The aim of this study was to investigate central sensitization (CS) in chronic headaches and compare this phenomenon between chronic migraine (CM) and chronic tension-type headache (CTTH). We recruited 69 patients with chronic headaches and 18 control subjects. Questionnaires of headache history, allodynia and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression scale were administered. We recorded thresholds for pinprick and pressure pain, blink (BR) and nociceptive flexion reflex (NFR) R3 component coupled with wind-up ratios. Thresholds for pressure and pinprick pain, BR and NFR R3 were lower and wind-up ratios higher in patients. No differences of CS parameters between CM and CTTH were observed. CS is persistent and prevalent in patients with various types of chronic headache. CS levels are unrelated to the predominant side of pain, disease duration or depression. Neither is CS related to the headache type, suggesting similar mechanisms of headache chronification and chronicity maintaining and possibly explaining clinical similarity of various forms of chronic headache.

BackgroundThe study was a collaboration between Lifting The Burden (LTB) and the European Headache Federation (EHF). Its aim was to evaluate the implementation of quality indicators for headache care Europe-wide in specialist headache centres (level-3 according to the EHF/LTB standard).MethodsEmploying previously-developed instruments in 14 such centres, we made enquiries, in each, of health-care providers (doctors, nurses, psychologists, physiotherapists) and 50 patients, and analysed the medical records of 50 other patients. Enquiries were in 9 domains: diagnostic accuracy, individualized management, referral pathways, patient’s education and reassurance, convenience and comfort, patient’s satisfaction, equity and efficiency of the headache care, outcome assessment and safety.ResultsOur study showed that highly experienced headache centres treated their patients in general very well. The centres were content with their work and their patients were content with their treatment. Including disability and quality-of-life evaluations in clinical assessments, and protocols regarding safety, proved problematic: better standards for these are needed. Some centres had problems with follow-up: many specialised centres operated in one-touch systems, without possibility of controlling long-term management or the success of treatments dependent on this.ConclusionsThis first Europe-wide quality study showed that the quality indicators were workable in specialist care. They demonstrated common trends, producing evidence of what is majority practice. They also uncovered deficits that might be remedied in order to improve quality. They offer the means of setting benchmarks against which service quality may be judged. The next step is to take the evaluation process into non-specialist care (EHF/LTB levels 1 and 2).Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s10194-016-0707-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Cognitive impairment has been described in all phases of a migraine attack and interictally. However, the prevalence and phenotype of such impairment in chronic migraine (CM) have not yet been studied. Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate both the prevalence of the objective cognitive deficit in patients with CM and the factors underlying its etiology. Methods: 144 patients with CM and 44 age-matched patients with low-frequency episodic migraine (EM) (a maximum of 4 headache days per month) participated in this study. Neuropsychiatric characteristics were measured with the HADS Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. Cognitive function was assessed with the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), Digit Symbol Substitution Test (DSST), Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test (RAVLT), and the Perceived Deficits Questionnaire (PDQ-20). Results: Compared to EM, CM subjects demonstrated higher subjective and objective cognitive impairment across all tests. CM patients had 4 times higher odds of achieving a RAVLT score in the lower quartile range compared to EM (Odds Ratio [OR] 3.8; 95% confidence interval [95%CI] 1.5‒9.6; р=0.005). In the MoCA, CM patients demonstrated the most striking impairment in memory/delayed recall (65.3%), attention (46.5%), abstraction (30.6%), and language (27.1%). Chronic headache and level of education, but not gender, depression or anxiety, were independent predictors of cognitive impairment. Conclusions: Cognitive impairment is prevalent in the CM population during their mildest possible pain and may be caused by a central sensitization. Timely preventive treatment of EM is warranted.

