Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background and aim Migraine is a common disabling conditions which, globally, affects 15.2% of the population. It is the second cause of health loss in terms of years lived with disability, the first among women. Despite being so common, it is poorly recognised and too often undertreated. Specialty centres and neurologists with specific expertise on headache disorders have the knowledge to provide specific care: however, those who do not regularly treat patients with migraine will benefit from a synopsis on the most relevant and updated information about this condition. This paper presents a comprehensive view on the hallmarks of migraine, from genetics and diagnostic markers, up to treatments and societal impact, and reports the elements that identify migraine specific features. Main results The most relevant hallmark of migraine is that it has common and individual features together. Besides the known clinical manifestations, migraine presentation is heterogeneous with regard to frequency of attacks, presence of aura, response to therapy, associated comorbidities or other symptoms, which likely reflect migraine heterogeneous genetic and molecular basis. The amount of therapies for acute and for prophylactic treatment is really wide, and one of the difficulties is with finding the best treatment for the single patient. In addition to this, patients carry out different daily life activities, and might show lifestyle habits which are not entirely adequate to manage migraine day by day. Education will be more and more important as a strategy of brain health promotion, because this will enable reducing the amount of subjects needing specialty care, thus leaving it to those who require it in reason of refractory condition or presence of comorbidities. Conclusions Recognizing the hallmarks of migraine and the features of single patients enables prescribing specific pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments. Medical research on headaches today particularly suffers from the syndrome of single-disease approach, but it is important to have a cross-sectional and joint vision with other close specialties, in order to treat our patients with a comprehensive approach that a heterogeneous condition like migraine requires.

Purpose of Review To summarize recent findings regarding triptan use in the acute treatment of pediatric migraine. Recent Findings Prevalence of pediatric migraine is rising. The American Headache Society and American Academy of Neurology updated guidelines to provide evidence-based recommendations for the treatment of acute migraine in youth. In the setting of a dearth of new randomized controlled trials (RCTs), we review current guidelines, triptan use in the emergency department, and an era of secondary analyses. Summary Measuring the efficacy of triptans in pediatric migraine has been challenged by high placebo response rates. Secondary analyses, combining data from multiple RCTs, support that triptans are safe and effective in the treatment of migraine. Triptans are a vital tool and the only FDA-approved migraine-specific treatment available in pediatrics. There is a need for further studies and funding support in pediatric headache medicine.

Objective: To investigate whether the incidence of triggers, prodromal symptoms, hypersensitivity symptoms accompanying headache and responses to triptans were modified during a continuous 9-month fremanezumab therapy for migraine prophylaxis. Patients and methods: We studied 63 patients with high-frequency episodic migraine (HFEM). Enrolled patients received fremanezumab for nine consecutive months before defining the response rates and being stratified into treatment responders (≥50–74% reduction in monthly headache days (MHDs)), super responders (≥75%), partial non-responders (<50%) and super non-responders (<30%). Through headache diaries, patients provided data in order to document the impact of fremanezumab on the incidence of triggers, associated symptoms followed by headache and response to triptans (the use of the migraine treatment optimization questionnaire-4 (mTOQ-4)) during the 9-month treatment period. Results: Fremanezumab had early (after 3 monthly cycles) beneficial effects on the response to triptans in the majority of responders with relevant increases in mTOQ-4 scoring, but also in half of partial non-responders. A significant reduction in median days with migraine-associated symptoms was seen in responders after 6 months of therapy with fremanezumab, mostly for osmophobia, photophobia, phonophobia and nausea/vomiting, but partial non-responders also benefited. Likewise, the incidence of self-reported prodromal symptoms was significantly reduced in responders and was modestly diminished in partial non-responders. Triggers remained unaffected in both responders and non-responders. Conclusions: Fremanezumab given for at least 6–9 months may exert neuromodulatory effects in the migraine brain. These effects could result both in the inhibition of migraine chronification, but also in the diminishing of the magnitude of migraine-associated symptoms, mostly in responders and in partial non-responders.

