INTRODUCTION:Cluster headache is an extremely painful and severely disabling primary headache disorder that, despite its profound impact on quality of life, remains underdiagnosed and undertreated. Effective management requires a structured approach across the cluster cycle, but practical, timeline-based guidance integrating established and emerging therapies is lacking. AREAS COVERED:The authors present a treatment framework organized by clinical timeline: inter-cycle period, cycle onset, active cycle, and resolution, addressing acute abortive, bridge, and prophylactic therapies with evidence quality, dosing, and monitoring. Both established synthetic agents and recently recognized biologic therapies are examined, with particular focus on anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibodies and forward-looking targets such as PACAP and 5-HT2A. References were identified through searches of PubMed and clinical trial registries from inception to June 2026. EXPERT OPINION:Anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies are a meaningful advance, best positioned as an adjunct to established prophylaxis rather than a replacement. PACAP-targeted therapy is a promising direction whose role in cluster headache remains to be defined. The serotonergic agent psilocybin warrants closer attention, as its early therapeutic signal merits rigorous investigation despite the legal and historical barriers constraining its study.

This practice guideline provides updated evidence-based recommendations regarding the use of pharmacologic migraine prevention in adults. A multidisciplinary panel conducted a systematic review and developed practice recommendations following the process outlined in the 2017 edition of the American Academy of Neurology Clinical Practice Guideline Process Manual. The systematic review includes studies published through June 6, 2024, and is available in a companion publication. Recommendations are supported by structured rationales that integrate evidence from the systematic review, related evidence, principles of care, and inferences from evidence. Recommendations are provided on how to decide when it is appropriate to start a pharmacologic migraine preventive medication and how to decide which migraine preventive medication to start. Recommendations address decision making on appropriate choices of migraine preventive medications in specific situations and populations, including patients with fibromyalgia, obesity, or hypertension; considerations for older adults; treatment during pregnancy and lactation; sex-related factors in choosing medications; and treatment for patients with medication overuse. Recommendations on assessment of treatment efficacy, adverse effects, and discontinuing migraine preventive medications are provided.

