Migraine and stroke are two common and heterogeneous neurovascular disorders responsible for a significant burden for those affected and a great economic cost for the society. There is growing evidence that migraine increases the overall risk of cerebrovascular diseases. In this review, based on available literature through a PubMed search, we found that ischaemic stroke in people with migraine is strongly associated with migraine with aura, young age, female sex, use of oral contraceptives and smoking habits. The risk of transient ischaemic attack also seems to be increased in people with migraine, although this issue has not been extensively investigated. Although migraine appears to be associated with haemorrhagic stroke, the migraine aura status has a small influence on this relationship. Neuroimaging studies have revealed a higher prevalence of asymptomatic structural brain lesions in people with migraine. They are also more likely to have unfavourable vascular risk factors; however, the increased risk of stroke seems to be more apparent among people with migraine without traditional risk factors. The mechanism behind the migraine-stroke association is unknown. In light of the higher risk of stroke in people with migraine with aura, it is important to identify and modify any vascular risk factor. There is currently no direct evidence to support that a migraine prophylactic treatment can reduce future stroke in people with migraine.

ImportanceThe use of spinal cord stimulation for chronic pain after lumbar spine surgery is increasing, yet rigorous evidence of its efficacy is lacking.ObjectiveTo investigate the efficacy of spinal cord burst stimulation, which involves the placement of an implantable pulse generator connected to electrodes with leads that travel into the epidural space posterior to the spinal cord dorsal columns, in patients with chronic radiculopathy after surgery for degenerative lumbar spine disorders.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis placebo-controlled, crossover, randomized clinical trial in 50 patients was conducted at St Olavs University Hospital in Norway, with study enrollment from September 5, 2018, through April 28, 2021. The date of final follow-up was May 20, 2022.InterventionsPatients underwent two 3-month periods with spinal cord burst stimulation and two 3-month periods with placebo stimulation in a randomized order. Burst stimulation consisted of closely spaced, high-frequency electrical stimuli delivered to the spinal cord. The stimulus consisted of a 40-Hz burst mode of constant-current stimuli with 4 spikes per burst and an amplitude corresponding to 50% to 70% of the paresthesia perception threshold.Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe primary outcome was difference in change from baseline in the self-reported Oswestry Disability Index (ODI; range, 0 points [no disability] to 100 points [maximum disability]; the minimal clinically important difference was 10 points) score between periods with burst stimulation and placebo stimulation. The secondary outcomes were leg and back pain, quality of life, physical activity levels, and adverse events.ResultsAmong 50 patients who were randomized (mean age, 52.2 [SD, 9.9] years; 27 [54%] were women), 47 (94%) had at least 1 follow-up ODI score and 42 (84%) completed all stimulation randomization periods and ODI measurements. The mean ODI score at baseline was 44.7 points and the mean changes in ODI score were −10.6 points for the burst stimulation periods and −9.3 points for the placebo stimulation periods, resulting in a mean between-group difference of −1.3 points (95% CI, −3.9 to 1.3 points; P = .32). None of the prespecified secondary outcomes showed a significant difference. Nine patients (18%) experienced adverse events, including 4 (8%) who required surgical revision of the implanted system.Conclusions and RelevanceAmong patients with chronic radicular pain after lumbar spine surgery, spinal cord burst stimulation, compared with placebo stimulation, after placement of a spinal cord stimulator resulted in no significant difference in the change from baseline in self-reported back pain–related disability.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03546738

BackgroundThe risks of intracranial haemorrhage (ICH) associated with antithrombotic drugs outside clinical trials are gaining increased attention. The aim of this nationwide study was to investigate the risk of ICH requiring hospital admission in users of antithrombotic drugs.Methods and findingsData from the Norwegian Patient Registry and Norwegian Prescription Database were linked on an individual level. The primary outcome was incidence rates of ICH associated with use of antithrombotic drugs. Secondary endpoints were risk of ICH and fatal outcome following ICH assessed by Cox models. Among 3,131,270 individuals ≥18 years old observed from 2008 through 2014, there were 729,818 users of antithrombotic medications and 22,111 ICH hospitalizations. Annual crude ICH rates per 100 person-years were 0.076 (95% CI, 0.075–0.077) in non-users and 0.30 (95% CI, 0.30–0.31) in users of antithrombotic medication, with the highest age and sex adjusted rates observed for aspirin-dipyridamole plus clopidogrel (0.44; 95% CI, 0.19–0.69), rivaroxaban plus aspirin (0.36; 95% CI, 0.16–0.56), warfarin plus aspirin (0.34; 95% CI, 0.26–0.43), and warfarin plus aspirin and clopidogrel (0.33; 95% CI, 0.073–0.60). With no antithrombotic medication as reference, the highest adjusted hazard ratios (HR) for ICH were observed for aspirin-dypiridamole plus clopidogrel (6.29; 95% CI 3.71–10.7), warfarin plus aspirin and clopidogrel (4.38; 95% CI 2.71–7.09), rivaroxaban plus aspirin (3.82; 95% CI, 2.46–5.95), and warfarin plus aspirin (3.40; 95% CI, 2.99–3.86). All antithrombotic medication regimens were associated with an increased risk of ICH, except dabigatran monotherapy (HR 1.20; 95% CI, 0.88–1.65) and dabigatran plus aspirin (HR 1.79; 95% CI, 0.96–3.34). Fatal outcome within 90 days was more common in users (2,603 of 8,055) than non-users (3,228 of 14,056) of antithrombotic medication (32.3% vs 23.0%, p<0.001), and was associated with use of warfarin plus aspirin and clopidogrel (HR 2.89; 95% CI, 1.49–5.60), warfarin plus aspirin (HR 1.37; 95% CI, 1.11–1.68), aspirin plus clopidogrel (HR 1.30; 95% CI, 1.05–1.61), and warfarin (HR 1.19; 95% CI, 1.09–1.31). Increased one-year mortality was observed in users of antithrombotic medication following hemorrhagic stroke, subdural hemorrhage, subarachnoid hemorrhage, and traumatic ICH (all p<0.001). Limitations include those inherent to observational studies including the inability to make causal inferences, certain assumptions regarding drug exposure, and the possibility of residual confounding.ConclusionsThe real-world incidence rates and risks of ICH were generally higher than reported in randomized controlled trials. There is still major room for improvement in terms of antithrombotic medication safety (clinicaltrials.gov NCT02481011).