Faculty Bibliography

Migraine is a leading cause of disability worldwide. A minority of individuals with migraine develop resistant or refractory conditions characterised by ≥ 8 monthly days of debilitating headaches and inadequate response, intolerance, or contraindication to ≥3 or all preventive drug classes, respectively. Resistant and refractory migraine are emerging clinical definitions stemming from better knowledge of the pathophysiology of migraine and from the advent of migraine-specific preventive treatments. Resistant migraine mostly results from drug failures, while refractory migraine has complex and still unknown mechanisms that impair the efficacy of preventive treatments. Individuals with resistant migraine can be treated with migraine-specific preventive drugs. The management of refractory migraine is challenging and often unsuccessful, being based on combinations of different drugs and non-pharmacological treatment. Future research should aim to identify individuals at risk of developing treatment failures, prevent the condition, investigate the mechanisms of refractoriness to treatments, and find effective treatment strategies.

The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development sets out, through 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), a path for the prosperity of people and the planet. SDG 3 in particular aims to ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages and includes several targets to enhance health. This review presents a "headache-tailored" perspective on how to achieve SDG 3 by focusing on six specific actions: targeting chronic headaches; reducing the overuse of acute pain-relieving medications; promoting the education of healthcare professionals; granting access to medication in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC); implementing training and educational opportunities for healthcare professionals in low and middle income countries; building a global alliance against headache disorders. Addressing the burden of headache disorders directly impacts on populations' health, as well as on the possibility to improve the productivity of people aged below 50, women in particular. Our analysis pointed out several elements, and included: moving forward from frequency-based parameters to define headache severity; recognizing and managing comorbid diseases and risk factors; implementing a disease management multi-modal management model that incorporates pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments; early recognizing and managing the overuse of acute pain-relieving medications; promoting undergraduate, postgraduate, and continuing medical education of healthcare professionals with specific training on headache; and promoting a culture that favors the recognition of headaches as diseases with a neurobiological basis, where this is not yet recognized. Making headache care more sustainable is an achievable objective, which will require multi-stakeholder collaborations across all sectors of society, both health-related and not health-related. Robust investments will be needed; however, considering the high prevalence of headache disorders and the associated disability, these investments will surely improve multiple health outcomes and lift development and well-being globally.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW/OBJECTIVE:We evaluate the evolving evidence of psychiatric comorbidities associated with episodic migraine. Utilizing recent research publications, we aim to assess traditional treatment option considerations and discuss recent and evolving non-pharmacologic treatment progress for episodic migraine and related psychiatric conditions. RECENT FINDINGS/RESULTS:Recent findings indicate that episodic migraine is strongly linked to comorbid depression, anxiety, posttraumatic stress disorder, and sleep disorders. Not only do patients with episodic migraine have higher rates of psychiatric comorbidity, but a higher number of headache days reported is also strongly linked to an increased risk of developing a psychiatric disorder, indicating there may be a link between frequency and psychiatric comorbidity and that patients with high-frequency episodic migraine should be assessed for psychiatric comorbidity. Few migraine preventive medications have examined the effect of the medication on both migraine and psychiatric comorbidity though we discuss what has been reported in the literature. Non-pharmacologic-based treatments including behavioral therapies and mind-body interventions previously developed for psychiatric conditions, e.g., mindfulness-based CBT (MBCT), acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT), and mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) therapy, have promising results for patients diagnosed with episodic migraine and may therefore be useful in treating migraine and comorbid psychiatric conditions. Psychiatric comorbidity may affect the efficacy of the treatment of episodic migraine. Thus, we must assess for psychiatric comorbidities to inform better treatment plans for patients. Providing patients with episodic migraine with alternate modalities of treatment may help to improve patient-centered care and increase patients' sense of self-efficacy.