Triptans are 5-hydroxytryptamine 1B/1D receptor agonists used in moderate to severe migraine attacks as first line when non-specific, symptomatic, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are not effective. To gain insight in the treatment of migraine in the regional context, this retrospective (from January to August of the years 2017 and 2018) study aimed at monitoring the use of triptans approved by the regional health authority in Calabria. The data demonstrate that the overall treatment of migraine with triptans in the different provinces of Calabria falls in the average regional prescription/dispensation. Interestingly, Crotone showed a trend to an increased amount of defined daily dose/1000 inhabitants per day. The present analysis might stand for homogeneity of treatment of migraineurs in Calabria and highlights the need for better understanding the apparent differences in the local pattern of almotriptan use to improve the appropriateness.

Though chronic pain is widespread, affecting about one-fifth of the world's population, its impacts are disproportionately felt across the population according to socioeconomic determinants such as education and income. These factors also influence patients' access to treatment, including pharmacological pain management. A scoping review was undertaken to better understand the association of socioeconomic factors with physicians' pain management prescribing patterns for adults living with chronic pain. An electronic literature search was conducted using the EMBASE, CINAHL, SCOPUS, and Ovid MEDLINE databases and 31 retrieved articles deemed relevant for analyses were critically appraised. The available evidence indicates that patients' lower socioeconomic status is associated with a greater likelihood of being prescribed opioids to manage their chronic pain and a decreased likelihood of receiving prescription medications to manage migraines, rheumatoid arthritis, and osteoarthritis. These results suggest that individuals with lower socioeconomic status do not receive equal prescription medicine opportunities to manage their chronic pain conditions. This is influenced by a variety of intersecting variables, including access to care, the potential unaffordability of certain therapies, patients' health literacy, and prescribing biases. Future research is needed to identify interventions to improve equity of access to therapies for patients with chronic pain living in lower socioeconomic situations as well as to explain the mechanism through which socioeconomic status affects chronic pain treatment choices by health care providers. SES: socioeconomic status; RA: rheumatoid arthritis; IV: intravenous; SC: subcutaneous; bDMARDs: biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs; DMARDS; disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs; TNFi: tumour necrosis factor inhibitors; NSAIDs: non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs

The term Headache Disorders (HD) refers to a number of nervous system pathologies characterised by recurrent headaches. Despite the serious impact HD have on the health system, society, and the economy, these are an underestimated, underdiagnosed, and, hence, undertreated phenomenon. Triptans are the first-line therapy for the acute treatment of moderate to severe migraine but their utilization is still inadequate, perhaps also because in Italy no triptan can be bought without a medical prescription. In this article, the data from a 2016–2017 study has been further analysed with the aim of evaluating any associations between the use of triptans and the other series of variables identified in the questionnaire. This further analysis has been connected to the role that community pharmacies could play on this issue. The questionnaire was administered to 4,424 pharmacy users by 610 purposely trained pharmacists working in 514 pharmacies. The survey was carried out in 19 of the 20 Italian regions. The data shows that only 25% of patients suffering from HDs are prescribed triptans. Older patients, those with definite migraines, and those with a chronic disorder resort more frequently to this class of pharmaceuticals, as do those patients in care at a specialist headache centre. The multivariable analysis also confirmed these results. Our study, which performed a direct detection, in real life, on patients requesting pharmacological treatment for a migraine headache, therefore confirmed the need to investigate the reasons behind the low use and prescription of triptans in the Italian population. Moreover, any future studies should take advantage of community pharmacies, plan actions that would allow a series of evaluations over time of the requirements of migraineurs, and establish a process to put these patients under the care of the pharmacy to ensure adherence to therapy.

