Refractory migraine …

Jennifer Robblee MD MSc FRCPC

Headache & Pain

Updated 03.30.2026
Expires For CME 03.30.2029

Refractory migraine

Author: Jennifer Robblee MD MSc FRCPC

See Contributor Disclosures

Editor: Hsiangkuo Yuan MD PhD FAHS

Cite this article

Refractory migraine

In This Article

Quick Link

Introduction

Overview

Refractory migraine describes a severe treatment-response phenotype in which a patient with migraine continues to have substantial disease burden despite failure of all available categories of evidence-based preventive therapy. Although refractory migraine is not yet recognized in the International Classification of Headache Disorders, 3rd edition, interest in the construct has increased because targeted therapies have expanded the preventive armamentarium while also making it clearer that a small but highly disabled subgroup remains inadequately controlled. Recent work has refined the related categories of resistant migraine, probable refractory migraine, and treatment-responsive migraine, providing a more useful framework for clinical care, research, and future biomarker studies.

Key points

	• Refractory migraine is not currently an ICHD-3 diagnosis, but recent international consensus criteria provide a practical research and clinical framework.
	• Resistant migraine requires failure of at least three evidence-based preventive classes. Refractory migraine requires failure of all currently available evidence-based classes.
	• Probable refractory migraine accounts for patients in whom access barriers, contraindications, or intolerance prevent completion of all class trials.
	• Refractory migraine should be treated as a dynamic treatment-response state rather than a declaration that no future improvement is possible.

Historical note and terminology

Definitions of refractory migraine have evolved substantially over the past two decades. These iterations reflect changes in available preventive therapies, ongoing debates over the optimal threshold to describe true refractoriness, and new diagnostic categories like resistant migraine.

Refractory migraine definition historical evolution

The concept of refractory was first formalized in 2006 at a World Federation of Neurology meeting using the terminology “intractable headache,” with descriptions for both migraine and cluster headache (23). It was defined as the failure of at least four categories of preventive treatments. Treatment failure could include lack of response, adverse effects, or contraindications. For patients with migraine, at least three of the failed categories were to include beta blockers, antiseizure medications, calcium channel blockers, or tricyclics. Other categories noted were nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), metabolic enhancers (such as riboflavin or coenzyme Q10), and treatments supported by at least one positive randomized controlled trial.

In 2008, the American Headache Society (AHS) Refractory Headache Special Interest Group (SIG) published a new definition requiring two to four previous treatment failures from the following categories: beta blockers, antiseizure medications, tricyclics, and calcium channel blockers (75). Treatment failure required either an ineffective trial at optimal dosing for at least 2 months or early cessation due to intolerable side effects. Diagnosis also required inadequate trials of acute medications, including both a triptan and dihydroergotamine, as well as either an NSAID or a combination analgesic. The term “refractory” was applied to both episodic migraine and chronic migraine. The group also included modifiers for medication overuse and disability.

In the same year, a separate group more broadly defined refractory migraine as the lack of response to all first-line treatments (16). This group also advocated for intractability definitions for each type of primary headache, further divided into preventive, acute, nonpharmacologic, and, where applicable, surgical categories.

In 2010, a new definition using the term “intractable” was published that took a different approach. The authors recommended separate stratified definitions for preventive and acute treatment failure that could then guide treatment pathways (81). Intractable headache based on acute treatment was divided into class I (mild), class II (moderate), and class III (severe), with progressive classes built on the requirements of the previous class. For instance, class I required failure of two different classes of nonspecific acute treatments, whereas class II additionally required failure of a triptan or dihydroergotamine. Class III then added failure of treatment trials involving opioids, steroids, or parenteral dopamine antagonists. Intractable headache based on preventive treatment had four classes, with class IV being very severe. These classes progressed from one drug (class I) to two drugs (class II) to three drugs (class III) to additional failure of aggressive outpatient or inpatient infusions or medication overuse detoxification (class IV). The included preventive medications were stratified into those with better evidence (beta blockers, tricyclics, valproate, verapamil or flunarizine, topiramate, or combination therapy) and those with less evidence (NSAIDs, metabolic enhancers, gabapentin, or a treatment with at least one positive placebo-controlled trial). Based on the assigned class for acute and preventive treatments, as well as disability level, recommendations were provided regarding when to refer to a specialist, a headache specialist, or for hospitalization.

