The three primary headaches, tension-type headache, migraine and cluster headache, occur in both genders, but all seem to have a sex-specific prevalence. These gender differences suggest that both male and female sex hormones could have an influence on the course of primary headaches. This review aims to summarise the most relevant and recent literature on this topic. Two independent reviewers searched PUBMED in a systematic manner. Search strings were composed using the terms LH, FSH, progesteron*, estrogen*, DHEA*, prolactin, testosterone, androgen*, headach*, migrain*, “tension type” or cluster. A timeframe was set limiting the search to articles published in the last 20 years, after January 1st 1997. Migraine tends to follow a classic temporal pattern throughout a woman’s life corresponding to the fluctuation of estrogen in the different reproductive stages. The estrogen withdrawal hypothesis forms the basis for most of the assumptions made on this behalf. The role of other hormones as well as the importance of sex hormones in other primary headaches is far less studied. The available literature mainly covers the role of sex hormones in migraine in women. Detailed studies especially in the elderly of both sexes and in cluster headache and tension-type headache are warranted to fully elucidate the role of these hormones in all primary headaches.

Background: Switching between antibody classes might be a treatment option in migraine patients who have not responded to one class of a CGRP-(receptor) monoclonal antibody (mAb), but there are no efficacy data so far. In this real-world analysis, we assessed the treatment response to a CGRP-mAb in patients that have previously failed the CGRP-receptor-mAb erenumab. Methods: We analyzed retrospective headache diary data of 78 patients with migraine who switched between CGRP-mAbs classes at four German headache centers either due to lack of efficacy or intolerable side effects. Among these, we identified 25 patients who did not respond to erenumab after three treatment cycles (defined as <30% reduction of monthly headache days) and had complete headache documentation at least one month before and during both treatments. We assessed the ≥30% responder rate at month three after switching from erenumab to a CGRP-mAb (galcanezumab or fremanezumab) (primary endpoint). Secondary endpoints included ≥50% responder rate, monthly headache days, and monthly days with acute medication use. In an exploratory subgroup analysis patients were stratified for daily and non-daily headache. Results: The switch from erenumab to a CGRP-mAb led to a ≥30% response in one-third (32%) of the patients after three treatment cycles. A ≥50% response was achieved in 12% of the patients. Monthly headache days were reduced in month three compared to baseline (20.8 ± 7.1 to 17.8 ± 9.1; p = 0.009). Stratified analysis revealed that no patient with daily headache (n = 9) responded to the treatment switch, while a 30% response was achieved by 50% of patients with non-daily headache (n = 16). Conclusion: Our findings demonstrate that a relevant proportion of erenumab non-responders might benefit from a treatment switch to a CGRP-mAb. Switching seems to be a promising treatment option especially in migraine patients with non-daily headache.

Background: Triptans are migraine-specific acute treatments. A well-accepted definition of triptan failure is needed in clinical practice and for research. The primary aim of the present Consensus was to provide a definition of triptan failure. To develop this definition, we deemed necessary to develop as first a consensus definition of effective treatment of an acute migraine attack and of triptan-responder. Main body: The Consensus process included a preliminary literature review, a Delphi round and a subsequent open discussion. According to the Consensus Panel, effective treatment of a migraine attack is to be defined on patient well-being featured by a) improvement of headache, b) relief of non-pain symptoms and c) absence of adverse events. An attack is considered effectively treated if patient’s well-being, as defined above, is restored within 2 hours and for at least 24 hours. An individual with migraine is considered as triptan-responder when the given triptan leads to effective acute attack treatment in at least three out of four migraine attacks. On the other hand, an individual with migraine is considered triptan non-responder in the presence of failure of a single triptan (not matching the definition of triptan-responder). The Consensus Panel defined an individual with migraine as triptan-resistant in the presence of failure of at least 2 triptans; triptan refractory, in the presence of failure to at least 3 triptans, including subcutaneous formulation; triptan ineligibile in the presence of an acknowledged contraindication to triptan use, as specified in the summary of product characteristics. Conclusions: The novel definitions can be useful in clinical practice for the assessment of acute attack treatments patients with migraine. They may be helpful in identifying people not responding to triptans and in need for novel acute migraine treatments. The definitions will also be of help in standardizing research on migraine acute care.

