background eHealth tools, such as websites, can be educational for stakeholders of a specific disease, such as patients. This is particularly helpful in chronic disorders such as migraine. eHealth also enhances patient-centered outcome research. The website midolordecabeza.org has the stated aim of organizing key information on headache making it accessible and useful for all stakeholders, and, eventually promoting patient participation. Methods We analyzed Google Analytics (GA) data to study the web's activity, traffic source, geographical distribution of access, registered-user behavior, electronic device performance, and temporary references with greater web activity. Results From January 2015 until December 2020, the website registered 1,121,585 visitors, 1,775,953 sessions, and a total of 3,833,144 views with an average time per session of nearly 2 min. Higher data traffic has been registered in Spanish-speaking countries such as Spain (33.3%; 591,256/1,775,953), where Spain's regions with higher views were statistically significantly correlated with the nationwide migraine prevalence (rho = 0.505; p = 0.039). In regard to social behavior, returning users were statistically significantly associated with being a woman (84.0%; 5696/6781), and they predominantly acceded from organic searches (50.6%; 3434/6781). When answering available open surveys, 72.5% (1827/2520) described their migraine as a disabling disease with high impact on their daily tasks and 64.4% (14,016/21,764) were unaware of what their headache diagnosis is. Conclusions Spanish-speaking patients with migraine around the world increasingly visited the headache-specialized website midolordecabeza.org using different electronic devices, showing great interest in their disease. This website allowed them to get updated information on their disease, share clinical data with physicians, and finally express their concerns.

Introduction Despite advances in the management of headache disorders, some patients with migraine do not experience adequate pain relief with acute and preventive treatments. It is the aim of the present document to provide a definition of those migraines which are difficult-to-treat, to create awareness of existence of this group of patients, to help Healthcare Authorities in understanding the implications, and to create a basis to develop a better pathophysiological understanding and to support further therapeutic advances. Main body Definitions were established with a consensus process using the Delphi method. Patients with migraine with or without aura or with chronic migraine can be defined as havingresistant migraineandrefractory migraineaccording to previous preventative failures.Resistant migraineis defined by having failed at least 3 classes of migraine preventatives and suffer from at least 8 debilitating headache days per month for at least 3 consecutive months without improvement; definition can be based on review of medical charts.Refractory migraineis defined by having failed all of the available preventatives and suffer from at least 8 debilitating headache days per month for at least 6 consecutive months. Drug failure may include lack of efficacy or lack of tolerability. Debilitating headache is defined as headache causing serious impairment to conduct activities of daily living despite the use of pain-relief drugs with established efficacy at the recommended dose and taken early during the attack; failure of at least two different triptans is required. Conclusions We hope, that the updated EHF definition will be able to solve the conflicts that have limited the use of definitions which have been put forward in the past. Only with a widely accepted definition, progresses in difficult-to-treat migraine can be achieved. This new definition has also the aim to increase the understanding of the impact of the migraine as a disease with all of its social, legal and healthcare implications. It is the hope of the EHF Expert Consensus Group that the proposed criteria will stimulate further clinical, scientific and social attention to patients who suffer from migraine which is difficult-to-treat.

Background and purpose OnabotulinumtoxinA is an effective preventive treatment for chronic migraine (CM). In CM, in addition to a reduction in headache frequency, a decreased reliance on oral prophylactics is also indicative of treatment effectiveness. This study aimed to quantify the change in the use of oral prophylactics after treatment with onabotulinumtoxinA in patients with CM. Methods This was a retrospective, multicentric, cross-sectional study. Patients with CM (International Classification of Headache Disorders-3beta) that had been treated with onabotulinumtoxinA were enrolled consecutively. We collected parameters related to each patient's pre-treatment situation, as well as their current situation, focusing on frequency and intensity of migraine, number of oral prophylactics and the respective cycle of onabotulinumtoxinA. Univariate and logistic regression analyses were performed. Results We included 542 patients, 90.0% of whom were taking oral preventive treatments. During treatment with onabotulinumtoxinA, 47.8% withdrew at least one prophylactic and 41.6% stopped using oral prophylactics altogether. Factors associated with a reduction or cessation of oral prophylactics were >50% improvement in frequency and intensity, remission to episodic migraine, use of topiramate as an initial treatment, increased number of infiltrations and shorter chronification period (P < 0.05). The multivariate analysis showed that a chronification period <20 months, more than five cycles of onabotulinumtoxinA, >50% improvement in pain intensity and topiramate as an initial treatment were predictors of a reduction in oral prophylactics (area under the curve, 70.3%;P < 0.001). Conclusions Our study demonstrated the efficacy and safety of onabotulinumtoxinA. This treatment reduced the use of oral prophylactics. Withdrawal of oral prophylactics was most likely to occur after five cycles of treatment.

OnabotulinumtoxinA has been demonstrated to be effective as a preventive treatment in patients with chronic migraine (CM). Five years after the approval of onabotulinumtoxinA in Spain, the Headache Study Group of the Spanish Society of Neurology considered it worthwhile to gather a group of experts in treating patients with CM in order to draw up, based on current evidence and our own experience, a series of guidelines aimed at facilitating the use of the drug in daily clinical practice. For this purpose, we posed 12 questions that we ask ourselves as doctors, and which we are also asked by our patients. Each author responded to one question, and the document was then reviewed by everyone. We hope that this review will constitute a practical tool to help neurologists treating patients with CM. © 2017 Sociedad Española de Neurología

Chronic headaches encompass different types of headaches (primary and secondary). Proper clinical history and detailed physical and neurological exam are required in order to perform additional diagnostic tests. Most of the patients suffer primary headache syndromes. Sometimes, pain becomes chronic by the abuse of analgesic drugs. In patients older than 50 years of age, erythrocyte sedimentation rate has to be performed in order to rule out temporal arteritis diagnostic. When warning signs or suspicious of atypical headaches are present, brain imaging tests are required. Underlying cause determines the treatment. Sympthomatic pain treatment is required, but analgesic drugs must be limited. In order to reduce the intensity and frequency of bouts, prophylactic treatment is indicated for chronic primary headaches.