Indomethacin‐responsive headaches encompass a group of disorders which include a subset of the trigeminal autonomic cephalalgias and other paroxysmal, often precipitated primary headaches. Many patients show a rapid therapeutic response to indomethacin, which is limited by intolerability. Etoricoxib and celecoxib, selective inhibitors of cyclo‐oxygenase‐2 (COX‐2), spare gastroduodenal COX‐1 activity and are less likely to cause gastrointestinal adverse effects than indomethacin. We report a case series of eight patients, seven who responded to etoricoxib and one patient who responded to celecoxib.
{"title":"Etoricoxib and celecoxib sensitive indomethacin‐responsive headache disorders","authors":"M. Farag, A. Bahra","doi":"10.1111/head.14282","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/head.14282","url":null,"abstract":"Indomethacin‐responsive headaches encompass a group of disorders which include a subset of the trigeminal autonomic cephalalgias and other paroxysmal, often precipitated primary headaches. Many patients show a rapid therapeutic response to indomethacin, which is limited by intolerability. Etoricoxib and celecoxib, selective inhibitors of cyclo‐oxygenase‐2 (COX‐2), spare gastroduodenal COX‐1 activity and are less likely to cause gastrointestinal adverse effects than indomethacin. We report a case series of eight patients, seven who responded to etoricoxib and one patient who responded to celecoxib.","PeriodicalId":12845,"journal":{"name":"Headache: The Journal of Head and Face Pain","volume":"11 1","pages":"383 - 388"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"85117344","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Kaili Shi, Nan Zhang, Yanling Li, Hong Sun, Yizhou Huang, Meijuan Zhang, Shuyin Ma, Shuang Du, Yuxuan Cheng, Huiyang Qu, Shuqin Zhan
Funding information The Foundation of Shaanxi social development and technology research project No. 2016SF020; The Foundation of the Second Affiliated Hospital of Xi’an Jiaotong University No. RC (GG) 201109; The Foundation of Xi’an Science and technology plan project No. 2019114613YX001SF039(2); The Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities of Xi’an Jiaotong University No. 200995; No. xjj2014153; The National Natural Science Foundation of China No. 81070999; The new medical technology of the Second Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University: No. 201022, No. 201816, No. 201932.
{"title":"Be careful of Collet–Sicard syndrome: A rare result of carotid artery dissection","authors":"Kaili Shi, Nan Zhang, Yanling Li, Hong Sun, Yizhou Huang, Meijuan Zhang, Shuyin Ma, Shuang Du, Yuxuan Cheng, Huiyang Qu, Shuqin Zhan","doi":"10.1111/head.14276","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/head.14276","url":null,"abstract":"Funding information The Foundation of Shaanxi social development and technology research project No. 2016SF020; The Foundation of the Second Affiliated Hospital of Xi’an Jiaotong University No. RC (GG) 201109; The Foundation of Xi’an Science and technology plan project No. 2019114613YX001SF039(2); The Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities of Xi’an Jiaotong University No. 200995; No. xjj2014153; The National Natural Science Foundation of China No. 81070999; The new medical technology of the Second Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University: No. 201022, No. 201816, No. 201932.","PeriodicalId":12845,"journal":{"name":"Headache: The Journal of Head and Face Pain","volume":"21 1","pages":"389 - 394"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"81595711","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Headache basic science prize","authors":"Amynah A Pradhan, Vimala N. Bharadwaj","doi":"10.1111/head.14286","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/head.14286","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":12845,"journal":{"name":"Headache: The Journal of Head and Face Pain","volume":"104 2 1","pages":"221 - 222"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"76074900","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Introducing Headache’s “Trainee Highlights”","authors":"S. Bobker","doi":"10.1111/head.14280","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/head.14280","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":12845,"journal":{"name":"Headache: The Journal of Head and Face Pain","volume":"2008 1","pages":"225 - 226"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"82528290","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The aim of this study was to identify the manual therapy (MT) methods and techniques that have been evaluated for the treatment of cervicogenic headache (CH) and their effectiveness.
