Introduction
The prevalence of headache is enormous with more than 45 million Americans suffering from chronic, recurrent headaches. Migraine alone affects 15% of this population who have moderate to severe disability and often are not responsive to current therapies. Genetic, physiological, environmental, sex, lifestyle, and cultural factors all contribute to headache severity, disability, and responsiveness to treatment. Whereas advances in understanding the mechanisms underlying headaches have led to the development of new therapeutic strategies, research has been hampered by both the complexity and variability of the disorder. Headache treatments, therefore, remain inadequate.
Given this background, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) sponsored a workshop in May 2010 to guide a strategic planning effort to facilitate headache research. This effort was supported by NIH institutes with interests in headache research, private and public organizations, health care providers, researchers in the headache and other relevant fields, and patient advocates. The goal of the meeting was to develop a strategy that would engage all relevant partners to advance the field of headache research. A full list of participants is included at the end of this report.
The agenda for the workshop was based on recommendations of experts who participated in a pre-planning meeting sponsored by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) in May 2009. Participants were asked to identify gaps in the research portfolio and to prioritize topics for discussion at the May 2010 workshop. Their recommendations were used to develop the participant list and select topic areas to be addressed by working groups at the planning workshop. The topics included: Animal Models and Research Resources, Translational Research and Drug Development in the Public and Private Sectors, Clinical Research Partnerships and Resources, Pediatric Headache, and Academic Headache Centers.
Experts at the May 2010 workshop were asked to describe the scientific knowledge gaps and recommend approaches to address the gaps to advance research. The groups also were tasked with noting available resources and technologies, suggesting means to share them, and recommending additional resources needed to advance the science. This report represents the recommendations and expectations of the multidisciplinary working groups relevant to basic, translational, and clinical headache research.
Several shared concerns and recommendations to address them were noted by all five working groups and are presented in a section below entitled “Global Findings and Recommendations.” The comments and discussions relevant to the specific working group topics are presented in later sections. The targeted audience for this report includes researchers in the public and private sector, health care providers, patients and patient advocates, and funding sources. The recommendations of the group are directed at all stakeholders in headache research and address some of the unmet needs which have hampered advances in research. Implementing the recommendations outlined in this report requires the effort of not only the NIH, but also the involvement and coordination of efforts by other Federal agencies, such as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Department of Veteran’s Affairs (VA), and the Department of Defense (DoD), as well as the pharmaceutical industry, professional organizations, research foundations, and patient advocates.
Global Findings and Recommendations
A number of findings and recommendations were shared by all working groups and highlighted cross-cutting needs in basic, translational, and clinical aspects of headache research.
Expand the Pool of Qualified Headache Researchers
Formal training opportunities in headache research for scientists and clinicians are not adequate to establish a robust, interactive, and sustainable pool of qualified researchers. Training opportunities need to be established and supported by academic institutions, pharmaceutical programs, public funding agencies, and professional societies. The lack of a well-trained pool of researchers and clinicians contributes to an environment in which skills needed to compete for research funds are lacking. In addition, there are not enough investigators to boost the volume of quality proposals for research dollars, provide the expertise to review research proposals, and mentor young scientists and clinicians. These hurdles contribute to the limited ability of the field to address research needs effectively.
One means to expand the field is to recruit and enhance collaborations with researchers in related (e.g., plasticity, epilepsy) and relevant (e.g., genetics, pharmacology) fields. These efforts are hampered by the lack of a forum for communicating with experts outside the headache research community. Effective clinical research partnerships with outside experts would also help the field to expand, but these partnerships depend on a strong infrastructure base and large research community.
For pediatric headache research, in particular, the greatest hurdle to advancement is the lack of interested clinicians and scientists at all levels of expertise and experience. The problem is exemplified by the current lack of fellowships in this field. Only one of ten fellowships accredited by the United Council for Neurologic Subspecialty in Headache Medicine is for pediatrics. Interest could be increased through training opportunities in Headache Medicine at the resident, fellowship, graduate, and post-doctoral levels by pediatric, neurology, psychology, and other programs, particularly those outside of neurology departments. Coordinated efforts among pediatric and adult headache scientists and other pain scientists would diminish hurdles to expanding the headache research effort.