INTRODUCTION:Patients hospitalized for headache treatment pose unique challenges to the healthcare system. Currently, there is a lack of evidence-based guidance on management. This practice advisory aims to fill this critical gap by systematically reviewing the existing literature and providing comprehensive, evidence-based recommendations for managing headache patients during hospitalization. METHODS:In February 2023, the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine approved this practice advisory proposal. The steering committee selected committee members based on clinical and research expertise in the field of headache medicine. Nine questions were formulated by the committee, and each question was assigned to a group composed of 3-4 members. A systematic literature search for each question was performed in Medline, Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Web of Science on June 21, 2023. The results from each search were imported into separate Covidence projects for screening, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment. Additionally, relevant systematic reviews (SR) were screened. Each group submitted a structured narrative review along with statements and recommendations based on the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) format for grading of evidence. While the USPSTF framework was used, including the language in the recommendations, the formal USPSTF methodology, including the SR with meta-analysis and summary tables with forest plots, was not followed because of low overall evidence quality. The interim draft was shared electronically with each collaborator, who was requested to vote anonymously using two rounds of the modified Delphi approach. A consensus recommendation required >75% agreement. RESULTS:The panel generated 12 statements and 17 recommendations, along with their strength and certainty of evidence. Following two rounds of Delphi voting, a high consensus was achieved for all statements and recommendations. Most statements received a low-to-moderate level of certainty, and all but one recommendation received grade B or C, which was consistent with the lack of randomized controlled trials supporting most of the drugs in this document. CONCLUSIONS:This evidence-based practice advisory provides a foundational step toward standardizing inpatient headache care and highlights existing gaps in the literature that should be addressed through rigorous prospective randomized studies.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES:This systematic review (SR) provides updated evidence-based conclusions regarding the use of pharmacologic migraine prevention in adults to inform a new joint American Academy of Neurology (AAN) and American Headache Society practice guideline. METHODS:A multidisciplinary panel conducted an SR following the 2017 AAN Clinical Practice Guideline Process Manual. Randomized controlled trials evaluating pharmacologic preventive treatments for adults with episodic or chronic migraine were included. Searches encompassed MEDLINE, Embase, and ClinicalTrials.gov from database inception through June 6, 2024. Studies were screened in duplicate, with dual independent risk-of-bias assessment. Outcomes included change in monthly headache days, ≥50% responder rate, and validated patient-reported quality of life (QOL) measures. Raw mean differences, standardized mean differences, and risk ratios were calculated. A modified Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation process was used to classify certainty of evidence. RESULTS:A total of 217 studies met inclusion criteria. For episodic migraine, high-confidence evidence showed that galcanezumab and erenumab are more effective than placebo in reducing headache frequency. Moderate-confidence evidence supported benefit from atogepant, eptinezumab, fremanezumab, propranolol, topiramate, and valproate. Several additional oral agents including amitriptyline, bisoprolol, flunarizine, fluoxetine, levetiracetam, metoprolol, nifedipine, pizotifen, and telmisartan had low-confidence evidence suggesting possible benefit. For chronic migraine, high-confidence evidence supported reductions in headache frequency with fremanezumab, galcanezumab, and onabotulinumtoxinA. Moderate-confidence evidence supported benefit from atogepant, eptinezumab, erenumab, topiramate and valproate. Across both episodic and chronic migraine populations, erenumab, fremanezumab, galcanezumab, eptinezumab, rimegepant, atogepant, topiramate and onabotulinumtoxinA demonstrated improvements in patient-reported QOL outcomes on validated instruments. Evidence comparing active treatments was limited and generally of low or very low confidence, restricting conclusions about comparative effectiveness. DISCUSSION:This SR provides a comprehensive synthesis of evidence on pharmacologic migraine prevention in adults. High- and moderate-confidence findings confirm the efficacy of several established and newer preventive therapies and demonstrate improvements in patient-reported outcomes across multiple validated measures. These conclusions informed the development of evidence-based recommendations, presented in a companion publication, to guide clinicians in selecting preventive medications for adults with episodic and chronic migraine.

OBJECTIVE:To highlight key factors required to optimize multi-mechanistic approaches with oral combination treatments for the acute management of a migraine attack. BACKGROUND:Given the complex multi-factorial nature of migraine, combining treatments with different mechanisms of action should improve outcomes compared to monotherapies, but this has not been demonstrated with all treatment combinations. METHODS:For this narrative review, we searched PubMed using combinations of these terms: migraine, acute treatment, combination therapy, fixed-dose combination therapy, multi-mechanistic treatment, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics. All articles considered relevant were included. RESULTS:None of the existing migraine acute treatments as monotherapy effectively treat the key pathophysiological processes of migraine completely. Many patients do not achieve 2-h pain freedom, which is key to avoiding migraine recurrence, medication overuse leading to chronification, and migraine-related disability. The development of combination approaches has led to only two combinations with demonstrated superiority over their individual components: aspirin/acetaminophen/caffeine and sumatriptan/naproxen sodium. The latter is the most effective proven combination treatment because it targets peripheral activation of central pain pathways during the early migraine stages and central sensitization that develops later, independent of peripheral input. Other triptan/nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug combinations with higher efficacy as monotherapies could be more effective than sumatriptan/naproxen sodium, particularly if their pharmacokinetic profiles align with the vasoactive mediators of peripheral and central sensitization that they target. CONCLUSIONS:Combination treatments with different mechanisms of action targeting key distinct pathophysiological processes of migraine may be more effective than monotherapies, particularly if their pharmacokinetic profiles are optimized to target those processes at the right time. Further research in this area is warranted.