本研究的目的是确定手工疗法(MT)的方法和技术，已评估治疗颈源性头痛(CH)及其有效性。
{"title":"Effectiveness of manual therapy in the treatment of cervicogenic headache: A systematic review","authors":"Patricia Núñez-Cabaleiro, R. Leirós-Rodríguez","doi":"10.1111/head.14278","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/head.14278","url":null,"abstract":"The aim of this study was to identify the manual therapy (MT) methods and techniques that have been evaluated for the treatment of cervicogenic headache (CH) and their effectiveness.","PeriodicalId":12845,"journal":{"name":"Headache: The Journal of Head and Face Pain","volume":"52 1","pages":"271 - 283"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"72761786","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
A. Petersen, M. Barloese, Per Holm, R. Jensen, A. Snoer
Thank you for your interest in our study and for your valuable comments. First, we agree with Drs. Akhtera and Hashemi, and acknowledge the inherent limitations of this pilot study and the need for a controlled followup study. This we have also stated in the article. Based on our study and previous literature we still do not know if ketamine is effective as a preventive medication in cluster headache (CH) nor do we understand its potential mechanism of action. It could potentially be local as proposed in this comment as the sphenopalatine ganglion (SPG) is suspected to play an important role in the pain process in the trigeminovascular system.1 However, there is considerable anatomical variation2 and a magnetic resonance imaging study found that the SPG is not located just beneath the nasal mucosa, and simple diffusion may not be possible due to anatomical difficulties.3 Clinical trials in CH are lacking due to limited funding and many other challenges. The attacks are short and accompanied by agitation, which makes them difficult to study, and the exact attack onset is unpredictable, even though the attacks follow a circadian rhythm. Even though CH is not a rare disorder, many of the patients are in remission, thus limiting the recruitment potential for trials. Acute treatment should be initiated within minutes of headache onset restricting the design to be either hospital based or biased by patientreported outcomes. A potential future trial should therefore carefully consider what is logistically possible based on recruitment and funding opportunities. The involvement of an SPG approach is really interesting and we have also been involved in several of the past SPG– neuromodulation trials.1,4 We agree that an external block has many advantages as it is quick, cheap, and the side effects are minimal, but we find it very important that patients can selfadminister the acute therapy. It would be very interesting to see if it has a consistent effect in CH; however, comparing a manual block and a nasal spray may additionally cause blinding difficulties, a wellknown issue in CH. Statistics is always debatable, and Drs. Akhter and Hashemi wonder why we chose to apply the parametric tests. Therefore, we put forward our reasoning behind the paired ttest: The assumptions of a paired ttest are that the subjects should be independent, each paired measurement should be obtained from the same subject, and the difference should be normally distributed. The two first assumptions are easy and true for this trial but the normal distribution in small sample sizes is always debatable. We investigated the distribution before assuming normal distribution of the differences. We also collaborated with the biostatistical unit at University of Copenhagen before drafting the manuscript and they agreed with the statistics applied. Based on your comments we additionally performed a ShapiroWilk test for normality on the difference and the pvalue was 0.303. Based on this we b
{"title":"Intranasal treatment of cluster headache: A response","authors":"A. Petersen, M. Barloese, Per Holm, R. Jensen, A. Snoer","doi":"10.1111/head.14285","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/head.14285","url":null,"abstract":"Thank you for your interest in our study and for your valuable comments. First, we agree with Drs. Akhtera and Hashemi, and acknowledge the inherent limitations of this pilot study and the need for a controlled followup study. This we have also stated in the article. Based on our study and previous literature we still do not know if ketamine is effective as a preventive medication in cluster headache (CH) nor do we understand its potential mechanism of action. It could potentially be local as proposed in this comment as the sphenopalatine ganglion (SPG) is suspected to play an important role in the pain process in the trigeminovascular system.1 However, there is considerable anatomical variation2 and a magnetic resonance imaging study found that the SPG is not located just beneath the nasal mucosa, and simple diffusion may not be possible due to anatomical difficulties.3 Clinical trials in CH are lacking due to limited funding and many other challenges. The attacks are short and accompanied by agitation, which makes them difficult to study, and the exact attack onset is unpredictable, even though the attacks follow a circadian rhythm. Even though CH is not a rare disorder, many of the patients are in remission, thus limiting the recruitment potential for trials. Acute treatment should be initiated within minutes of headache onset restricting the design to be either hospital based or biased by patientreported outcomes. A potential future trial should therefore carefully consider what is logistically possible based on recruitment and funding opportunities. The involvement of an SPG approach is really interesting and we have also been involved in several of the past SPG– neuromodulation trials.1,4 We agree that an external block has many advantages as it is quick, cheap, and the side effects are minimal, but we find it very important that patients can selfadminister the acute therapy. It would be very interesting