Recommendations:
Expand Support of Infrastructure for Headache Research
Adequate institutional support is recognized as a crucial element to provide an infrastructure base upon which to build strong and effective research programs that are competitive for funding sources, successful in training researchers, and effective in pain medicine. As a rule, headache clinics do not generate the financial resources needed to support a strong environment or infrastructure for research. Academic centers (real and virtual) need to provide support for basic through clinical research, including data management and analysis and clinical coordination support for interactions with other clinical sites. Furthermore, public funding mechanisms targeted for individual research grants and pharmaceutical support for clinical studies are not the most appropriate or sufficient ways to support infrastructure development. These factors influence the current status of many academic institutions in which headache research programs have shrunken or been eliminated entirely. The need for resources to support the special requirements of clinical pediatric headache research was highlighted. Opportunities for interactive, multidisciplinary teams to span the bench to bedside and bedside to bench gaps in communication also were recognized as essential to a successful research effort. Support for the establishment and maintenance of clinical research partnerships which focus on migraine/headache research was identified as an important need as well.
Recommendations:
Promote Integration of Headache Research Efforts
The lack of a unified focus and strategy for headache research was recognized as a hindrance to advancement of the field. Collaborative efforts to develop headache research priorities will help to foster needed research partnerships and to direct funding opportunities. These issues were felt to be fueled by poor communication not only among the bench to bedside researchers within a given research or academic center, but also by barriers to communication between academic and pharmaceutical research facilities. These hurdles were considered to have hindered all areas of headache research but particularly translational research, where communication and interaction all the way from the bench to the bedside are needed to facilitate a pipeline for successful therapy development.
Recommendations:
Working Group Findings and Recommendations
Basic and Translational Research
The Animal Models and Research Resources and the Translational Research and Drug Development in the Public and Private Sector working groups highlighted a number of common challenges and opportunities for advancing basic and translational headache research. The findings and recommendations of these two groups were closely related and are integrated in this report under one heading.
Improved understanding of headache pathophysiology depends on availability and validity of appropriate animal models that accurately reflect the human condition. An ideal model of migraine headache would need to address the acute, recurrent, and chronic nature of headaches, as well as reflect the multiple and varied symptoms (e.g., cortical spreading depression, vasodilation, altered brain activation patterns, and sensitivities to chemical stimuli). Development of such a behavioral/ physiological model is not considered a realistic goal at present and is not needed to attain the goals of headache research. The currently accepted mechanistic models for headache rely on measures of headache-related symptoms such as hypersensitivity to touch or light, which are exhibited by human migraineurs. The pain assays applied to these models, however, were not developed for and are not appropriate for headache conditions. Genetic models are perhaps even more problematic in that models based on single gene mutations are relevant only to rare forms of migraine. The multiple genetic contributions associated with common forms of migraine are poorly understood, difficult to isolate, and too complex to serve as useful models. It is not surprising then, that findings on therapeutic targets in animal models are not good predictors of clinical outcomes in humans.
Translational research is hampered not only by a lack of understanding of basic headache neurobiology and mechanisms of target drugs, but also by a lack of useful screening assays for drug development. The current models and assays that are accepted and validated for basic research are not optimal for the drug discovery process. Whereas surrogate markers for headache are essential for translational research, those used in basic research such as photophobia and cutaneous allodynia need further consideration and exploration for use in translational research. They may be useful as low throughput drug screens, but high throughput assays, which are essential for drug screening, do not exist for headache.
Resources currently exist that provide opportunities to advance basic and translational research. Several behavioral and physiological models have emerged recently as accepted headache models by the research community and have potential to improve relevance of preclinical research to clinical phenomenon. Furthermore, many basic headache research laboratories are adopting headache-appropriate behavioral assays in their research (e.g., relevant pain thresholds, food intake, and light and sound sensitivity), which can be used in conjunction with classical physiological measures (e.g., electrophysiology, microdialysis, and molecular studies) to advance preclinical research findings. Moreover, human studies are providing opportunities to advance preclinical work. Imaging studies showing migraine-induced changes in brain states have the potential to be surrogate markers in animal models, and imaging results of rare headache related gene mutations have identified key areas in the brain for further analysis. Many compounds have been tested for efficacy in headache clinical trials and findings of their negative or positive effects can be used to validate animal models and assays. Basic genetic research will benefit from the high-throughput sequencing of migraineurs that are yielding a multitude of candidate genes for further exploration.
Recommendations:
Basic Research:
Translational Research:
Clinical Research Partnerships and Resources
To advance clinical headache research, effective partnerships between academia, industry, Federal agencies, private foundations, and patient advocates are needed. Successful partnerships could facilitate numerous aspects of clinical research including consistency and sharing of data across trials, sharing information on failed or pending trials, repurposing of trial drugs, and centralizing strategies for clinical research. Effective collaborative research efforts and teams within academic institutions are sparse and, therefore, limit the ability to develop partnerships outside of their institutional settings. Existing and new potential partnerships are limited by financial constraints, a small pool of qualified and trained researchers, and lack of necessary infrastructure. Opportunities for academic and pharmaceutical communities to interact are increasingly limited by potential or perceived conflicts of interests.
