Patient and public involvement Patients and/or the public were not involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of this research.

Progressive muscle relaxation (PMR) is an under-utilized Level A evidence-based treatment for migraine prevention. We studied the feasibility and acceptability of smartphone application (app)-based PMR for migraine in a neurology setting, explored whether appbased PMR might reduce headache (HA) days, and examined potential predictors of app and/or PMR use. In this single-arm pilot study, adults with ICHD3 migraine, 4+ HA days/month, a smartphone, and no prior behavioral migraine therapy in the past year were asked to complete a daily HA diary and do PMR for 20 min/day for 90 days. Outcomes were: adherence to PMR (no. and duration of audio plays) and frequency of diary use. Predictors in the models were baseline demographics, HA-specific variables, baseline PROMIS (patient-reported outcomes measurement information system) depression and anxiety scores, presence of overlapping pain conditions studied and app satisfaction scores at time of enrollment. Fifty-one patients enrolled (94% female). Mean age was 39 ± 13 years. The majority (63%) had severe migraine disability at baseline (MIDAS). PMR was played 22 ± 21 days on average. Mean/session duration was 11 ± 7 min. About half (47%) of uses were 1+ time/week and 35% of uses were 2+ times/week. There was a decline in use/week. On average, high users (PMR 2+ days/week in the first month) had 4 fewer days of reported HAs in month 2 vs. month 1, whereas low PMR users (PMR < 2 days/week in the first month) had only 2 fewer HA days in month 2. PROMIS depression score was negatively associated with the log odds of using the diary at least once (vs. no activity) in a week (OR = 0.70, 95% CI = [0.55, 0.85]) and of doing the PMR at least once in a week (OR = 0.77, 95% CI = [0.68, 0.91]). PROMIS anxiety was positively associated with using the diary at least once every week (OR = 1.33, 95% CI = [1.09, 1.73]) and with doing the PMR at least once every week (OR = 1.14 [95% CI = [1.02, 1.31]). In conclusion, about half of participants used smartphone-based PMR intervention based upon a brief, initial introduction to the app. App use was associated with reduction in HA days. Higher depression scores were negatively associated with diary and PMR use, whereas higher anxiety scores were positively associated.

Background.-There are no clear guidelines on how to treat posttraumatic headache (PTH) or post-concussive symptoms (PCS). However, behavioral interventions such as cognitive behavioral therapy, biofeedback, and relaxation are Level-A evidencebased treatments for headache prevention. To understand how to develop and study further mind-body interventions (MBIs) and behavioral therapies for PTH and PCS, we developed the following question using the PICO framework: Are behavioral therapies and MBIs effective for treating PTH and PCS?Methods.-We conducted a systematic search of 3 databases (Medline, PsycINFO, and EMBASE) for behavioral interventions and MBIs with the subject headings and keywords for PTH, concussion, and traumatic brain injury (TBI). Inclusion criteria were (1) randomized controlled trials, (2) the majority of the intervention had to be behavioral or mind-body therapy focused, (3) the majority of the participants (>50%) had to have had a mild TBI (not a moderate or severe TBI), (4) published in a peer-reviewed publication, and (5) meeting pre-specified primary and/or secondary outcomes. Primary outcome(s): whether there was a significant change in concussion symptom severity (yes/no) based on the symptom severity checklist/scale used, whether there was a 50% reduction in headache days and/or disability; secondary outcome(s): sleep variables, cognitive complaints, depression, and anxiety. The search identified 917 individual studies. Two independent reviewers screened citations and full-text articles independently. Nineteen articles were pulled for full article review. Seven articles met the final inclusion criteria. The systematic review was registered in Prospero (CRD42017070072).Results.-Overall, there was vast heterogeneity across the studies, making it difficult to fully assess efficacy. The heterogeneity ranged from differences in patient populations, the timing of when the interventions were initiated, the types of intervention implemented, and the measures used to assess outcomes. Seven studies were identified as meeting final inclusion criteria, resulting in a total of 1108 adult participants ranging from 18 to 80. Sixty-nine percent were male. Of the 7 studies, 3 were focused on military staff (retired and active). Time post-injury for inclusion into the studies varied from 48 hours post-injury to more than 2 years post-injury. One of the 7 studies did not include time post-TBI in the inclusion criteria. Two studies recruited patients who had visited their emergency departments, 4 of the studies recruited subjects through outpatient referrals, and 1 study recruited patients who had been in a prior traffic accident with resulting chronic PTH directly from a headache center. Group cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) sessions and telephonic counseling or communication were common intervention methods used in the studies, with group CBT being used in 2 of the studies and telephonic counseling being used in 3. Other intervention methods used included individual CBT, cognitive training, psychoeducat...

Objective To assess the association of a detectable antibody response to COVID‐19 vaccination with factors including B cell depletion in patients who received treatment with rituximab (RTX). Methods We conducted a retrospective review of the charts of adult patients who received treatment with RTX and completed messenger RNA vaccination for SARS–CoV‐2. The primary outcome measure was the presence or absence and strength of the serologic antibody response to vaccination. Comparisons between those with and those without a detectable serologic response were calculated using t‐tests, Fisher's exact test, and Wilcoxon's rank sum test. The relationship between the serologic response to COVID‐19 vaccination and B cell reconstitution status was assessed using negative predictive values and positive predictive values with data reported as percentages with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). Results In 56 patients being treated with RTX, a significant difference in terms of the level of B cell reconstitution was observed in those with a positive serologic response compared to those with a negative serologic response to vaccination (proportion of B cells reconstituted among total lymphocytes, median 2% [interquartile range (IQR) 0.13–10%] versus median 0% [IQR 0–0%]; P < 0.001).There was also a significant difference in the time since the last RTX infusion between patients with a positive serologic response compared to those with a negative serologic response to vaccination (median time since last infusion 594 days [IQR 262–1,163] versus median 138 days [IQR 68–197]; P < 0.001). There was no serologic response to COVID‐19 vaccination after the last exposure to RTX in 13% of patients (3 of 24) at >12 months after last exposure, 55% of patients (6 of 11) at 6–12 months after last exposure, and 86% of patients (18 of 21) at <6 months after last exposure. Conclusion B cell reconstitution and a longer time since a patient's last exposure to RTX are associated with a positive serologic response to the COVID‐19 vaccine. Strategies for maximizing vaccine responsiveness in patients who receive treatment with RTX should incorporate assessment of B cell reconstitution.