OBJECTIVE There is an unmet need for safe and rapidly effective therapies for refractory brain radiation necrosis (RN). The aim of this prospective single-arm phase II trial was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of a single low-dose targeted bevacizumab infusion after blood-brain barrier disruption (BBBD) in adult patients with steroid-refractory brain RN. METHODS Ten adults with steroid-refractory, imaging-confirmed brain RN were enrolled between November 2016 and January 2018 and followed for 12 months after treatment. Bevacizumab 2.5 mg/kg was administered as a one-time targeted intra-arterial infusion immediately after BBBD. Primary outcomes included safety and > 25% decrease in lesion volume. Images were analyzed by a board-certified neuroradiologist blinded to pretrial diagnosis and treatment status. Secondary outcomes included changes in headache, steroid use, and functional status and absence of neurocognitive sequelae. Comparisons were analyzed using the Fisher exact test, Mann-Whitney U-test, linear mixed models, Wilcoxon signed-rank test, and repeated-measures 1-way ANOVA. RESULTS Ten adults (mean ± SD [range] age 35 ± 15 [22–62] years) participated in this study. No patients died or exhibited serious adverse effects of systemic bevacizumab. At 3 months, 80% (95% CI 44%–98%) and 90% (95% CI 56%–100%) of patients demonstrated > 25% decrease in RN and vasogenic edema volume, respectively. At 12 months, RN volume decreased by 74% (median [range] 76% [53%–96%], p = 0.012), edema volume decreased by 50% (median [range] 70% [−11% to 83%], p = 0.086), and headache decreased by 84% (median [range] 92% [58%–100%], p = 0.022) among the 8 patients without RN recurrence. Only 1 (10%) patient was steroid dependent at the end of the trial. Scores on 12 of 16 (75%) neurocognitive indices increased, thereby supporting a pattern of cerebral white matter recovery. Two (20%) patients exhibited RN recurrence that required further treatment at 10 and 11 months, respectively, after bevacizumab infusion. CONCLUSIONS For the first time, to the authors’ knowledge, the authors demonstrated that a single low-dose targeted bevacizumab infusion resulted in durable clinical and imaging improvements in 80% of patients at 12 months after treatment without adverse events attributed to bevacizumab alone. These findings highlight that targeted bevacizumab may be an efficient one-time treatment for adults with brain RN. Further confirmation with a randomized controlled trial is needed to compare the intra-arterial approach with the conventional multicycle intravenous regimen. Clinical trial registration no.: NCT02819479 (ClinicalTrials.gov)

No abstract

Chronic migraine is a frequent and debilitating condition affecting 14% of the general population. This prospective observational pilot study investigated whether men with chronic migraine have lower than expected total serum testosterone levels. We identified 14 men ages 26-51 at our Institution who fulfilled the ICHD-3b criteria for chronic migraine and obtained serum total testosterone levels. The mean total testosterone level in our 14 patients was 322 ng/dL (range: 120-542 ng/dL) which is in the lower 5% of the reference range for our laboratory (300-1080 ng/dL). Men with chronic migraine had lower total testosterone levels compared to published agematched normative median values by a median difference of 62 ng/dL (P=0.0494). This finding suggests that hypothalamic regulation is altered in patients with chronic migraine. Further studies are warranted to determine whether testosterone supplementation in men with chronic migraine reduces the number of headaches or the associated symptoms of hypogonadism.

Background We studied the efficacy and safety of a second dose of lasmiditan for acute treatment of migraine. Methods SAMURAI and SPARTAN were double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase 3 studies in which individuals with migraine were randomized to oral lasmiditan 50 mg (SPARTAN only), 100 mg, 200 mg, or placebo. Study drug was to be taken within 4 h (h) of onset of a migraine attack (moderate or severe pain). A second dose of study drug was provided for rescue (patient not pain-free at 2 h and took a second dose 2-24 h post-first dose) or recurrence (patient pain-free at 2 h, but experienced recurrence of mild, moderate, or severe migraine pain and took a second dose 2-24 h after first dose). Randomization to second dose occurred at baseline; patients originally assigned lasmiditan were randomized to the same lasmiditan dose or placebo (2:1 ratio), and those originally assigned placebo received placebo. Data from SAMURAI and SPARTAN were pooled for efficacy and safety assessment of a second dose of lasmiditan. Results The proportion of patients taking a second dose was lower with lasmiditan versus placebo, and decreased with increasing lasmiditan dose; the majority who took a second dose did so for rescue. In patients taking lasmiditan as first dose, outcomes (pain free, most bothersome symptom [MBS] free) at 2 h after a second dose for rescue were similar whether the second dose was lasmiditan or placebo ( p > 0.05 in all cases). In patients taking lasmiditan for first dose, outcomes at 2 h after a second dose for recurrence were as follows: lasmiditan pooled versus placebo - pain free, 50% vs 32% ( p > 0.05); MBS free, 71% vs 41% ( p = 0.02); pain relief, 77% vs 52% ( p = 0.03). In patients whose first dose was lasmiditan, the incidence of treatment emergent adverse events (TEAEs) reported after the second dose was similar whether second dose was lasmiditan or placebo. Conclusions A second dose of lasmiditan showed some evidence of efficacy when taken for headache recurrence. There was no clear benefit of a second dose of lasmiditan for rescue treatment. The incidences of TEAEs were similar whether the second dose was lasmiditan or placebo. Trial registration SAMURAI ( NCT02439320 ) [April 2015]. SPARTAN ( NCT02605174 ) [May 2016].

The complications of migraine that arise from migraine aura are infrequently encountered in clinical practice; however, they can be severely disabling for patients. As these conditions are encountered, thorough diagnostic evaluation is necessary. In some cases, it may be difficult to find a consistently reliable therapeutic option for these patients; however, as more cases enter the literature, a greater understanding of these conditions and how to treat them may arise.