There is an unmet need of pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatment options for migraine patients. Exercise can be used in the treatment of several pain conditions, including. However, what exact role exercise plays in migraine prevention is unclear. Here, we review the associations between physical exercise and migraine from an epidemiological, therapeutical and pathophysiological perspective. The review was based on a primary literature search on the PubMed using the search terms “migraine and exercise”. Low levels of physical exercise and high frequency of migraine has been reported in several large population-based studies. In experimental studies exercise has been reported as a trigger factor for migraine as well as migraine prophylaxis. Possible mechanisms for how exercise may trigger migraine attacks, include acute release of neuropeptides such as calcitonin gene-related peptide or alternation of hypocretin or lactate metabolism. Mechanisms for migraine prevention by exercise may include increased beta-endorphin, endocannabinoid and brain-derived neurotrophic factor levers in plasma after exercise. In conclusion, it seems that although exercise can trigger migraine attacks, regular exercise may have prophylactic effect on migraine frequency. This is most likely due to an altered migraine triggering threshold in persons who exercise regularly. However, the frequency and intensity of exercise that is required is still an open question, which should be addressed in future studies to delineate an evidence-based exercise program to prevent migraine in sufferers.

Neuroaxonal damage underlies permanent disability in various neurological conditions, both neuroautoimmune and neurodegenerative. It is crucial to accurately quantify and monitor axonal injury using biomarkers to evaluate disease progression and treatment effectiveness and offer prognostic insights. Neurofilaments (NFs), and especially neurofilament light chain (NfL), show promise for this purpose, as their levels increase with neuroaxonal damage in both cerebrospinal fluid and blood, independent of specific causal pathways. Recent advances in ultrasensitive immunoassays enable the reliable detection of NFs in blood, transforming them from research tools into clinically applicable measures. In multiple sclerosis (MS), serum NfL correlates with disease activity, treatment response, and long-term disability, and may complement MRI in monitoring subclinical progression. In MS, NfL is primarily emerging as a marker of disease activity and treatment response; in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), it has progressed further, being integrated into clinical trials as a pharmacodynamic endpoint and considered by regulatory agencies as a drug development tool. Additionally, NFs are increasingly being investigated in Alzheimer’s disease, frontotemporal dementia, and other neurodegenerative disorders, though their disease specificity is limited. Ongoing challenges include older and novel assay harmonization, normative range interpretation, biological and analytical variability, and integration with other molecular and imaging biomarkers. This critical narrative review synthesizes the existing literature on NFs as diagnostic, prognostic, predictive, and pharmacodynamic biomarkers and discusses their role in therapeutic development and precision medicine in neuroautoimmune and neurodegenerative diseases.

Now more than ever is the time of monoclonal antibody use in neurology. In headaches, disease-specific and mechanism-based treatments existed only for symptomatic management of migraines (i.e., triptans), while the standard prophylactic anti-migraine treatments consist of non-specific and repurposed drugs that share limited safety profiles and high risk for interactions with other medications, resulting in rundown adherence rates. Recent advances in headache science have increased our understanding of the role of calcitonin gene relate peptide (CGRP) and pituitary adenylate cyclase-activating polypeptide (PACAP) pathways in cephalic pain neurotransmission and peripheral or central sensitization, leading to the development of monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) or small molecules targeting these neuropeptides or their receptors. Large scale randomized clinical trials confirmed that inhibition of the CGRP system attenuates migraine, while the PACAP mediated nociception is still under scientific and clinical investigation. In this review, we provide the latest clinical evidence for the use of anti-CGRP in migraine prevention with emphasis on efficacy and safety outcomes from Phase III and real-world studies.

Background: Multiple Sclerosis treatment with B-cell targeted therapies may be associated with an increased incidence of headache. We aimed to find and compare the association of B-cell targeted therapies with the incidence of headache in patients with Multiple Sclerosis. Methods: In a systematic based approach, the following databases were searched from inception until the 6th of June 2020: Pubmed/MEDLINE, ClinicalTrials.gov, EU Clinical Trials Register. Only randomized clinical trials (RCTs) enrolling patients with Multiple Sclerosis comparing B-cell targeted therapies (Rituximab, Ocrelizumab, Ofatumumab, Ublituximab or Cladribine) with placebo were selected for the systematic review and further meta-analysis. PRISMA guidelines were followed at all stages of the systematic review. The primary outcome was an all-cause headache of B-cell targeting therapy in patients with Multiple Sclerosis. Results: Nine RCTs were included. Compared with placebo, treatment with B-cell targeting therapies revealed a trend in headache risk, but it was not statistically significant (Relative Risk 1.12 [95% Confidence Interval 0.96–1.30]; p = 0.15; I² = 9.32%). Surprisingly, in a sub-group analysis, Cladribine was statistically significant for an increase in headache risk (RR 1.20 [95% CI 1.006–1.42]; p = 0.042; I² = 0%; 3 studies with 2107 participants). Conclusions: Even though a trend is shown, B-cell targeted therapies do not correlate with an increased incidence of headache as an adverse effect. Sub-analyses revealed a significant association between Cladribine alone and an increased incidence of headache. Whereas a purinergic signaling cascade is proposed as a mechanism of action, further research is needed to unravel the underlying pathogenetic mechanism of headache induction and establish headache prevention strategies.

Objective Despite frequent use of fingolimod (FTY) and dimethyl fumarate (DMF), studies comparing clinical efficacy and withdrawal rates of DMF and FTY concerning different pretreatment situations are rare. The aim of our study was to compare relapse occurrence and withdrawal rates of DMF and FTY in different pretreatment situations. Methods Patients from 4 European centers were retrospectively identified and followed until the 1st relapse after treatment start or if no relapse occurred for a maximum of 2 years. Cox regression analyses adjusted for relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS) disease duration, sex, and region were performed for the following pretreatment situations: treatment naive or injectables or DMF/FTY or natalizumab. Results Seven hundred thirty-two patients with RRMS (female/male: 2.4:1.0; DMF n = 409, FTY n = 323) were analyzed. Compared with FTY-treated patients, DMF-treated patients discontinued treatment more frequently mainly because of side effects (DMF/FTY: 29.3%/20.7%). Clinical relapses occurred in 24.5% of the patients within 24 months. Survival analysis demonstrated that compared with FTY treatment, DMF treatment was associated with an adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) for occurrence of relapse of 1.9 (95% CI 1.4–2.6, p < 0.001, n = 732). Stratification into pretreatment groups unmasked a higher relapse risk in DMF patients pretreated with natalizumab (aHR [95% CI] 4.5 [1.9–10.8], p = 0.001, n = 122) or to a lesser extend also in treatment-naive patients (aHR [95% CI] 1.9 [1.01–3.6], p = 0.045, n = 230). No differences were observed in patients pretreated with injectables or the respective other oral drug (injectables: p > 0.05, n = 341; other oral: p > 0.05, n = 39). Conclusions DMF treatment was associated with higher clinical disease activity compared with FTY treatment. A subgroup analysis suggested beneficial effects of FTY in treatment-naive and patients pretreated with natalizumab.