The European Headache Federation published a definition for refractory migraine in 2014, and an Austrian consensus commentary published the same year reached a similar threshold; both required at least three prior preventive treatment failures (44; Wober et al 2014). In 2019 a new definition recommended increasing the threshold to at least five prior preventive treatment categories (18). These evolving definitions also shaped how difficult-to-treat populations were defined in clinical trials, which commonly enrolled patients with two to four prior preventive treatment failures (20; 48; 06; 21).

In 2020, the European Headache Federation published an updated definition following a Delphi consensus (69). This framework defined refractory migraine as failure of all treatment categories and introduced a new category, resistant migraine, defined by failure of at least three preventive categories. The treatment categories were antidepressants, antiseizure medications, beta blockers, calcium channel blockers, calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) pathway medications, angiotensin pathway blockers, onabotulinumtoxinA, and a category for newly developed medications.

Building on the 2020 definition, an international working group conducted another Delphi consensus that agreed with the threshold put forward by the European Headache Federation, but with nuanced updates to the definition, including the addition of NMDA receptor antagonists as a treatment category and requiring two of the following: disability, eight or more monthly migraine days, or continuous background headache (59). This group also proposed definitions for probable refractory migraine and treatment-responsive migraine. There is no requirement for acute medication failures. Despite this evolving literature, neither refractory migraine nor resistant migraine is currently recognized as a formal diagnosis in the ICHD-3.

Clinical manifestations

Presentation and course

	• Refractory migraine is a clinical course defined by persistent high disease burden despite failure of all evidence-based preventive treatment categories rather than by a unique symptom phenotype.
	• Patients typically present with high-frequency or near-daily headache; superimposed migraine attacks; marked disability; and common psychiatric-, sleep-, pain-, and medication-related comorbidities.
	• Resistant migraine is a related but less extreme state. Some patients subsequently become treatment-responsive, whereas a smaller subset progresses to refractory migraine.

Refractory migraine represents a subgroup of patients with migraine who remain highly disabled despite exhaustive trials of evidence-based preventive therapies. The contemporary international consensus framework distinguishes resistant migraine from refractory migraine, with resistant migraine referring to severe migraine with failure of at least three preventive treatment categories and refractory migraine referring to failure of all available evidence-based preventive treatment categories (59).

The consensus criteria for refractory and resistant migraine were developed in part to better capture this severe end of the migraine spectrum. Both require an established diagnosis of migraine and evidence of substantial disease burden, including at least two of the following: considerable functional impairment, continuous or near-continuous headache between attacks, or at least eight monthly migraine days. The distinction lies primarily in the extent of preventive treatment failure: resistant migraine requires failure of at least three evidence-based preventive categories, whereas refractory migraine requires failure of all categories, with most failures due to true lack of efficacy rather than intolerance or contraindication (59). Detailed medication categories and adequate trial specifications are described under Diagnostic criteria.

The longitudinal course is heterogeneous. Resistant migraine appears to be a dynamic state rather than an irreversible endpoint. Some patients improve over time and become treatment-responsive, whereas others continue to accrue treatment failures and evolve to refractory migraine. In the REFINE study, 40.4% of patients with resistant migraine reverted to treatment-responsive migraine over 6 months, whereas 4.5% progressed to refractory migraine during that interval (53). By contrast, patients meeting criteria for refractory migraine generally represent the most severe end of the treatment-resistant spectrum and often have persistent long-term disability.

Prognosis and complications

Overall, the prognosis for refractory migraine is poorer than in most patients with migraine, with higher headache-related disability, greater psychiatric symptom burden, and more frequent medical and pain-related comorbidities. In the REFINE cohort, patients with resistant and especially refractory migraine had greater baseline burden than those with non-resistant/non-refractory migraine, including higher rates of chronic migraine and medication overuse, higher HIT-6 and HALT scores, and more anxiety and depressive symptoms (53). Multiple comorbidities were also more common in refractory migraine than in resistant or non-resistant/non-refractory migraine.

