Nummular headache (NH) is a primary headache characterized by superficial coin-shaped pain. NUMITOR (NCT 05475769) is an observational study evaluating the responder rate of preventive drugs in NH patients. The treatment response was assessed between weeks 8 and 12 compared with the baseline. Patients were included between February 2002 and October 2022. Demographic and clinical variables were assessed; treatment response was estimated by 50%, 30%, and 75% responder rates and treatment discontinuation due to inadequate tolerability. A total of 183 out of 282 patients fulfilled eligibility criteria and completed the study. Patients were aged 49.5 (standard deviation (SD): 16.8) years, and 60.7% were female. NH phenotype was a parietal circular pain of four centimeters’ diameter, moderate intensity, and oppressive quality. At baseline, patients had 25 (interquartile range) pain days per month. Preventive treatment was used by 114 (62.3%) patients. The highest 50% and 75% responder rates corresponded to onabotulinumtoxinA (62.5%, 47.5%), followed by gabapentin (43.7%, 35.2%). Oral preventive drugs were not tolerated by 12.9–25%. The present study provides class IV evidence of the effectiveness of oral preventive drugs and onabotulinumtoxinA in the treatment of primary NH. OnabotulinumtoxinA was the most effective and best-tolerated drug, positioning it as first-line treatment of NH.

Objective: To evaluate clinical characteristics, effectiveness, and tolerability of preventive anti- calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) in the elderly. Anti-CGRP mAbs have demonstrated efficacy and safety in patients with migraine although there is limited information regarding the elderly. Design: We performed a multicenter case-control study of cases (patients over 65 years old) and controls (sex-matched patients under 55 years old) with migraine receiving anti-CGRP mAbs. Methods: We included the demographic characteristics, effectiveness—reduction in the number of monthly headache days (MHD) and monthly migraine days (MMD), 30%, 50%, and 75% responder rates—and treatment emergent adverse events (TEAEs). The primary endpoint was the 50% response rate regarding MHD at weeks 20–24; exploratory 50% response predictors in the elderly were evaluated. Results: In total, 228 patients were included: 114 cases , 114 controls-. Among cases 84.2% (96/114) were women, 79.8% (91/114) CM; mean age of cases 70.1 years old (range: 66–86); mean age of controls was 42.9 years old(range: 38–49). Cases had a higher percentage of vascular risk factors (P < .05),older age of onset (P < .001) and more reported prior preventive treatments (P < .001). Regarding effectiveness in cases, 50% response rate was achieved by 57.5% (42/73) at 20–24 weeks, with lower reduction in the MHD at 8–12 weeks (5 [7.2], 8 [9.1]; P = .001) and a higher reduction in MMD at 20–24 weeks (10.7 [9.1], 9.2 [7.7]; P = .04) compared to the control group. The percentage of TEAEs was similar in the 2 groups. Diagnosis of episodic migraine (EM) (P = .03) and lower number of MHD at baseline (P = .001) were associated with a 50% response in the elderly in univariate analysis. Conclusions: Our study provides real world evidence of effectiveness and safety of anti-CGRP mAbs for migraine in patients without upper age-limit and possible predictors of anti-CGRP response in the elderly.

Background and purpose: According to the latest European guidelines, discontinuation of monoclonal antibodies against calcitonin gene‐related peptide (anti‐CGRP MAb) may be considered after 12–18 months of treatment. However, some patients may worsen after discontinuation. In this study, we assessed the response following treatment resumption.Methods: This was a prospective study conducted in 14 Headache Units in Spain. We included patients with response to anti‐CGRP MAb with clinical worsening after withdrawal and resumption of treatment. Numbers of monthly migraine days (MMD) and monthly headache days (MHD) were obtained at four time points: before starting anti‐CGRP MAb (T‐baseline); last month of first treatment period (T‐suspension); month of restart due to worsening (T‐worsening); and 3 months after resumption (T‐reintroduction). The response rate to resumption was calculated. Possible differences among periods were analysed according to MMD and MHD.Results: A total of 360 patients, 82% women, with a median (interquartile range [IQR]) age at migraine onset of 18 (12) years. The median (IQR) MHD at T‐baseline was 20 (13) and MMD was 5 (6); at T‐suspension, the median (IQR) MHD was 5 (6) and MMD was 4 (5); at T‐worsening, the median (IQR) MHD was 16 (13) and MMD was 12 (6); and at T‐reintroduction, the median (IQR) MHD was 8 (8) and MHD was 5 (5). In the second period of treatment, a 50% response rate was achieved by 57.4% of patients in MHD and 65.8% in MMD. Multivariate models showed significant differences in MHD between the third month after reintroduction and last month before suspension of first treatment period (p < 0.001).Conclusion: The results suggest that anti‐CGRP MAb therapy is effective after reintroduction. However, 3 months after resumption, one third of the sample reached the same improvement as after the first treatment period.

Onabotulinumtoxin A (onabotA) has shown efficacy in chronic migraine (CM), with good tolerability and a low rate of adverse effects, most of them not severe. The aim of this study is to evaluate tolerability and adverse effects of onabotA in clinical practice and to analyze if there is a relationship between tolerability to treatment administration, adverse effects’ (AEs) occurrence and clinical response. We included patients with CM that received treatment with onabotA for the first time. Tolerability to treatment was evaluated by a 0–10 numeric rating scale (0: worst possible, 10: optimal tolerability). We assessed the presence of AEs by using a standardized questionnaire. Treatment response was based on the 50 and 75% responder rate between weeks 20 and 24, compared with the baseline, according to headache diaries. We analyzed whether the tolerability was associated with a higher frequency of AEs or a higher probability of clinical response. We included 105 patients, 87.7% female, with an age of 43.9 ± 10.7 years. Mean tolerability was 7.8/10 and 7.2/10 in the first and second onabotA administration, respectively. AEs were reported by (first-second) 71.4–68.6% patients. The percentage of patients with a 50% response was 56.3%. There was no association between tolerability and AEs’ occurrence or clinical response.

To describe the need and effectiveness of acute and preventive medications in a series of 100 consecutive patients referred due to COVID-19-related headaches. Patients were aged 48.0 (standard deviation (SD): 12.4), 84% were female, and 56% had a prior history of headache. The most common headache phenotype was holocranial (63%), frontal (48%), pressing (75%), of moderate intensity (7 out of 10), and accompanied by photophobia (58%). Acute medication was required by 93%, with paracetamol (46%) being the most frequently used drug, followed by ibuprofen (44%). The drugs with the highest proportion of a 2 h pain-freedom response were dexketoprofen (58.8%), triptans (57.7%), and ibuprofen (54.3%). Preventive treatment was required by 75% of patients. The most frequently used drugs were amitriptyline (66%), anesthetic blockades (18%), and onabotulinumtoxinA (11%). The drugs with the highest 50% responder rate were amitriptyline (45.5%), mirtazapine (50%), and anesthetic blockades (38.9%). The highest 75% responder rate was experienced following onabotulinumtoxinA (18.2%). In conclusion, most patients required acute medication, with triptans and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs achieving the best responses. Three-quarters of patients required preventive medication. The most frequently used drug was amitriptyline, which obtained the best results. In some treatment-resistant patients, anesthetic blockades and onabotulinumtoxinA were also beneficial.