Resources that provide opportunities to expand clinical research partnerships currently are available through the NIH Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSAs) which support research training, as well as basic and clinical research. Many of the academic centers where headache research is ongoing have access to currently funded CTSAs, which are designed to partner with academicians for research support. Programs to better integrate the CTSA research resources with the pain and headache community have been initiated. The Foundation for the NIH may provide partnership opportunities to develop initiatives for headache research support. The Foundation can provide a means to bring industry, academia, NIH, and private foundations together to support research. Patient Advocacy Groups/Headache Research Foundations are providing increasing opportunities for research support, patient registries, and educational programs.
Recommendations to Enhance Clinical Research Partnerships and Resources:
Pediatric Headache Research
Headache in young children, adolescents and young adults affects a significant proportion of society, including patients and their families. Pediatric headache is recognized as a progressive disorder with a changing phenotype over a lifetime. Challenges in pediatric headache research include a poor understanding of neurophysiological processes underlying acute and chronic headaches, the complex genetic nature of primary headaches, lack of biomarkers, and need for standardized and validated clinical evaluation tools.
There are gaps in the understanding of pediatric headache disorders and limitations to interventions that may improve management and long-term outcomes. Developmentally appropriate clinical study designs are limited as to how they can incorporate biological, sociological, and developmental aspects of treatment because of the unique nature of the pediatric population. Similar to the headache field in general, there is a limited number of stakeholders in pediatric headache, both clinically and scientifically, which results in insufficient research and an inadequate knowledge base. Evidence-based ways to change the impact of this disease in children, adolescents, and young adults are not known, and will not advance without well-designed research across the spectrum of investigation.
Opportunities to advance pediatric headache research are provided by the resources and data generated from adult headache research. Tools to evaluate comparative outcomes and treatment responses at both clinical and population levels exist for adult populations. Epidemiological tools and headache questionnaires for adults are well established. These resources can be leveraged to optimize pediatric trials. In addition, data sets to examine headache characterization and treatment response patterns to determine best therapies exist for adults and can be modified to improve pediatric headache management. Medicines tested in adult headache trials that have a proven safety profile, but lack effectiveness data in children, provide a unique opportunity for efficient development and execution of pediatric trials. Pediatric headache studies offer a unique opportunity to understand headache across the lifespan, because they can be initiated at the early stage of the disease before progression and refractoriness has occurred. The relative lack of co-morbid conditions and limited exposure to treatments that may alter disease presentation helps in interpretation of disease manifestations and helps facilitate study of headache effects on population and family, longitudinal and cross-sectional outcomes, and burden of disease over the life span.
Recommendations:
Academic Headache Centers
Very few academic headache centers exist, and those that do exist often struggle financially. Medical schools lack faculty with expertise in headache disorders, as compared with other neurological disorders, and few post-graduates choose to pursue a clinical research career in Headache Medicine let alone basic research. Academic headache centers could improve understanding, diagnosis and treatment of headache and advance patient care by: conducting and expanding basic and clinical research; establishing an environment conducive to translational research; improving education of medical students, residents and fellows in headache; improving standards of care; introducing interdisciplinary approaches to the lab and clinic; and establishing a system to measure treatment outcome and enhance individualized patient care. Institutional support of existing infrastructure for academic headache research centers is needed. Establishing new centers where infrastructure is lacking (i.e., headache clinics and research laboratories) currently is unrealistic. The working group recognizes that without this base, the ability to undertake such a venture is well beyond the ability of any potential funding source or mission of any single partner. The stakeholders, including multidisciplinary academic teams, who are interested in developing centers to support research and patient care, could develop a model business plan that could be used to make the argument for institutional support. Institutional support could include such things as: means to attract residents and students from related disciplines to headache research; institutional training fellowships and career development support; awards and venues for rotating residents; and resources for design and development of an education and training syllabus in undergraduate, graduate, and medical schools. While traditional, single-site academic headache research centers are one model, virtual headache centers could also play an important role in filling this niche. Virtual centers, which incorporate resources of multiple sites, could offer the opportunity to collaborate with scientists/clinicians who are most appropriate and well-equipped to tackle specific questions which lay outside the expertise of the core institute.