to see if it has a consistent effect in CH; however, comparing a manual block and a nasal spray may additionally cause blinding difficulties, a wellknown issue in CH. Statistics is always debatable, and Drs. Akhter and Hashemi wonder why we chose to apply the parametric tests. Therefore, we put forward our reasoning behind the paired ttest: The assumptions of a paired ttest are that the subjects should be independent, each paired measurement should be obtained from the same subject, and the difference should be normally distributed. The two first assumptions are easy and true for this trial but the normal distribution in small sample sizes is always debatable. We investigated the distribution before assuming normal distribution of the differences. We also collaborated with the biostatistical unit at University of Copenhagen before drafting the manuscript and they agreed with the statistics applied. Based on your comments we additionally performed a ShapiroWilk test for normality on the difference and the pvalue was 0.303. Based on this we b","PeriodicalId":12845,"journal":{"name":"Headache: The Journal of Head and Face Pain","volume":"21 1","pages":"396 - 397"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"73432315","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The study carried out by Ong et al. is noteworthy for the high level of clinical detail and the originality of the observation. The topographical relationship between the points of skin contact of the N95 face mask as well as protective eyewear with headache is novel and suggestive, and could give indications for the technical improvement of the devices. However, this research has some weaknesses, which only subsequent investigations can clarify. In workplaces, where no pollution problems are reported, a significant share of indoor workers (6% of males, 9% of females) suffer “often, at least once a week” from headaches attributed to the working environment. This symptom is significantly associated with occupational stress. The individual characteristics of workers, in particular anxiety and depression, significantly influence the reporting of headache. Among health care workers, headache is associated with occupational stress and with sleep problems, as well as with anxiety and depression that were significantly increased during the COVID-19 pandemics. This study did not take into account these variables. This may be a major limitation because the study population was drawn from high-risk hospital areas such as isolation wards (designated as “pandemic wards”), the emergency rooms and medical intensive care unit. In these settings, workers are highly likely to experience emotional overload. The association between Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) and headache could be, therefore, spurious and the real factor should be sought among the psychosocial factors associated with the pandemic. Furthermore, the study is entirely based on what workers remember of the situation before the epidemic, and this inevitably exposes to a possible recall bias. We are convinced that the association between PPE and headache is worthy of controlled longitudinal studies, which compare different types of PPE and take into account all confounding factors.
{"title":"Headaches, Personal Protective Equipment, and Psychosocial Factors Associated With COVID‐19 Pandemic","authors":"N. Magnavita, F. Chirico","doi":"10.1111/head.13882","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/head.13882","url":null,"abstract":"The study carried out by Ong et al. is noteworthy for the high level of clinical detail and the originality of the observation. The topographical relationship between the points of skin contact of the N95 face mask as well as protective eyewear with headache is novel and suggestive, and could give indications for the technical improvement of the devices. However, this research has some weaknesses, which only subsequent investigations can clarify. In workplaces, where no pollution problems are reported, a significant share of indoor workers (6% of males, 9% of females) suffer “often, at least once a week” from headaches attributed to the working environment. This symptom is significantly associated with occupational stress. The individual characteristics of workers, in particular anxiety and depression, significantly influence the reporting of headache. Among health care workers, headache is associated with occupational stress and with sleep problems, as well as with anxiety and depression that were significantly increased during the COVID-19 pandemics. This study did not take into account these variables. This may be a major limitation because the study population was drawn from high-risk hospital areas such as isolation wards (designated as “pandemic wards”), the emergency rooms and medical intensive care unit. In these settings, workers are highly likely to experience emotional overload. The association between Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) and headache could be, therefore, spurious and the real factor should be sought among the psychosocial factors associated with the pandemic. Furthermore, the study is entirely based on what workers remember of the situation before the epidemic, and this inevitably exposes to a possible recall bias. We are convinced that the association between PPE and headache is worthy of controlled longitudinal studies, which compare different types of PPE and take into account all confounding factors.","PeriodicalId":12845,"journal":{"name":"Headache: The Journal of Head and Face Pain","volume":"65 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"81519739","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