Objective In this narrative review, we summarize clinical and experimental data on the effect of light in migraine and discuss future prospects. Background Effective nonpharmacological treatment of hypersensitivity to light in migraine is an unmet clinical need. Current management strategies primarily consist of seeking a dark room and avoiding light exposure. Advances in the past 2 decades have improved our understanding of the underlying pathophysiology of how migraine is influenced by light. This may provide promising avenues for novel approaches in clinical management. Methods We searched MEDLINE for articles published from database inception up to September 1, 2021. We used the search term “migraine” with the search terms “light,” “photophobia,” “treatment,” “trigger,” “circadian rhythm,” “environment,” and/or “pathophysiology.” Results Light is commonly reported as a trigger factor of migraine attacks, however, early manifestation of photophobia and false attribution is likely the actual cause based on data deriving from retrospective, prospective, and experimental studies. The most common photophobia symptoms in migraine are exacerbation of headache by light and abnormal sensitivity to light with the underlying neural pathways likely being dependent on ongoing activity in the trigeminovascular system. Clinical studies and experimental models have identified mediators of photophobia and uncovered narrow wavebands of the light spectrum that may reduce pain intensity during a migraine attack. Consequently, novel devices have undergone exploratory clinical trials with promising results. Conclusion False attribution is likely the reason why light is commonly reported as a trigger factor of migraine attacks, and a prospective confirmation is required to prevent unnecessary avoidance. The observation that individuals with migraine are not equally photophobic to all wavebands of the light spectrum opens the potential for innovative pain management strategies. In this context, using human‐centric lighting (also called integrative lighting) to mimic the natural daylight cycle and avoid harmful wavebands through modern technology may prove beneficial. Future research should identify direct and indirect consequences of light and other environmental factors in migraine to fill out knowledge gaps and enable evidence‐based care strategies within institutions, work environments, and other settings.

Background Monoclonal antibodies acting on the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) or its receptor have changed migraine preventive treatment. Those treatments have led to reconsidering the outcomes of migraine prevention. Available data mostly considered benefits in terms of relative efficacy (percent or absolute decrease in monthly migraine days [MMDs] or headache days compared with baseline). However, not enough attention has been paid to residual MMDs and/or migraine-related disability in treated patients. In the present study, we aimed at comparing the relative and absolute efficacy of erenumab. Methods ESTEEMen was a collaborative project among 16 European headache centers which already performed real-life data collections on patients treated with erenumab for at least 12 weeks. For the present study, we performed a subgroup analysis on patients with complete data on MMDs at baseline and at weeks 9-12 of treatment. Starting from efficacy thresholds proposed by previous literature, we classified patients into 0-29%, 30-49%, 50-74%, and ≥75% responders according to MMD decrease from baseline to weeks 9-12 of treatment. For each response category, we reported the median MMDs and Headache Impact test-6 (HIT-6) scores at baseline and at weeks 9-12. We categorized the number of residual MMDs at weeks 9-12 as follows: 0-3, 4-7, 8-14, ≥15. We classified HIT-6 score into four categories: ≤49, 50-55, 56-59, and ≥60. To keep in line with the original scope of the ESTEEMen study, calculations were performed in men and women. Results Out of 1215 patients, at weeks 9-12, 381 (31.4%) had a 0-29% response, 186 (15.3%) a 30-49% response, 396 (32.6%) a 50-74% response, and 252 (20.7%) a ≥75% response; 246 patients (20.2%) had 0-3 residual MMDs, 443 (36.5%) had 4-7 MMDs, 299 (24.6%) had 8-14 MMDs, and 227 (18.7%) had ≥15 MMDs. Among patients with 50-74% response, 246 (62.1%) had 4-7 and 94 (23.7%) 8-14 residual MMDs, while among patients with ≥75% response 187 (74.2%) had 0-3 and 65 (25.8%) had 4-7 residual MMDs. Conclusions The present study shows that even patients with good relative response to erenumab may have a clinically non-negligible residual migraine burden. Relative measures of efficacy cannot be enough to thoroughly consider the efficacy of migraine prevention.