95; 95% CI = 2.1-20.0, P < .001). The number of MTHFR 677T alleles was the best genetic predictor of Hcy levels (r2 = 0.06; P = 6.2e-6; corrected for genetic variants analyzed) and this effect remained significant after correction for other confounding factors. Using multi-dimensionality reduction LBH589 ic50 approaches, we observed significant epigenetic interaction among some of the folate-related genetic variants to predict higher Hcy levels, and also among higher Hcy levels and folate-related genetic variants to predict the end-diagnosis of MA only among migraineurs. In controls, Hcy levels and the number of MTHFR 677T alleles were found to be intermediate between those observed in MA and MO patients. Conclusion.—

Our results suggest that MA patients have higher Hcy levels. We also observed complex epigenetic interaction among folate-related enzymes, sex, and Hcy levels predicting MA phenotype. Nevertheless, genetic factors explained

only a minor proportion of the variance for both Hcy plasma levels and for predicting MA phenotype. Determination of MTHFR C677T polymorphisms and Hcy levels may be useful to identify patients with a high risk of suffering from MA. “
“In a recent Opinion Editorial posted on the Listserv of the Southern Headache Society (http://www.SouthernHeadache.org), Dr. Lawrence Robbins of the Robbins Headache PD0325901 research buy Clinic, Northbrook, Illinois, explored how headaches resulting from trauma are sometimes difficult to treat and often remain refractory. Most neurologists likely encounter young athletes who have a moderate-to-severe post-concussion syndrome. The following discussion, therefore, is relevant to the practice of headache medicine. In this Point Counterpoint, Dr. Robbins has repurposed his OpEd once more for Headache, followed by a response from Dr. Frank Conidi of the Florida Center for Headache and Sports Neurology, and Team Neurologist for the Florida Panthers

of the National Hockey League. The discussion concludes with a retort from Dr. Robbins. “
“(Headache 2011;51:985-991) Objectives.— This study provides preliminary data and a framework to facilitate cost comparisons check details for pharmacologic vs behavioral approaches to headache prophylactic treatment. Background.— There are few empirical demonstrations of cumulative costs for pharmacologic and behavioral headache treatments, and there are no direct comparisons of short- and long-range (5-year) costs for pharmacologic vs behavioral headache treatments. Methods.— Two separate pilot surveys were distributed to a convenience sample of behavioral specialists and physicians identified from the membership of the American Headache Society. Costs of prototypical regimens for preventive pharmacologic treatment (PPT), clinic-based behavioral treatment (CBBT), minimal contact behavioral treatment (MCBT), and group behavioral treatment were assessed.