Faculty Bibliography

Migraine affects over 40 million Americans and is the world's second most disabling condition. As the majority of medical care for migraine occurs in primary care settings, not in neurology nor headache subspecialty practices, healthcare system interventions should focus on primary care. Though there is grade A evidence for behavioral treatment (e.g., biofeedback, cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), and relaxation techniques) for migraine, these treatments are underutilized. Behavioral treatments may be a valuable alternative to opioids, which remain widely used for migraine, despite the US opioid epidemic and guidelines that recommend against them. Identifying and removing barriers to the use of headache behavioral therapy could help reduce the disability as well as the personal and social costs of migraine. These techniques will have their greatest impact if offered in primary care settings to the lower socioeconomic status groups at greatest risk for migraine. We review the societal and cultural challenges that impose barriers to optimal use of non-pharmacological treatment services. These barriers include insufficient knowledge of migraine/headache behavioral treatments and insufficient availability of clinicians trained in non-pharmacological treatment delivery; limited access in underserved communities; financial burden; and stigma associated with both headache and mental health diagnoses and treatment. For each barrier, we discuss potential approaches to minimizing its effect and thus enhancing non-pharmacological treatment utilization.Case ExampleA 25-year-old graduate student with a prior history of headaches in college is attending school in the evenings while working a full-time job. Now, his headaches have significant nausea and photophobia. They are twice weekly and are disabling enough that he is unable to complete homework assignments. He does not understand why the headaches occur on Saturdays when he pushes through all week to get through his examinations that take place on Friday evenings. He tried two different migraine preventive medications, but neither led to the 50% reduction in headache days his doctor had hoped for. His doctor had suggested cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) before initiating the medications, but he had been too busy to attend the appointments, and the challenges in finding an in-network provider proved difficult. Now with the worsening headaches, he opted for the CBT and by the fifth week had already noted improvements in his headache frequency and intensity.

OBJECTIVE:To review the contemporary issues of healthcare disparities in Headache Medicine with regard to race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status and geography and propose solutions for addressing these disparities. METHODS:An internet and PubMed search was performed and literature was reviewed for key concepts underpinning disparities in Headache Medicine. Content was refined to areas most salient to our goal of informing the provision of equitable care in headache treatment through discussions with this group of 16 experts from a range of headache subspecialties. RESULTS:Taken together, a multitude of factors including racism, socioeconomic status and insurance status and geographical disparities contribute to the inequities that exist within the healthcare system when treating headache disorders. Interventions such as improving public education, advocacy, optimizing telemedicine, engaging in community outreach to educate primary care providers, training providers in cultural sensitivity and competence and implicit bias, addressing health literacy and developing recruitment strategies to increase representation of underserved groups within headache research are proposed as solutions to ameliorate disparities. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Neurologists have a responsibility to provide and deliver equitable care to all. It is important that disparities in the management of headache disorders are identified and addressed.

Purpose of Review/UNASSIGNED:In 2019, over 50 million Americans were expected to use wearables at least monthly. The technologies have varied capabilities, with many designed to monitor health conditions. We present a narrative review to raise awareness of wearable technologies that may be relevant to the field of neurology. We also discuss the implications of these wearables for our patients and briefly discuss issues related to researching new wearable technologies. Recent Findings/UNASSIGNED:There are a variety of wearables for neurologic conditions, e.g., stroke (for potential arrhythmia capture), epilepsy, Parkinson disease, and sleep. Research is being performed to capture the risk of neuropsychiatric relapse. However, data are limited and adherence to these wearables is often poorly studied. Summary/UNASSIGNED:The care of neurology patients may ultimately be improved with the use of wearable technologies. More research needs to examine efficacy and implementation strategies.