At the same time, prognosis is not uniformly fixed. In the 6-month longitudinal REFINE study of 489 patients treated at tertiary headache centers, 78.1% of patients with non-resistant/non-refractory migraine remained stable, whereas 21.9% progressed to resistant migraine (53). Among those with resistant migraine, 55.1% remained resistant, 40.4% to 40.5% improved to non-resistant/non-refractory migraine, and 4.5% progressed to refractory migraine. Among those with refractory migraine, 67.3% remained refractory and 32.7% improved to non-resistant/non-refractory migraine. These data suggest that resistant and even refractory migraine can improve over time, although refractory migraine remains the most stable and burdensome category.

Complications are largely those of sustained severe migraine burden rather than a unique complication profile. Common adverse consequences include persistent functional impairment, daily symptoms, medication overuse, psychiatric comorbidity, polypharmacy, and high rates of comorbidities. In REFINE, psychiatric comorbidities, trigger points, temporomandibular joint disorders, thyroiditis, and cerebrovascular diseases were more common in refractory migraine (65).

Before the emergence of CGRP-targeted therapies, many previously treatment-refractory patients would have been diagnosed as refractory migraine. As newer preventive targets become available, some patients currently categorized as refractory migraine may later prove to have treatment-resistant rather than permanently treatment-unresponsive disease; however, this remains an inference.

Biological basis

Etiology and pathogenesis

	• No validated biomarker currently identifies refractory migraine.
	• Refractory migraine is best understood as a severe, multifactorial treatment-response phenotype rather than a single proven biological entity.
	• Likely contributors include central sensitization, altered pain-modulatory network function, migraine chronification mechanisms, comorbidity burden, and treatment-limiting adverse-effect susceptibility.

The biological basis of refractory migraine remains incompletely defined. Current evidence supports viewing refractory migraine as the end result of several interacting processes rather than a single mechanism (58). First, migraine itself arises in a genetically influenced brain that is vulnerable to disordered sensory processing and activation of trigeminovascular pathways (26; 50). Second, progression toward chronic and highly disabling disease appears to be strongly shaped by acquired factors, such as high attack frequency, medication overuse, sleep disturbances, obesity, psychiatric comorbidity, and stressful life events (07). Third, once headache becomes frequent or continuous, central sensitization and impaired descending pain modulation may reduce the probability of response to both acute and preventive therapies (50).

In this model, refractory migraine is not simply “more migraine.” It likely reflects an interaction between migraine biology, chronification, cumulative disease burden, and heterogeneity in treatment response or tolerability (50). Allodynia, interictal burden, and high comorbidity burden are consistent with a sensitized, high-burden migraine phenotype, but they are not specific markers of refractoriness as they are also seen in chronic and resistant migraine (29; 45; 55; 65). Similarly, available neuroimaging suggests that poor treatment response has early, widespread reduction in apparent diffusion coefficient across multiple pain-processing regions, suggesting that microstructural connectivity abnormalities preceded therapeutic failure (72). However, no pattern is currently specific enough to serve as a diagnostic biomarker for refractory migraine.

A practical way to present the current state of knowledge is that refractory migraine probably represents a final common clinical phenotype reached through multiple pathways: biologic vulnerability, migraine chronification, behavioral and environmental amplifiers, alternative diagnoses not yet identified, and, in some patients, an unusual propensity either not to respond to otherwise effective therapies or not to tolerate them. This uncertainty should be made explicit because overstatement would imply a mechanistic precision that the field does not yet have.

Genetics. No refractory migraine-specific genetic signature has been established. The available literature more strongly supports migraine as a polygenic disorder with chronification and severe disease expression shaped by environmental and clinical modifiers (26). For that reason, heredity should be described as complex and non-Mendelian, similar to migraine more broadly, rather than as a distinct inherited form of refractory migraine.

Pathophysiology. Pathophysiologic mechanisms proposed in resistant and refractory migraine include persistent trigeminovascular activation, central sensitization, altered sensory gain, impaired descending antinociceptive control, neuropeptide-related mechanisms, such as CGRP signaling, and maladaptive network changes (50). None of these mechanisms have been shown to uniquely define refractory migraine, but together they offer a biologically plausible explanation for why some patients evolve toward continuous headache, persistent disability, and low responsiveness across multiple preventive classes.

Epidemiology

	• Population-based incidence and prevalence estimates for resistant and refractory migraine are not yet well defined, largely because formal definitions are recent and have varied over time.
	• Both conditions are encountered disproportionately in headache specialty practice, where resistant migraine is more common than refractory migraine.
	• Pediatric epidemiology remains especially sparse.