BACKGROUND:Headache disorders are among the most common and disabling medical conditions worldwide, have a great societal impact and are a common reason to seek medical care. Headache disorders are often misdiagnosed and undertreated, and the number of headache fellowship-trained physicians cannot meet patient demand. Educational initiatives for non-headache-specialist clinicians may be an avenue to increase clinician competency and patient access to appropriate management. OBJECTIVE:To undertake a scoping review of the educational initiatives in headache medicine for medical students, trainees, general practitioners/primary care physicians, and neurologists. METHODS:Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines for scoping reviews, an author (M.D.), with the help of a medical librarian, conducted a search of the Embase, Ovid Medline, and PsychInfo databases for articles related to medical educational initiatives on headache medicine in medical students, residents, and physicians over the last 20 years. RESULTS:A total of 17 articles met the inclusion criteria for this scoping review. Six articles were identified for medical students, seven for general practitioners/primary care physicians, one for emergency medicine residents, two for neurology residents, and one for neurologists. Certain educational initiatives were headache-focused while others had headaches as one of the educational topics. Educational content was delivered and assessed via diverse and innovative means, such as flipped classroom, simulation, theatrical performance, repeated quizzing and study, and a formalized headache elective. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Education initiatives in headache medicine are important to improve competency and patient access to appropriate management of various headache disorders. Future research should focus on using innovative and evidence-based methods of content delivery, knowledge, and procedural assessment, and evaluating changes in practice behaviors.

OBJECTIVE:We assessed headache clinicians' viewpoints on potential remote access to patients' digital headache diary data and the practicalities of data utilization. BACKGROUND:With the ubiquitous nature of electronic medical records and the existence of remote monitoring (RM) for many medical conditions, there is now the potential for remote symptom monitoring for patients with headache disorders. While patients are asked to utilize headache diaries, clinicians may or may not have access to the data before patient visits, and their perspectives regarding this emerging technology are currently unknown. METHODS:After recruiting participants from the National Institutes of Health Pain Consortium Network, the American Headache Society Special Interest Section listservs, and Twitter and Facebook social media platforms, we conducted 20 semi-structured qualitative interviews of headache providers across the United States from various types of institutions and asked them their perspectives on remote access to patient headache diary data. We transcribed the interviews, which were then coded by two independent coders. Themes and sub-themes were developed using inductive content analysis. RESULTS:All clinicians felt the RM data needed to be integrated into the electronic medical record. Six themes emerged from the interviews: (i) Clinician perspectives on how RM could be beneficial but at other times could create obstacles/challenges, (ii) operationally, data integration could benefit headache care, (iii) there should be initial logistical considerations for bringing RM into clinical care, (iv) education may need to be provided to both patients and clinicians, (v) there are likely research benefits associated with RM, and (vi) additional suggestions for considering potential integration of RM into practice. CONCLUSIONS:While headache clinicians had mixed opinions on the benefits/challenges that RM presents to patient care, patient satisfaction, and visit time, new ideas emerged that may help advance the field.

BACKGROUND/UNASSIGNED:Early exposure to neuroscience is imperative to strengthening the neuroscience and neurology pipeline and may present an avenue for increasing the number of practicing neurologists and diversifying the neuroscience workforce. Our objective was to systematically review existing K-12 neuroscience education and outreach programs to understand what educational programs have been developed and implemented. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:We conducted an electronic database search of PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Education Source, and ERIC. All eligible articles were systematically reviewed to examine the type of program developed, target age group, implementation, and efficacy. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:Our search produced 2,574 results, from which 23 articles were deemed eligible. The breakdown by age group was as follows: 5 elementary school, 8 middle school, 8 high school, and 2 general K-12 range of students. Six articles described programs intended for URM students. All programs were found to be successful in exposing students to neuroscience and inspiring interest in pursuing a career in the field of neurology. DISCUSSION/UNASSIGNED:Further efforts are necessary to analyze the long-term effectiveness of K-12 neuroscience education and outreach programs in overcoming the shortage of neurologists and explore the impact of mentorship for various age groups among K-12.Systematic review registrationhttps://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/2G8CN.