OBJECTIVE:The objective of this study was to summarize the available evidence regarding the clinical value and trend over time of lumbar cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) opening pressure utilization to diagnose spontaneous intracranial hypotension (SIH). BACKGROUND:CSF opening pressure obtained via lumbar puncture is one of the diagnostic criteria for SIH based on the International Criteria for Headache Disorders, 3rd Edition (ICHD-3), but it has questionable utility as an initial investigation for diagnosing SIH. METHODS:The authors performed a systematic literature review and meta-analysis. PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and Cochrane Library were searched from inception to October 2022. Original studies and case series in English reporting three or more patients with suspected or known SIH and CSF pressure measurement were included. Meta-analyses and meta-regression were used to calculate pooled estimates and examine the impact of age, sex, and publication year on outcomes, including CSF pressure < 60 mm CSF, orthostatic headache, and positive findings on brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), spinal imaging, and radionuclide studies. RESULTS:For every 1-year increase in the year of publication, the odds of reporting low CSF pressure decreased by 6.20% (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 0.94, aOR 95% confidence interval [CI] = [0.90, 0.97], p = 0.001), the odds of reporting a positive brain MRI increased by 4.67% (aOR = 1.05, aOR 95% CI = [1.01, 1.09], p = 0.026), and the odds of reporting orthostatic headache increased by 9.13% (aOR = 1.09, aOR 95% CI = [1.03, 1.15], p = 0.002). Each 1% increase in the percentage of patients with orthostatic headache was associated with a 3.13% increase in the odds of low CSF pressure (aOR = 1.03, aOR 95% CI = [1.01, 1.05], p = 0.003). Similarly, as the percentage of patients with low CSF pressure increased by 1%, there was a 2.53% increase in the odds of orthostatic headache (aOR = 1.03, aOR 95% CI = [1.01, 1.04], p = 0.005). It was estimated that 31.9% of patients with SIH had normal opening pressure (95% CI = [24.0%, 40.8%], prediction interval = [5.0%, 80.5%]). Every 1% increase in the percentage of patients with positive brain MRI was associated with a 5.25% increase in the odds of positive spinal imaging (aOR = 1.05, aOR 95% CI = [1.00, 1.11], p = 0.047). Age and positive radionuclide study did not significantly impact the outcomes measured. The corresponding I2 for each outcome was reduced by controlling for study-wide covariates believed to impact the prevalence of each outcome. Sensitivity analyses did not reveal discrepancies in results when studies requiring outcomes of interest were removed. CONCLUSION:Our analysis found that recent studies indicate a reduced reliance on opening pressure for diagnosing SIH. Rather, results suggest an increasing reliance on contrast-enhanced brain MRI, spine imaging, and clinical features for SIH diagnosis.