E. Loder, A. Starling, Clarimar Borrero-Mejias, R. Burch, Cynthia E. Armand, Olivia Begasse de Dhaem, Susan W. Broner, D. Buse, M. Candee, M. Chehrenama, C. Dougherty, J. Duvall, Jessica Gautreaux, L. Geweke, Trupti Gokani, Rashmi B Halker Singh, Shirin S Issa, Y. Jion, Regina Krel, J. Kriegler, Deena E Kuruvilla, E. Leroux, A. Metzler, M. Minen, T. Monteith, S. Nahas, Barbara L. Nye, Hope L. O’Brien, Yulia Y. Orlova, A. Pace, Jennifer M. Padilla, Alise Pham, R. Rastogi, M. Rayhill, J. Robblee, Courtney M Schusse, G. Simms, A. Vgontzas, Sarah E. Vollbracht, Jennifer Costello Werely, S. Goldberg
We are pleased and grateful that the members of the American Headache Society have chosen our article “Ten (Eleven) Things Not to Say to Your Female Colleagues” as the winner of this year’s Member’s Choice Award, especially since the other nominated manuscripts were of such high quality. We share this award with all members of the Migraine Mavens Facebook Group. Our group currently includes 164 women doctors, advanced practice providers, psychologists, and other doctoral-level researchers involved in Headache Medicine. We are grateful to the editor of Headache, Dr. Thomas Ward, for his willingness to publish something so different from Headache’s usual content. The main body of the paper consisted of a table whose first column listed and described 11 examples of sexist behavior, with three additional columns explaining why the behavior was wrong, what could or should have been done or said instead, and what bystanders who witness these events might do or say to intervene. In keeping with the spirit of the original piece, we have identified 10 (no, make that 11) remarkable things that happened because of this paper.
{"title":"Ten (No, Make that 11) Ways the Migraine Mavens Have Changed the Conversation About Sexism in Medicine","authors":"E. Loder, A. Starling, Clarimar Borrero-Mejias, R. Burch, Cynthia E. Armand, Olivia Begasse de Dhaem, Susan W. Broner, D. Buse, M. Candee, M. Chehrenama, C. Dougherty, J. Duvall, Jessica Gautreaux, L. Geweke, Trupti Gokani, Rashmi B Halker Singh, Shirin S Issa, Y. Jion, Regina Krel, J. Kriegler, Deena E Kuruvilla, E. Leroux, A. Metzler, M. Minen, T. Monteith, S. Nahas, Barbara L. Nye, Hope L. O’Brien, Yulia Y. Orlova, A. Pace, Jennifer M. Padilla, Alise Pham, R. Rastogi, M. Rayhill, J. Robblee, Courtney M Schusse, G. Simms, A. Vgontzas, Sarah E. Vollbracht, Jennifer Costello Werely, S. Goldberg","doi":"10.1111/head.13840","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/head.13840","url":null,"abstract":"We are pleased and grateful that the members of the American Headache Society have chosen our article “Ten (Eleven) Things Not to Say to Your Female Colleagues” as the winner of this year’s Member’s Choice Award, especially since the other nominated manuscripts were of such high quality. We share this award with all members of the Migraine Mavens Facebook Group. Our group currently includes 164 women doctors, advanced practice providers, psychologists, and other doctoral-level researchers involved in Headache Medicine. We are grateful to the editor of Headache, Dr. Thomas Ward, for his willingness to publish something so different from Headache’s usual content. The main body of the paper consisted of a table whose first column listed and described 11 examples of sexist behavior, with three additional columns explaining why the behavior was wrong, what could or should have been done or said instead, and what bystanders who witness these events might do or say to intervene. In keeping with the spirit of the original piece, we have identified 10 (no, make that 11) remarkable things that happened because of this paper.","PeriodicalId":12845,"journal":{"name":"Headache: The Journal of Head and Face Pain","volume":"90 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"82266157","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Seniha Ozudogru, J. Bartell, Heidi Yuan, K. Digre, S. Baggaley
Background The calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibody medications represent a novel and effective group of treatment options that can be added on to existing regimens such as onabotulinum toxin A injections for the treatment of refractory chronic migraine. Mechanistically, calcitonin gene-related peptide antibodies have been shown to inhibit Aδ fibers while onabotulinum toxin A modulates C fibers. Due to the differing loci of effect and anecdotal observations, a synergistic effect between these therapies is a theoretical possibility. The aim of this study was to investigate this relationship. Methods Patients from the University of Utah Headache Clinic having received at least two rounds of injections of onabotulinum toxin A who responded partially but not completely to therapy were started on a calcitonin gene-related peptide antibody medication. The patients’ responses to a brief headache burden questionnaire prior to their onabotulinum toxin A administration at the time of each visit were collected. Parameters we monitored included the number of headaches experienced while receiving onabotulinum toxin A therapy, the initial timing of the of the wear off period, and the number of headaches after that the wear off period began. Results Half of the 36 patients included in the study demonstrated an improvement in their headache burden based on at least one parameter from their questionnaire. These 18 patients reported an average increase of 2.0 additional weeks for the beneficial effects of the onabotulinum toxin A to wear off. Twelve patients reported no change in onabotulinum toxin A efficacy while 6 patients showed greater headache burden or lower onabotulinum toxin A treatment efficacy following the initiation of one of the monoclonal antibodies. Conclusions Our study highlights the potential of calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies to serve as an effective add-on therapy for chronic migraine patients receiving onabotulinum toxin A injections, especially those designated “responders” but still experiencing the drug wear off prior to the next round of injections. Larger sample sizes and more frequent at-home questionnaire data are needed to corroborate these results.
