This systematic review summarizes the existing data on headache and pregnancy with a scope on clinical headache phenotypes, treatment of headaches in pregnancy and effects of headache medications on the child during pregnancy and breastfeeding, headache related complications, and diagnostics of headache in pregnancy. Headache during pregnancy can be both primary and secondary, and in the last case can be a symptom of a life-threatening condition. The most common secondary headaches are stroke, cerebral venous thrombosis, subarachnoid hemorrhage, pituitary tumor, choriocarcinoma, eclampsia, preeclampsia, idiopathic intracranial hypertension, and reversible cerebral vasoconstriction syndrome. Migraine is a risk factor for pregnancy complications, particularly vascular events. Data regarding other primary headache conditions are still scarce. Early diagnostics of the disease manifested by headache is important for mother and fetus life. It is especially important to identify “red flag symptoms” suggesting that headache is a symptom of a serious disease. In order to exclude a secondary headache additional studies can be necessary: electroencephalography, ultrasound of the vessels of the head and neck, brain MRI and MR angiography with contrast ophthalmoscopy and lumbar puncture. During pregnancy and breastfeeding the preferred therapeutic strategy for the treatment of primary headaches should always be a non-pharmacological one. Treatment should not be postponed as an undermanaged headache can lead to stress, sleep deprivation, depression and poor nutritional intake that in turn can have negative consequences for both mother and baby. Therefore, if non-pharmacological interventions seem inadequate, a well-considered choice should be made concerning the use of medication, taking into account all the benefits and possible risks.

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.

The efficacy and safety of OnabotulinumtoxinA (BOTOX®) in adults with chronic migraine (CM) were demonstrated in the PREEMPT program. However, the dosage used in this study was flexible from 155 U to 195 U at the physician’s discretion. Therefore, the objective of this prospective study was to compare the efficacy and safety of OnabotulinumtoxinA 195 U vs. 155 U for the treatment of CM and medication overuse headache (MOH) during a 2-year period. We prospectively evaluated the mean reduction in headache days, migraine days, acute pain medication intake days and Headache Impact Test (HIT)-6 score in 172 patients injected with OnabotulinumtoxinA 195 U. Successively, we compared the efficacy measures with data of 155 patients injected with OnabotulinumtoxinA 155 U and followed up for 2 years. All patients were affected by CM and MOH, and failed one or more previous detoxification and preventative therapies. Both OnabotulinumtoxinA 195 U and 155 U reduced significantly the number of headache and migraine days, acute pain medication intake days and HIT-6 score, when compared with the baseline measures. Nevertheless, OnabotulinumtoxinA 195 U proved to be superior of 155 U in all efficacy measures since the first injection and for all the 2 years of treatment, with the exception of the reduction in pain medication intake days that resulted significantly larger with 195 U only after the 4th injection. The safety and tolerability of the two doses were similar and treatment related adverse events were transient and mild-moderate. This study represents the largest and longest post-marketing studies of doses comparison with OnabotulinumtoxinA in a real-life clinical setting. Here, we demonstrate the superior efficacy of OnabotulinumtoxinA 195 U compared to 155 U in CM patients with MOH during a 2-year treatment period with similar safety and tolerability profile.

Introduction: Migraine is the most common of all neurological disorders. A breakthrough in migraine treatment emerged in the early nineties with the introduction of 5-HT1B/D receptor agonists called triptans. Triptans are used as the standard of care for acute migraine; however, they have significant limitations such as incomplete and inconsistent pain relief, high rates of headache recurrence, class- specific side effects and cardiovascular contraindications. First- and second-generation calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor antagonists, namely gepants, is a class of drugs primarily developed for the acute treatment of migraine. CGRP is the most evaluated target for migraine treatments that are in development. Areas covered: This article reviews the available data for first- and second-generation CGRP receptor antagonists, the role of CGRPs in human physiology and migraine pathophysiology and the possible mechanism of action and safety of CGRP targeted drugs. Expert opinion: Available data suggest that second generation of gepants has clinical efficacy similar to triptans and lasmiditan (5-HT1F receptor agonist) and has improved tolerability. Future studies will assess their safety, especially in specific populations such as patients with cardiovascular disease and pregnant women.

Chronic cluster headache (CCH) often resists to prophylactic pharmaceutical treatments resulting in patients’ life damage. In this rare but pragmatic situation escalation to invasive management is needed but framing criteria are lacking. We aimed to reach a consensus for refractory CCH definition for clinical and research use. The preparation of the final consensus followed three stages. Internal between authors, a larger between all European Headache Federation members and finally an international one among all investigators that have published clinical studies on cluster headache the last five years. Eighty-five investigators reached by email. Proposed criteria were in the format of the International Classification of Headache Disorders III-beta (description, criteria, notes, comments and references). Following this evaluation eight drafts were prepared before the final. Twenty-four (28.2%) international investigators commented during two rounds. Refractory CCH is described in the present consensus as a situation that fulfills the criteria of ICHD-3 beta for CCH with at least three severe attacks per week despite at least three consecutive trials of adequate preventive treatments. The condition is rare, but difficult to manage and invasive treatments may be needed. The consensus addresses five specific clinical and paraclinical diagnostic criteria followed by three notes and specific comments. Although refractory CCH may be not a separate identity these specific diagnostic criteria should help clinicians and investigators to improve patient’s quality of life.

The debate on the clinical definition of refractory Chronic Migraine (rCM) is still far to be concluded. The importance to create a clinical framing of these rCM patients resides in the complete disability they show, in the high risk of serious adverse events from acute and preventative drugs and in the uncontrolled application of therapeutic techniques not yet validated.