Population-based incidence and prevalence estimates for resistant and refractory migraine are not yet well defined. This reflects both the recency of modern consensus definitions and the historical variability in how refractoriness has been defined across studies. Available evidence, therefore, comes largely from specialty-clinic cohorts and physician surveys rather than population-based epidemiological studies (58; 50).

Practice-pattern data suggest that resistant and refractory migraine are disproportionately encountered in headache-focused settings. In an international survey of 277 physicians, 49.5% reported that they frequently managed patients with resistant migraine, and 28.9% frequently managed patients with refractory migraine (70). These proportions were substantially higher in headache specialist centers, where 75% of physicians reported frequently seeing resistant migraine and 46% reported frequently seeing refractory migraine. These data are useful for understanding care concentration, but they should not be interpreted as prevalence estimates.

Clinic-based studies similarly suggest that refractory migraine represents an important minority of patients seen in tertiary care. In a 2011 study of 370 consecutive patients evaluated in a tertiary headache unit, 5.1% met a modified version of the American Headache Society refractory migraine criteria. Those patients were highly disabled, with a mean MIDAS score of 96, and 36.8% had medication overuse (30). The prospective REFINE study applied contemporary resistant and refractory migraine definitions to 489 patients treated in tertiary headache centers (53). In that cohort, 11.2% had refractory migraine, 36.4% had resistant migraine, and 52.4% had neither, again supporting the view that resistant migraine is more common than refractory migraine in specialty practice.

Pediatric epidemiology is even less well characterized, and older pediatric studies often used definitions that map imperfectly onto current adult consensus criteria. In one retrospective pediatric neurology clinic study, 24% of 210 patients with migraine were considered refractory after three prior treatment failures, a threshold that more closely resembles the current concept of resistant migraine than refractory migraine (34). More recent pediatric data have focused less on prevalence than on phenotype; for example, among pediatric patients with refractory chronic migraine referred for infusion treatment, headache frequency and disability were higher than in non-refractory chronic migraine and episodic migraine, although adverse childhood experience scores did not differ significantly between refractory and non-refractory chronic migraine groups (01).

Although precise prevalence remains uncertain, available evidence suggests that resistant and refractory migraine carry a disproportionate healthcare burden. In a Taiwanese claims-based matched case-control study using ICD-9 code 346.11 as a proxy for refractory migraine, affected patients had significantly higher total medical and drug costs than both non-migraine controls and patients with other migraine diagnoses (86). Together, these data suggest that resistant and refractory migraine are uncommon but clinically concentrated, high-burden states that are encountered most often in tertiary headache practice.

Prevention

	• There are no direct studies showing how to prevent progression to refractory migraine.
	• The most defensible preventive approach is early identification and modification of risk factors associated with migraine progression and chronification.
	• Prevention is best framed as risk reduction rather than guaranteed avoidance because some patients progress despite appropriate care and others later improve.

Direct evidence on prevention of refractory migraine is lacking. Preventive recommendations, therefore, must be inferred from the literature on migraine progression and chronic migraine rather than from studies specifically designed to prevent a refractory course. Current evidence supports identifying patients at risk for progression and addressing modifiable contributors early (09), but intervention studies proving that such measures prevent refractory migraine are not available.

Risk factors associated with progression to chronic migraine include increasing headache frequency, poorly optimized acute treatment, acute medication overuse, selected psychiatric symptoms, extra-cephalic chronic pain conditions, metabolism-related comorbidities, including obesity, sleep disturbance, physical inactivity, tobacco use, financial constraints, and stressful or other exogenous triggers (37; 36; 09). These data support an early, comprehensive approach to care: optimize acute treatment so attacks are treated effectively, reduce medication overuse when possible, address comorbidities, encourage exercise and weight optimization when appropriate, include behavioral management, and treat coexisting pain generators.

Acute-treatment strategy likely matters. Reviews of longitudinal data suggest that poorly optimized acute treatment and medication overuse are linked to migraine progression (07). Opioid- and barbiturate-containing products are of particular concern. NSAIDs may be protective in people with lower baseline headache frequency, but this effect is not consistently seen across higher-frequency states and should not be overinterpreted as a proven prevention strategy for refractory migraine.