Background: Lasmiditan, an oral 5-HT1F receptor agonist, has been recently approved for acute migraine treatment. While its efficacy was confirmed in randomized clinical trials, scarce data is available regarding effectiveness and tolerability in the real-world setting. Objectives: To evaluate lasmiditan effectiveness and tolerability in the real-world setting in 16 Italian headache centers. Design: LasmiDitan as Acute migRaine Treatment (DART) study is a prospective, multicentric, observational study. Methods: We enrolled 58 participants with migraine (84.5% females, age 49.0 (45.2–52.9) years, 24.1% with chronic migraine) reporting 9.4 (7.4–11.3) monthly migraine days. Participants were instructed to treat their migraine attacks with oral lasmiditan 50 or 100 mg. Using an ad hoc electronic diary, participants prospectively collected migraine attack features at baseline and every 30 min after lasmiditan administration, up to 2 h post-dose. The primary outcome was 2-h pain freedom for the first-treated attack after lasmiditan intake. We also collected the occurrence of treatment-emergent adverse events (AE) after administration. Results: Overall, participants treated 100 attacks, of which 58 first-treated attacks. Regarding first-treated attacks, 44.8% of subjects rated migraine intensity as severe at lasmiditan intake. Pain freedom 2-h post-dosing was reported in 32.8% (19/58) of individuals and was associated with baseline pain intensity, being higher in subjects treating a mild/moderate attack (p = 0.044). Conversely, it was not influenced by timing of intake (p = 0.375), dosage (p = 0.727), or previous triptan failure (p = 0.351). Regarding all-treated attacks, pain freedom 2-h post-dosing was 37.0% (37/100). At least one AE was reported by 53.4% of participants (31/58), predominantly asthenia, dizziness, somnolence, anxiety or agitation, and paresthesia. Tolerability was rated as good-to-excellent by 51.8% of subjects. Conclusion: Our study supports clinical effectiveness of oral lasmiditan 50 and 100 mg for the treatment of acute migraine attacks. Lasmiditan effectiveness was not associated with the previous triptan failure and may therefore represent a valuable therapeutic option in subjects who did not benefit from, or have contraindications to, triptans. Trail registration: The study was preregistered on clinicaltrial.gov, NCT05903040 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05903040?cond=migraine&intr=lasmiditan&rank=5).

BackgroundTriptans and erenumab are both migraine-specific agents acting on the calcitonin gene-related peptide pathway. Therefore, response to triptans might be associated with response to erenumab.Main bodyIn our study, consecutive patients referring to the Headache Centers of the Abruzzo region from January 2019 to March 2020 and treated with erenumab were interviewed about past use and efficacy of triptans. Triptan users were classified as ‘triptan responders’ if they were headache-free 2 h after treating ≥3 migraine attacks with ≥1 triptan. We considered patients as ‘erenumab responders’, if they had a ≥ 50% mean reduction in monthly migraine days between the 4th and the 6th month from treatment start compared with baseline. Of 91 triptan users, 73 (80.2%) were triptan responders and 58 (63.7%) were erenumab responders. The odds ratio of being erenumab responder was 3.64 (95% CI, 1.25–10.64) for triptan users as compared to non-users. (P = 0.014). Besides, starting erenumab improved triptan response in both erenumab responders and non-responders.ConclusionsOur data of an association between response to triptans and response to erenumab can be useful for patient advice and to improve the understanding of migraine pathophysiology and treatment.

BackgroundTriptans are migraine-specific acute treatments. A well-accepted definition of triptan failure is needed in clinical practice and for research. The primary aim of the present Consensus was to provide a definition of triptan failure. To develop this definition, we deemed necessary to develop as first a consensus definition of effective treatment of an acute migraine attack and of triptan-responder.Main bodyThe Consensus process included a preliminary literature review, a Delphi round and a subsequent open discussion. According to the Consensus Panel, effective treatment of a migraine attack is to be defined on patient well-being featured by a) improvement of headache, b) relief of non-pain symptoms and c) absence of adverse events. An attack is considered effectively treated if patient’s well-being, as defined above, is restored within 2 hours and for at least 24 hours. An individual with migraine is considered as triptan-responder when the given triptan leads to effective acute attack treatment in at least three out of four migraine attacks. On the other hand, an individual with migraine is considered triptan non-responder in the presence of failure of a single triptan (not matching the definition of triptan-responder). The Consensus Panel defined an individual with migraine as triptan-resistant in the presence of failure of at least 2 triptans; triptan refractory, in the presence of failure to at least 3 triptans, including subcutaneous formulation; triptan ineligibile in the presence of an acknowledged contraindication to triptan use, as specified in the summary of product characteristics.ConclusionsThe novel definitions can be useful in clinical practice for the assessment of acute attack treatments patients with migraine. They may be helpful in identifying people not responding to triptans and in need for novel acute migraine treatments. The definitions will also be of help in standardizing research on migraine acute care.