OBJECTIVE:To assess telehealth practice for headache visits in the United States. BACKGROUND:The rapid roll out of telehealth during the COVID-19 pandemic impacted headache specialists. METHODS:American Headache Society (AHS) members were emailed an anonymous survey (9/9/20-10/12/20) to complete if they had logged ≥2 months or 50+ headache visits via telehealth. RESULTS:Out of 1348 members, 225 (16.7%) responded. Most were female (59.8%; 113/189). Median age was 47 (interquartile range [IQR] 37-57) (N = 154). The majority were MD/DOs (83.7%; 159/190) or NP/PAs (14.7%; 28/190), and most (65.1%; 123/189) were in academia. Years in practice were 0-3: 28; 4-10: 58; 11-20: 42; 20+: 61. Median number of telehealth visits was 120 (IQR 77.5-250) in the prior 3 months. Respondents were "comfortable/very comfortable" treating via telehealth (a) new patient with a chief complaint of headache (median, IQR 4 [3-5]); (b) follow-up for migraine (median, IQR 5 [5-5]); (c) follow-up for secondary headache (median, IQR 4 [3-4]). About half (51.1%; 97/190) offer urgent telehealth. Beyond being unable to perform procedures, top barriers were conducting parts of the neurologic exam (157/189), absence of vital signs (117/189), and socioeconomic/technologic barriers (91/189). Top positive attributes were patient convenience (185/190), reducing patient travel stress (172/190), patient cost reduction (151/190), flexibility with personal matters (128/190), patient comfort at home (114/190), and patient medications nearby (103/190). Only 21.3% (33/155) of providers said telehealth visit length differed from in-person visits, and 55.3% (105/190) believe that the no-show rate improved. On a 1-5 Likert scale, providers were "interested"/"very interested" in digitally prescribing headache apps (median 4, IQR 3-5) and "interested"/"very interested" in remotely monitoring patient symptoms (median 4, IQR 3-5). CONCLUSIONS:Respondents were comfortable treating patients with migraine via telehealth. They note positive attributes for patients and how access may be improved. Technology innovations (remote vital signs, digitally prescribing headache apps) and remote symptom monitoring are areas of interest and warrant future research.

Objective/UNASSIGNED:Evaluate whether the benefits of Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy for Migraine (MBCT-M) on headache disability differs among people with episodic and chronic migraine (CM). Methods/UNASSIGNED:This is a planned secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial. After a 30-day baseline, participants were stratified by episodic (6-14 d/mo) and CM (15-30 d/mo) and randomized to 8 weekly individual sessions of MBCT-M or wait list/treatment as usual (WL/TAU). Primary outcomes (Headache Disability Inventory; Severe Migraine Disability Assessment Scale [scores ≥ 21]) were assessed at months 0, 1, 2, and 4. Mixed models for repeated measures tested moderation with fixed effects of treatment, time, CM, and all interactions. Planned subgroup analyses evaluated treatment*time in episodic and CM. Results/UNASSIGNED:= 0.268). Conclusions/UNASSIGNED:MBCT-M is a promising treatment for reducing headache-related disability, with greater benefits in episodic than CM. Trial Registration Information/UNASSIGNED:ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02443519. Classification of Evidence/UNASSIGNED:This study provides Class III evidence that MBCT-M reduces headache disability to a greater extent in people with episodic than CM.

OBJECTIVE:To determine whether IV metoclopramide 20 mg + diphenhydramine 25 mg (M + D) was more efficacious than IV placebo for acute moderate or severe posttraumatic headache in the emergency room. METHODS:We conducted this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study in 2 urban emergency departments (EDs). Participants who experienced head trauma and presented to our EDs within 10 days with a headache fulfilling criteria for acute posttraumatic headache were included. We randomized participants in a 1:1 ratio to M + D or placebo. Participants, caregivers, and outcome assessors were blinded to assignment. The primary outcome was improvement in pain on a scale of 0 to 10 between baseline and 1 hour after treatment. RESULTS:= 0.04). CONCLUSION:M + D was more efficacious than placebo with regard to relief of posttraumatic headache in the ED. TRIAL REGISTRATION INFORMATION:ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03220958. CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE:This study provides Class I evidence that for patients with acute moderate or severe posttraumatic headache, IV M + D significantly improved pain compared to placebo.

There is currently a shortage of neurologists in the United States. Multiple efforts are underway to increase the strength of the neurology workforce. One potential approach is early exposure to neurology research and clinical care to pique interest and promote the specialty as a career choice. This study details the rewarding experience of working with undergraduate students, both in clinical research and clinical care. The logistics, benefits to students, and positive aspects for neurologists are outlined. Examples provided by undergraduate students who have participated in neurology research and clinical care are presented. The ultimate goals of this work are to encourage and inspire academic neurologists to involve undergraduate students in research and clinical care, to facilitate this process by outlining the steps needed to make this pairing successful, and to ultimately promote a pathway to build the neurology pipeline.