Recommendations for Design and Development of Centers:
Conclusion and Future Directions
The participants at the May 2010 meeting made a number of important recommendations regarding headache research priorities and future scientific directions that are outlined in this report. These recommendations encompass many aspects of headache research including basic, translational, and clinical research issues, training and career development for students, clinicians, and researchers, and infrastructure needs to move the field forward. The recommendations may be used as a guide and starting point for all stakeholders – including Federal agencies, the pharmaceutical industry, academia, professional organizations, and patient groups – to consider as they implement new programs or expand and refine existing opportunities. A commitment from all these partners, working together, is needed to help relieve the burden of headache disorders and provide new and improved treatments for headache sufferers.
NIH Headache Research
Planning Meeting
May 2010
Stephen Silberstein, MD Co-Chair
Linda Porter, PhD Co-Chair
Working Groups
Animal Models and Research Resources
Michael Oshinsky, PhD Co-chair
Andrew Charles, MD Co-Chair
Louis Ptacek, MD
Michael Rogawski, MD, PhD
Samuel Yates
Paul Durham, PhD
Joel Saper, MD
Michael F. Cutrer, MD
John Glowa, PhD
James Stables, PhD
Robert Riddle, PhD
Translational Research Development
Andrew Russo, PhD Co-chair
Frank Porecca, PhD Co-chair
Robert Gereau IV, PhD
David Borsook, MD, PhD
Lawrence Newman, MD
William Matthew, PhD
David Hewitt, MD
Heather Rieff, Ph.D.
Robert Shapiro, MD, PhD
William Young, MD
Pediatric Headache Working Group
Andrew Hershey, MD, PhD Co-chair
Ann Scher, PhD, Co-Chair
Sheena Aurora,MD
Jodi Gilman, PhD
Cathy Glaser
Debra Hirtz, MD
Neil Goldfarb, BA
Kathleen Merikangas, PhD
Karin Nelson MD
Scott W. Powers, PhD
Perdita Taylor-Zapata, M.D
Clinical Partnerships
Mitchell Brin, MD Co-chair
David Dodick, MD Co-chair
Barry Baumel, MD
Marcelo Bigal, MD, PhD
Roger Cady, MD
Peter Goadsby, MD, PhD, DSc
Andrea Sawczuk, DDS, PhD
Judy Siuciak, PhD
Teri Robert
Cen Xu, PhD
Academic Headache Research Centers
William Maixner, DDS, PhD
Andrew Ahn, MD, PhD
Rami Burstein, PhD
Stephen Korn, PhD
Michael Moskowitz, MD
Richard Lipton, MD
Stephen Silberstein, MD
Elizabeth Loder, MD, MPH
John Kusiak, PhD
Vince Martin, MD
Participant Roster
|
Ahn, Andrew, M.D., Ph.D. Aurora, Sheena, M.D. Baumel, Barry, M.D. Bigal, Marcelo, M.D., Ph.D. Borsook, David, M.D., Ph.D. Brin, Mitchell, M.D. Burstein, Ph.D., Rami Cady, Roger, M.D. Charles, Andrew, M.D. Cutrer, F. Michael, M.D. Dodick, David, M.D. Durham, Paul, Ph.D. Gereau IV, Robert, Ph.D. Gilman, Jodi, Ph.D. Glaser, Cathy Glowa, John Goadsby, Peter, M.D., Ph.D., D.Sc. Goldfarb, Neil, B.A. Hershey, Andrew, M.D., Ph.D., Hirtz, Debra, M.D. Hewitt , David, M.D. Korn, Stephen, Ph.D. John W. Kusiak, Ph.D. Lipton, Richard, M.D. Loder, Elizabeth, M.D., M.P.H. Maixner, D.D.S., Ph.D., William, Martin, Vince, M.D. Matthew, William, Ph.D. |
Merikangas, Kathleen Ph.D. Moskowitz, Michael M.D. Karin Nelson, M.D. Newman, Lawrence, M.D. Oshinksy, Michael, Ph.D. Porreca, Frank, Ph.D. Porter, Linda, Ph.D. Powers, Scott, Ph.D. Ptacek, Louis, M.D. Riddle, Robert Ph.D. Rieff, Heather, Ph.D., Robert, Teri Rogawski, Michael, M.D., Ph.D. Russo, Andrew, Ph.D. Saper, Joel, M.D. Sawczuk, Andrea, D.D.S., Ph.D. Scott, Paul, Ph.D. Shapiro, Robert, M.D., Ph.D. Scher, Ann, Ph.D. Silberstein, Stephen M.D. Stables, James, Ph.D. Suciak, Judy, Ph.D. Taylor-Zapata, Perdita, M.D., Xu, Cen, Ph.D. Yates, Samuel Young, William, M.D. |
Last updated December 23, 2011