BackgroundThis systematic review and meta-analysis synthesized migraine-related disability outcomes according to headache frequency subclassifications, including low-frequency episodic migraine (LFEM), high-frequency episodic migraine (HFEM) and chronic migraine (CM).MethodsWe searched the PubMed and Cochrane Library (CENTRAL) up to 16 October 2024 for peer-reviewed non-interventional studies reporting migraine-related disability outcomes in CM and subclassifications of episodic migraine (e.g. LFEM and HFEM). Eligible studies with an HFEM subgroup were grouped by headache frequency measure (monthly migraine days [MMD] or monthly headache days [MHD]), HFEM subgroup, disability parameter and study setting. Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted on groups with three or more studies, with the results presented in forest plots. Risk of bias was assessed using Joanna Briggs Institute tools.ResultsOf the 32 included studies, 27 were grouped, yielding five meta-analysis groups containing three or more studies. All five groups had an HFEM subgroup of 8-14 MHD. Accordingly, we classified LFEM as 0-7 MHD and CM as ≥15 MHD. Ten studies contributed data to the five meta-analysis groups. Estimated pooled values are reported by headache frequency subgroup for each meta-analysis group: LFEM (95% confidence interval [CI]), HFEM (95% CI) and CM (95% CI). For meta-analysis group 1, four population-based studies reported Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) Grade IV proportions, with pooled values of 11.1% (7.1-17.1), 43.9% (31.8-56.9) and 57.5% (42.7-71.1), respectively. For meta-analysis group 2, five population-based studies documented Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI) outcomes. Pooled mean overall work productivity impairment (OWPI) scores were 36.9% (30.8-43.1), 44.7% (38.4-51.0) and 52.0% (47.7-56.3), respectively. Pooled mean activity impairment (AI) scores were 36.4% (33.7-39.1), 46.4% (42.8-50.0) and 53.5% (52.1-54.8), respectively. For meta-analysis group 3, three clinic-based studies presented MIDAS Grade IV proportions. Pooled values were 15.0% (4.4-40.5), 42.4% (17.1-72.4) and 65.7% (30.3-89.4), respectively. For meta-analysis group 4, three clinic-based studies reported WPAI outcomes. Pooled mean OWPI scores were 28.8% (21.6-35.9), 40.2% (36.2-44.2) and 49.6% (46.3-52.9), respectively. Pooled mean AI scores were 29.4% (21.9-36.9), 43.5% (39.0-48.1) and 51.6% (48.8-54.4), respectively. For meta-analysis group 5, three clinic-based studies detailed MIDAS scores. Pooled mean scores were 10.7 (3.9-17.5), 23.9 (9.4-38.4) and 49.6 (15.8-83.3), respectively.ConclusionsThis study showed a pattern of increasing migraine-related disability with rising headache frequency. Regardless of study setting, our meta-analyses also suggested a severe level of disability in many individuals (42%-44%) with HFEM, highlighting an unmet need for more effective migraine management. Disability burden and headache frequency should both be considered when determining treatment needs and therapy access, particularly for patients with HFEM.Study Registration: INPLASY2024120039.

ObjectiveTo develop evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for non-invasive neuromodulation devices in acute and preventive migraine treatment.MethodsA systematic review was conducted across six databases from 1946 to April 2025. Randomized controlled trials evaluating Food and Drug Administration-cleared or Conformité Européenne (CE)-marked non-invasive neuromodulation devices were included. The quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology, and recommendations were developed through consensus following GRADE Evidence-to-Decision frameworks. The working group comprised 15 senior members and six junior members.ResultsFrom 1536 initial records, 15 studies met the inclusion criteria and were finally used to develop evidence-based recommendations. Evidence quality ranged from very low to moderate. Weak recommendations were issued for SAVI Dual, Cefaly, Relivion, and Nerivio in the treatment of acute migraine attacks, and for gammaCore Sapphire, Cefaly, and Nerivio in the preventive migraine treatment. Other cleared devices received no recommendations or have no eligible studies for the GRADE assessment. The primary limitations across studies included imprecision due to small sample sizes and various methodological concerns. Additionally, expert consensus recommendations were developed for devices and clinical scenarios not adequately covered by randomized controlled trials, including potential applications in pediatric populations, vestibular migraine, chronic migraine, menstrual migraine, and medication overuse headache.ConclusionNon-invasive neuromodulation devices offer promising alternatives to drug treatment for migraine management. These devices are safe and generally well tolerated and devoid of drug interactions. While current evidence quality varies, ongoing research and technological advancements show encouraging potential. Future studies should adhere to International Headache Society guidelines for neuromodulation device trials, address proper sham controls and blinding assessment, and account for patient adherence challenges in device use. Expanded insurance coverage would enhance cost-effectiveness and device accessibility. These guidelines provide a framework for clinical decision-making while highlighting areas requiring further research.