{"title":"The Effect of Adding Calcitonin Gene‐Related Peptide Monoclonal Antibodies to Onabotulinum Toxin A Therapy on Headache Burden: A Retrospective Observational Case Series","authors":"Seniha Ozudogru, J. Bartell, Heidi Yuan, K. Digre, S. Baggaley","doi":"10.21203/rs.2.22760/v1","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.2.22760/v1","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Background The calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibody medications represent a novel and effective group of treatment options that can be added on to existing regimens such as onabotulinum toxin A injections for the treatment of refractory chronic migraine. Mechanistically, calcitonin gene-related peptide antibodies have been shown to inhibit Aδ fibers while onabotulinum toxin A modulates C fibers. Due to the differing loci of effect and anecdotal observations, a synergistic effect between these therapies is a theoretical possibility. The aim of this study was to investigate this relationship. Methods Patients from the University of Utah Headache Clinic having received at least two rounds of injections of onabotulinum toxin A who responded partially but not completely to therapy were started on a calcitonin gene-related peptide antibody medication. The patients’ responses to a brief headache burden questionnaire prior to their onabotulinum toxin A administration at the time of each visit were collected. Parameters we monitored included the number of headaches experienced while receiving onabotulinum toxin A therapy, the initial timing of the of the wear off period, and the number of headaches after that the wear off period began. Results Half of the 36 patients included in the study demonstrated an improvement in their headache burden based on at least one parameter from their questionnaire. These 18 patients reported an average increase of 2.0 additional weeks for the beneficial effects of the onabotulinum toxin A to wear off. Twelve patients reported no change in onabotulinum toxin A efficacy while 6 patients showed greater headache burden or lower onabotulinum toxin A treatment efficacy following the initiation of one of the monoclonal antibodies. Conclusions Our study highlights the potential of calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies to serve as an effective add-on therapy for chronic migraine patients receiving onabotulinum toxin A injections, especially those designated “responders” but still experiencing the drug wear off prior to the next round of injections. Larger sample sizes and more frequent at-home questionnaire data are needed to corroborate these results.","PeriodicalId":12845,"journal":{"name":"Headache: The Journal of Head and Face Pain","volume":"39 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-02-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"82680852","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
M. Connelly, Subhjit Sekhon, Dane Stephens, Madeline E Boorigie, Jennifer L Bickel
To determine preliminary outcomes of a treatment for refractory pediatric migraine that integrates outpatient dihydroergotamine (DHE) infusion with interdisciplinary adjunctive care.
确定门诊双氢麦角胺(DHE)输注与跨学科辅助护理相结合治疗难治性儿童偏头痛的初步结果。
{"title":"Enhancing Outpatient Dihydroergotamine Infusion With Interdisciplinary Care to Treat Refractory Pediatric Migraine: Preliminary Outcomes From the Comprehensive Aggressive Migraine Protocol (“CAMP”)","authors":"M. Connelly, Subhjit Sekhon, Dane Stephens, Madeline E Boorigie, Jennifer L Bickel","doi":"10.1111/head.13685","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/head.13685","url":null,"abstract":"To determine preliminary outcomes of a treatment for refractory pediatric migraine that integrates outpatient dihydroergotamine (DHE) infusion with interdisciplinary adjunctive care.","PeriodicalId":12845,"journal":{"name":"Headache: The Journal of Head and Face Pain","volume":"70 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"85644237","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：