BACKGROUND/UNASSIGNED:No matter what type of headache is being considered across various populations, one of the mainstays of headache medicine is headache tracking. This self-management tool enables patients and their providers to understand patients' underlying symptoms and the effects of treatments they have tried. This is important to determining whether headaches are related to menses for women's health, to determining the time of headache occurrence, e.g., hypnic headache, and the location and duration of symptoms, e.g., trigeminal autonomic cephalgia. Prior research has investigated what people with headaches perceive about headache diary use and how people with headaches utilize electronic headache diaries. However, headache providers' perspectives on the important factors related to headache diaries are less known. Previously, using the Modified Delphi Process, a panel of four experts opined what they perceived as the most important factors for a headache diary. We sought to better understand headache providers' perspectives about headache diary/app usage from providers working in various institutions nationwide. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:We conducted 20 semi-structured qualitative interviews of headache providers across the US from various institutions and asked them their perspectives on headache diary use. We transcribed the interviews, which two independent coders then coded. Themes and subthemes were developed using grounded theory qualitative analysis. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:Six themes emerged: (1) Providers were generally agnostic regarding the headache tracking method, but nearly all recommend the use of smartphones for tracking; (2) Providers had concerns regarding the accessibility of headache trackers; (3) Providers noted benefits to integrating headache tracking data into the EMR but had mixed opinions on how this integration might be done; (4) Providers had mixed opinions regarding the utility and interpretation of the data, specifically regarding data accuracy and efficiency; (5) Providers generally felt that headache tracking lends itself to more collaborative plan management; (6) Providers recommend behavioral health apps for patients but stated that there are few digital behavioral health interventions for headache specifically. CONCLUSION/UNASSIGNED:Interviews of headache providers, recommenders, and users of headache data are vital informants who can provide a robust amount of information about headache diary development, use in different populations, integration, and more.

BACKGROUND/UNASSIGNED:Although current programs exist to encourage undergraduate interest in neuroscience and neurology, few students go on to pursue a career in neurology. Thus, there is a need for more neurologists in the US. To assess undergraduate pipeline programs and their goals of garnering interest and knowledge of neurology, we systematically reviewed available literature on existing undergraduate neurology pipeline programs. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:A medical librarian conducted an electronic database search of PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Education Source, and ERIC based on a search strategy developed with a team of undergraduates and a neurologist. Of the 2,852 articles screened, 33 met the systematic review criteria and were evaluated based on the type and goal of the pipeline program, its delivery, and efficacy. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:The 33 programs were classified into subtypes of pipeline programs, with focuses ranging from student-led projects to early clinical research opportunities. All programs were found to be successful in attracting student interest in neurology, providing exposure to relevant opportunities, and classroom enrichment. DISCUSSION/UNASSIGNED:The existing literature shows that neurology pipeline programs successfully inspire interest in a career in neurology among undergraduate students. These programs are valuable supplements to undergraduate neuroscience curricula and instrumental in introducing students to various fields.

BACKGROUND:There are thousands of apps for individuals struggling with headache, insomnia, and pain, but it is difficult to establish which of these apps are best suited for patients' specific needs. If clinicians were to have access to a platform that would allow them to make an informed decision on the efficacy and feasibility of smartphone apps for patient care, they would feel confident in prescribing specific apps. OBJECTIVE:We sought to evaluate the quality of apps for some of the top common, disabling neurologic conditions (headache, insomnia, and pain) based on principles derived from the American Psychiatric Association's (APA) app evaluation model. METHODS:We used the Mobile Health Index and Navigation database and expanded upon the database's current supported conditions by adding 177 new app entries. Each app was rated for consistency with the APA's app evaluation model, which includes 105 objective questions based on the following 5 major classes of consideration: (1) accessibility, (2) privacy and security, (3) clinical foundation, (4) engagement style, and (5) interoperability. These characteristics were evaluated to gain a broader understanding of the significant features of each app category in comparison against a control group. RESULTS:Approximately 90% (187/201) of all apps evaluated were free to download, but only 50% (63/201) of headache- and pain-related apps were truly free. Most (87/106, 81%) sleep apps were not truly free to use. The apps had similar limitations with limited privacy, accessibility, and crisis management resources. For example, only 17% (35/201) of the apps were available in Spanish. The apps offered mostly self-help tools with little tailoring; symptom tracking was the most common feature in headache- (32/48, 67%) and pain-related apps (21/47, 45%), whereas mindfulness was the most common feature in sleep-related apps (73/106, 69%). CONCLUSIONS:Although there are many apps for headache, pain, and insomnia, all 3 types of apps have room for improvement around accessibility and privacy. Pain and headache apps share many common features, whereas insomnia apps offer mostly mindfulness-based resources. Given the many available apps to pick from, clinicians and patients should seek apps that offer the highest-quality features, such as complete privacy, remedial features, and the ability to download the app at no cost. These results suggest that there are many opportunities for the improvement of apps centered on headache, insomnia, and pain.