ObjectiveTo characterize the long-term (56-week) benefits of continuous onabotulinumtoxinA treatment response in individuals with chronic migraine (CM) who achieved reduction to <15 headache days/month with treatment. BackgroundThere are limited data exploring reductions in monthly headache days to levels consistent with episodic migraine among those experiencing CM. Understanding the impact of sustained preventive treatment response in CM can provide important information about the impact of successful therapy. MethodsThe two Phase 3 REsearch Evaluating Migraine Prophylaxis Therapy trials of onabotulinumtoxinA in adults included a 24-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase and a 32-week open-label phase. Data were pooled to determine proportions of individuals with <15 headache days/month while on treatment during several time periods in the double-blind phase (Weeks 21-24; any 12 consecutive weeks; Weeks 13-24) and the entire study (Weeks 53-56; any 12 consecutive weeks; any 4-week period). We assessed the long-term impact on mean monthly headache days and changes from baseline on the six-item Headache Impact Test (HIT-6) and Migraine-Specific Quality of Life questionnaire version 2.1 (MSQv2.1). ResultsWe analyzed 1384 participants with chronic migraine (double-blind: onabotulinumtoxinA, n = 688; placebo, n = 696; open-label: n = 688 [onabotulinumtoxinA]). The discontinuation rates prior to the completion of the full 56-week treatment period for onabotulinumtoxinA and placebo were 25.4% (n = 175) and 29.3% (n = 204), respectively. During Weeks 13-24 of the double-blind phase, significantly more onabotulinumtoxinA-treated (386/688 [56.1%]) than placebo-treated (342/696 [49.1%]) individuals had <15 headache days/month (p = 0.010), with fewer monthly headache days for onabotulinumtoxinA versus placebo responders. The proportions of participants achieving <15 monthly headache days with onabotulinumtoxinA were 60.9% (419/688) at Weeks 25-56, 81.1% (558/688) at Weeks 53-56, and 79.4% (546/688) during any consecutive 12-week period. Mean changes from baseline on the HIT-6 and MSQv2.1 questionnaire surpassed within-group minimal important difference thresholds in all periods. At Week 24, onabotulinumtoxinA-treated participants who achieved <15 monthly headache days during Weeks 21-24 had a greater mean HIT-6 score reduction (-6.5 vs. -1.4) and greater mean MSQv2.1 Role-Function Restrictive score improvements (21.3 vs. 6.4) than those who did not achieve <15 monthly headache days during the same period. ConclusionsParticipants who achieved <15 monthly headache days with onabotulinumtoxinA treatment achieved meaningful benefits in headache-related disability and migraine-specific quality of life compared with those who remained at or above the 15-monthly headache days threshold. Sustained benefits observed over 56 weeks support long-term onabotulinumtoxinA use for the prevention of CM.

INTRODUCTION:Calcitonin Gene-Related Peptide (CGRP)-targeted therapy has revolutionized migraine treatment since its first approval in 2018. CGRP-targeted therapy includes monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) and gepants, which modulate trigeminal nociceptive and inflammatory responses, alleviating pain sensitization involved in migraine pathogenesis. CGRP-targeted therapy is effective not only for migraine but also for other chronic headache disorders that share the CGRP pathway.AREAS COVERED:The authors review the latest developments and evidence for CGRP-targeted therapy for episodic migraine and chronic migraine. In addition, the authors discuss the emerging evidence on response prediction, menstrual migraine, vestibular migraine, idiopathic intracranial hypertension, post-traumatic headache, and the relationship between selected migraine comorbidities and CGRP.EXPERT OPINION:Since the launch of CGRP-targeted therapy, many practical issues have been raised. Generally, it's safe to combine CGRP-targeted mAbs and gepants; this is an excellent option for patients with partial response. When considering stopping CGRP-targeted therapy, although a disease-modifying effect is likely, the optimal time for discontinuation remains unknown. Finally, beyond migraine, CGRP-targeted therapy may be used for other chronic pain disorders and psychological comorbidities.

The evidence base for migraine prevention in both episodic and chronic migraine is outlined. The older oral preventatives, including antidepressants, antihypertensives, serotonin antagonists, antiepileptics, and calcium channel antagonists, and newer options including onabotulinumtoxinA and the CGRP monoclonal antibodies are covered. Many of the older oral preventatives were trialed before chronic migraine was defined, and they are used in chronic migraine based on the assumption that episodic migraine and chronic migraine are on a spectrum of the same condition. First- and second-line options are given, and a multicountry perspective is considered.