Calcitonin gene-related peptide-targeted monoclonal antibodies (CGRP mAbs) are increasingly being used as preventive treatments for migraine. Their effectiveness and safety were established through numerous randomized placebo-controlled trials and real-world studies, yet a significant proportion of patients do not respond to this treatment, and currently, there is a lack of accepted predictors of response to guide expectations, as data from studies so far are lacking and inconsistent. We searched Embase and MEDLINE databases for studies reporting on predictors of response to CGRP and/or CGRP-receptor (CGRP-R) mAbs, defined as a 30% or 50% reduction in monthly headache or migraine days at varying durations of follow-up. Quantitative synthesis was performed where applicable. We found 38 real-world studies that investigated the association between various predictors and response rates. Based on these studies, good response to triptans and unilateral pain with or without unilateral autonomic symptoms are predictors of a good response to CGRP(-R) mAbs. Conversely, obesity, interictal allodynia, the presence of daily headaches, a higher number of non-successful previous prophylactic medications, and psychiatric comorbidities including depression are predictive of a poor response to CGRP(-R) mAbs. Future studies should confirm these results and help to generate more tailored treatment strategies in patients with migraine.

Background: Headache disorders are a global public health concern affecting diverse populations. This review examines headache service organizations in low-, middle-, and high-income countries. It addresses global challenges in pharmacological headache treatment, with a focus on safety, tolerability, reproductive and child health, and outlines disparities in accessing innovative treatments worldwide. Main body: Organized headache services are essential due to the wide prevalence and varying severity of headache disorders. The tiered headache service model is globally recognized, although its implementation varies based on financial and workforce considerations. Headache burden affects well-being, causing disability, economic challenges, and work limitations, irrespective of location or income. All nations still require improved diagnosis and treatment, and the majority of countries face obstacles including limited access, awareness, economic barriers, and inadequate health policies. Provided adequate internet availability, telemedicine could help improve health equity by expanding access to headache care, since it can offer patients access to services without lengthy waiting times or extensive travel and can provide healthcare unavailable in underserved areas due to staff shortages. Numerous health disparities restrict global access to many headache medications, especially impacting individuals historically excluded from randomized controlled trials, such as those with cardiovascular and cerebrovascular conditions, as well as pregnant women. Furthermore, despite advancements in researching migraine treatments for young patients, the options for treatment remain limited. Access to headache treatment relies on factors like medication availability, approval, financial coverage, and healthcare provider expertise. Inadequate public awareness leads to neglect by policymakers and undertreatment by patients and healthcare providers. Global access discrepancies are exacerbated by the introduction of novel disease-specific medications, particularly impacting Asian, African, and Latin American nations excluded from clinical trials. While North America and Europe experience broad availability of migraine treatments, the majority of countries worldwide lack access to these therapies. Conclusions: Healthcare disparities, treatment access, and medication availability are concerning issues in headache medicine. Variations in national healthcare systems impact headache management, and costly innovative drugs are widening these gaps. Healthcare practitioners and experts should acknowledge these challenges and work towards minimizing access barriers for equitable global headache care in the future.

Background: German authorities reimburse migraine prevention with erenumab only in patients who previously did not have therapeutic success with at least five oral prophylactics or have contraindications to such. In this real-world analysis, we assessed treatment response to erenumab in patients with chronic migraine (CM) who failed five oral prophylactics and, in addition, onabotulinumtoxinA (BoNTA). Methods: We analyzed retrospective data of 139 CM patients with at least one injection of erenumab from two German headache centers. Patients previously did not respond sufficiently or had contraindications to β-blockers, flunarizine, topiramate, amitriptyline, valproate, and BoNTA. Primary endpoint of this analysis was the mean change in monthly headache days from the 4-weeks baseline period over the course of a 12-weeks erenumab therapy. Secondary endpoints were changes in monthly migraine days, days with severe headache, days with acute headache medication, and triptan intake in the treatment period. Results: Erenumab (starting dose 70 mg) led to a reduction of −3.7 (95% CI 2.4–5.1) monthly headache days after the first treatment and −4.7 (95% CI 2.9–6.5) after three treatment cycles (p < 0.001 for both). All secondary endpoint parameters were reduced over time. Half of patients (51.11%) had a >30% reduction of monthly headache days in weeks 9–12. Only 4.3% of the patients terminated erenumab treatment due to side effects. Conclusion: In this treatment-refractory CM population, erenumab showed efficacy in a real-world setting similar to data from clinical trials. Tolerability was good, and no safety issues emerged. Erenumabis is a treatment option for CM patients who failed all first-line preventives in addition to BoNTA.