Background and aimHeadache is very often the cause for seeking an emergency department (ED). However, less is known about the different diagnosis of headache disorders in the ED, their management and treatment. The aim of this survey is to analyse the management of headache patients in two different ED in Europe.MethodsThis retrospective survey was performed from September 2018 until January 2019. Patients were collected from the San Luca Hospital, Milan, Italy and the Ordensklinikum Barmherzige Schwestern, Linz, Austria. Only patients with a non-traumatic headache, as the primary reason for medical clarification, were included. Patients were analysed for their complexity and range of examination, their diagnoses, acute treatment and overall efficacy rate.ResultsThe survey consists of 415 patients, with a mean age of 43.32 (SD ±17.72); 65% were female. Technical investigation was performed in 57.8% of patients. For acute treatment non-steroidal-anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) were the most used, whereas triptans were not given. A primary headache disorder was diagnosed in 45.3% of patients, being migraine the most common, but in 32% of cases the diagnosis was not further specified. Life-threatening secondary headaches accounted for less than 2% of cases.ConclusionsThe vast majority of patients attending an ED because of headache are suffering from a primary headache disorder. Life-threatening secondary headaches are rare but seek attention. NSAIDs are by far the most common drugs for treating headaches in the ED, but not triptans.

Introduction and objective Monoclonal antibodies targeting the calcitonin gene-related peptide pathway (anti-CGRP mAbs) have shown promising efficacy in randomised clinical trials for the prevention of episodic and chronic migraine, but no head-to-head comparisons with established treatments are available. We aimed to examine absolute differences in benefit-risk ratios between anti-CGRP mAbs, topiramate and propranolol for the prevention of episodic migraine and between anti-CGRP mAbs, topiramate and onabotulinumtoxinA for the prevention of chronic migraine using a likelihood to help versus harm analysis. Methods The number of patients needed to be treated for a patient to achieve ≥ 50% reduction in migraine days (NNTB50%) was used as an effect size metric of efficacy. The number of patients needed to be treated for a patient to experience an adverse event that led to treatment discontinuation (NNTHD-AE) was used as a measure of risk. Likelihood to help versus harm values – which are the ratios of NNTH:NNTB – were calculated using data from phase 3 randomised clinical trials. Results All agents tested were more likely to be beneficial than harmful (likelihood to help versus harm > 1) with the exception of topiramate at 200 mg per day for the prevention of episodic migraine. Anti-CGRP mAbs in all tested doses had higher LHH values than propranolol or topiramate for episodic migraine and onabotulinumtoxinA or topiramate for chronic migraine prevention. Fremanezumab had the highest LHH ratio in episodic migraine and galcanezumab in chronic migraine. Conclusion This analysis showed that anti-CGRP mAbs exhibit a more favourable benefit-risk ratio than established treatments for episodic and chronic migraine. Head-to-head studies are needed to confirm these results.

Introduction Administration of ATP-sensitive potassium channel opener levcromakalim triggers headache in healthy volunteers and migraine attacks in migraine patients. Here, we investigated the effect of ATP-sensitive potassium channel blocker glibenclamide on levcromakalim-induced headache in healthy volunteers. Methods In a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, three-way cross-over study, 15 healthy volunteers aged 18–40 years were randomly allocated to receive glibenclamide and levcromakalim (day 1), glibenclamide and placebo (day 2), and placebo and placebo (day 3) on three different days separated by at least 1 week. The primary endpoints were the difference in incidence of headache and the difference in area under the curve for headache intensity scores (0–12 hours) between the days. Results Fifteen healthy volunteers completed the 3 days of the study. More participants (12/15, 80%) developed headache on the glibenclamide-levcromakalim day compared to the glibenclamide-placebo day (5/15, 33%) ( p = 0.01; mean difference 47%; 95% confidence interval 18–75%) and compared to the placebo-placebo day (1/15, 7%) ( p = 0.001; mean difference 73%; 95% confidence interval 48–99%). We found no difference in headache incidence between glibenclamide-placebo day and placebo-placebo day ( p = 0.12; mean difference 27%; 95% confidence interval 1.3–52%). The area under the curve for headache intensity was significantly larger on the glibenclamide-levcromakalim day compared to the glibenclamide-placebo day ( p = 0.003); and compared to the placebo-placebo day ( p = 0.001). We found no difference in the area under the curve between the glibenclamide-placebo day compared to the placebo-placebo day ( p = 0.07). The median time to onset for headache after levcromakalim infusion with glibenclamide pretreatment was delayed (180 min) compared to levcromakalim without pretreatment (30 min) from a previously published study. Conclusion Glibenclamide administration did not cause headache, and glibenclamide pretreatment did not prevent levcromakalim-induced headache. However, glibenclamide delayed the onset of levcromakalim-induced headache. More selective blockers are needed to further elucidate the role of the ATP-sensitive potassium channel in headache initiation. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03886922.