ObjectiveTo describe the association between day-to-day peak pain severity and clinical factors in individuals with chronic migraine (CM).BackgroundLittle is known about how clinical factors relate to day-to-day pain severity in individuals with CM.MethodsAdults with CM were enrolled into this observational prospective cohort study that collected daily data about headache, associated symptoms, and lifestyle factors using a digital health platform (N1-Headache (TM)) for 90 days. "Migraine days" were defined as days in which a headache occurred that had features described by the International Classification of Headache Disorders criteria. On these days, peak pain severity was recorded on a 4-point scale; on non-headache days peak pain severity was imputed as "0/none". The associations between peak pain severity and 12 clinical factors were modeled and adjusted for sex, age, daily headache, presence of menstrual bleeding, day of the week, and disability. All numerical and Likert scale variables were standardized prior to analysis.ResultsData were available for 392 participants (35,280 tracked days). The sample was predominantly female (90.6%), with a mean (standard deviation) age of 39.9 (12.8) years. In the final multivariable model with random intercept and slopes, higher than typical self-reported levels of standardized stress (odds ratio [OR] 1.07, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.04-1.11), standardized irritability (OR 1.05, 95% CI 1.02-1.08), standardized sadness (OR 1.05, 95% CI 1.02-1.07), fatigue (OR 1.25, 95% CI 1.15-1.36), eyestrain (OR 1.38, 95% CI 1.26-1.52), neck pain (OR 1.94, 95% CI 1.76-2.13), skin sensitivity (OR 1.61, 95% CI 1.44-1.80), and dehydration (OR 1.29, 95% CI 1.18-1.42) were associated with higher reported peak pain severity levels, while standardized sleep quality (OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.93-0.99) and standardized waking feeling refreshed (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.81-0.88) were associated with lower reported peak pain severity levels. The inclusion of a random intercept and random slopes improved upon more parsimonious models and illustrated large differences in individuals' reporting of peak severity according to the levels of the associated clinical factors.ConclusionOur data showed that the experience of CM, from a pain severity perspective, is complex, related to multiple clinical variables, and highly individualized. These results suggest that future work should aim to study a personalized approach to both medical and behavioral interventions for CM based on which clinical factors relate to the individual's experience of pain severity. People with chronic migraine (CM) have a high frequency of attacks (>= 15 days/month), yet little is known about their day-to-day experience of pain. We looked at the relationship between 12 clinical factors, including mood, sleep, stress, and day-to-day pain severity scores in adults with CM. We found that people's experience of pain severity and its relationship to different clinical factors was very individualized, with a lot of variability between people.

OnabotulinumtoxinA (BTX-A) was first linked to beneficial effects in migraine 25 years ago and was approved by the FDA for preventive treatment of chronic migraine in 2010. The treatment has since had a major impact on the well-being of people with chronic migraine. The clinical development programme for BTX-A and research since its approval have provided insights into the neuromodulatory sensory effect of BTX-A, how it can control chronic migraine despite its peripheral action, and the underlying biology of migraine as a disease. In this Review, we consider the impact that BTX-A has had on the management of chronic migraine and on the research field. We discuss the insights provided by clinical research, encompassing the clinical trials and subsequent real-world evidence, and the mechanistic insights provided by preclinical and translational research. We also provide an overview of future directions of research in the field BTX-A in migraine and the clinical translation of this research.

Treating migraine attacks early at the onset of a headache is a common proven strategy. But does this strategy work before headache onset? In the PRODROME trial, Dodick et al. showed that ubrogepant taken during the prodrome can prevent headache attacks and reduce functional disability.1.

We describe a model for delivering comprehensive headache medicine education to practicing clinical providers across multiple disciplines. Key demographic features of providers enrolled in the program are discussed.