BackgroundResting-state functional connectivity (FC) MRI has widely been used to understand migraine pathophysiology and to identify an imaging marker of the disorder. Here, we review what we have learned from FC studies.MethodsWe performed a literature search on the PubMed website for original articles reporting data obtained from conventional resting-state FC recording in migraine patients compared with healthy controls or during and outside of migraine attacks in the same patients.ResultsWe found 219 articles and included 28 in this review after screening for inclusion and exclusion criteria. Twenty-five studies compared migraine patients with healthy controls, whereas three studies investigated migraine patients during and outside of attacks. In the studies of interictal migraine more alterations of more than 20 FC networks (including amygdala, caudate nucleus, central executive, cerebellum, cuneus, dorsal attention network, default mode, executive control, fronto-parietal, hypothalamus, insula, neostriatum, nucleus accumbens, occipital lobe, periaqueductal grey, prefrontal cortex, salience, somatosensory cortex I, thalamus and visual) were reported. We found a poor level of reproducibility and no migraine specific pattern across these studies.ConclusionBased on the findings in the present review, it seems very difficult to extract knowledge of migraine pathophysiology or to identify a biomarker of migraine. There is an unmet need of guidelines for resting-state FC studies in migraine, which promote the use of homogenous terminology, public availability of protocol and the a priori hypothesis in line with for instance randomized clinical trial guidelines.

Chronic migraine is a neurological disorder characterized by 15 or more headache days per month of which at least 8 days show typical migraine features. The process that describes the development from episodic migraine into chronic migraine is commonly referred to as migraine transformation or chronification. Ample studies have attempted to identify factors associated with migraine transformation from different perspectives. Understanding CM as a pathological brain state with trigeminovascular participation where biological changes occur, we have completed a comprehensive review on the clinical, epidemiological, genetic, molecular, structural, functional, physiological and preclinical evidence available.

BackgroundThe treatment of migraine is impeded by several difficulties, among which insufficient headache relief, side effects, and risk for developing medication overuse headache (MOH). Thus, new acutely acting antimigraine drugs are currently being developed, among which the small molecule CGRP receptor antagonists, gepants, and the 5-HT1F receptor agonist lasmiditan. Whether treatment with these drugs carries the same risk for developing MOH is currently unknown.Main bodyPathophysiological studies on MOH in animal models have suggested that decreased 5-hydroxytryptamine (5-HT, serotonin) levels, increased calcitonin-gene related peptide (CGRP) expression and changes in 5-HT receptor expression (lower 5-HT1B/D and higher 5-HT2A expression) may be involved in MOH. The decreased 5-HT may increase cortical spreading depression frequency and induce central sensitization in the cerebral cortex and caudal nucleus of the trigeminal tract. Additionally, low concentrations of 5-HT, a feature often observed in MOH patients, could increase CGRP expression. This provides a possible link between the pathways of 5-HT and CGRP, targets of lasmiditan and gepants, respectively. Since lasmiditan is a 5-HT1F receptor agonist and gepants are CGRP receptor antagonists, they could have different risks for developing MOH because of the different (over) compensation mechanisms following prolonged agonist versus antagonist treatment.ConclusionThe acute treatment of migraine will certainly improve with the advent of two novel classes of drugs, i.e., the 5-HT1F receptor agonists (lasmiditan) and the small molecule CGRP receptor antagonists (gepants). Data on the effects of 5-HT1F receptor agonism in relation to MOH, as well as the effects of chronic CGRP receptor blockade, are awaited with interest.

Introduction: The headache phase of migraine could in selected cases potentially be treated by surgical decompression of one or more “trigger sites,” located at frontal, temporal, nasal, and occipital sites. This systematic review with subsequent meta-analysis aims at critically evaluating the currently available evidence for the surgical treatment of migraine headache and to determine the effect size of this treatment in a specific patient population. Methods: This study was conducted following the PRISMA guidelines. An online database search was performed. Inclusion was based on studies published between 2000 and March 2018, containing a diagnosis of migraine in compliance with the classification of the International Headache Society. The treatment must consist of one or more surgical procedures involving the extracranial nerves and/or arteries with outcome data available at minimum 6 months. Results: Eight hundred and forty-seven records were identified after duplicates were removed, 44 full text articles were assessed and 14 records were selected for inclusion. A total number of 627 patients were included in the analysis. A proportion of 0.38 of patients (random effects model, 95% CI [0.30–0.46]) experienced elimination of migraine headaches at 6–12 months follow-up. Using data from three randomized controlled trials, the calculated odds ratio for 90–100% elimination of migraine headaches is 21.46 (random effects model, 95% CI [5.64–81.58]) for patients receiving migraine surgery compared to sham or no surgery. Conclusions: Migraine surgery leads to elimination of migraine headaches in 38% of the migraine patients included in this review. However, more elaborate randomized trials are needed with transparent reporting of patient selection, medication use, and surgical procedures and implementing detailed and longer follow-up times.