Preventive therapy can reduce headache frequency and, in many patients, convert chronic migraine to episodic migraine, but this is not the same as proving prevention of refractory migraine. In the INTREPID trial, topiramate reduced headache and migraine days in patients with high-frequency episodic migraine but did not significantly prevent new-onset chronic daily headache at 6 months (38). Thus, early optimization of preventive treatment is reasonable and likely beneficial, but claiming that it prevents a future refractory course would still be speculative.

Lifestyle measures should be incorporated as part of overall risk reduction, although none has been specifically shown to prevent refractory migraine. The best-supported targets are regular sleep, treatment of sleep disorders, physical activity, weight optimization when relevant, limitation of excessive caffeine, smoking cessation, and reduction of medication overuse (36). Diet and nutritional supplements may have a role in general migraine prevention, but there is no evidence that they specifically prevent chronification into refractory migraine.

Prevention of chronification is not synonymous with prevention of refractory migraine. Some patients will still progress despite appropriate care, whereas others initially classified as resistant or refractory later improve with additional therapies or improved access (36; 53). For that reason, prevention is best framed as risk reduction rather than guaranteed avoidance.

Differential diagnosis

Confusing conditions

• Refractory migraine should only be diagnosed after repeated reconsideration of mimics and important contributors.

New daily persistent headache. New daily persistent headache can closely resemble refractory migraine because it may have a migraine phenotype and a highly treatment-resistant course. The key distinguishing feature is a distinct and clearly remembered onset, with headache becoming continuous and unremitting within 24 hours (27). A prior history of migraine is allowed, but there should not be a gradual escalation of migraine frequency culminating in daily headache, which instead favors progression of migraine rather than new daily persistent headache.

CSF pressure disorders. CSF pressure disorders are among the most important secondary mimics of refractory migraine. Idiopathic intracranial hypertension should be considered, particularly in patients with obesity, pulsatile tinnitus, visual symptoms, or symptoms suggestive of raised intracranial pressure. A careful funduscopic examination is essential, but the absence of papilledema does not completely exclude idiopathic intracranial hypertension (11). Spontaneous intracranial hypotension classically causes orthostatic headache that improves when supine, but the phenotype can be broader and less positional than traditionally taught (17). Brain MRI is abnormal in many patients with spontaneous intracranial hypotension, but a normal or minimally abnormal MRI does not exclude the diagnosis.

Hemicrania continua. Hemicrania continua should be considered in a patient with a strictly unilateral and continuous headache, especially when associated with strictly ipsilateral cranial autonomic symptoms or restlessness (27). An indomethacin trial is often decisive because a complete response to indomethacin is a defining feature of the disorder in the ICHD-3.

Chronic cluster headache. Cluster headache should be considered in a patient with strictly unilateral headache with attacks lasting 15 minutes to 3 hours and associated ipsilateral cranial autonomic symptoms or restlessness (27). In chronic cluster headache there are no breaks in cluster cycles lasting 3 or more months. Complicating this diagnosis, interictal pain can be present and appears to be more common in chronic cluster headache compared to episodic cluster headache (40). Unfortunately, treatment options are also limited for this diagnosis (93).

Medication overuse headache. Medication overuse can coexist with refractory migraine (59), but medication overuse headache remains an important competing or contributing diagnosis. The ICHD-3 characterizes medication overuse headache as an interaction between excessive use of acute medication and a susceptible patient (27). The MOTS trial showed that starting or optimizing preventive therapy without immediate withdrawal of the overused medication was noninferior to a strategy requiring medication switching and limitation (76), so abrupt withdrawal is not always required. Even so, in a patient with persistent nonresponse and ongoing overuse, it remains reasonable to reconsider whether the overused medication itself is perpetuating headache burden.

Cervicogenic and temporomandibular disorders. Cervicogenic headache and temporomandibular disorders are more often important contributors or comorbid mimics than true explanations for all symptoms, but they should be actively sought in patients with refractory headache. Features favoring a cervical source include pain beginning in the neck, provocation by neck movement or sustained awkward posture, and reduced cervical range of motion (27). Painful temporomandibular disorders should be considered when headache is associated with jaw pain, chewing provocation, limited jaw opening, joint sounds, or masticatory muscle tenderness (27). These disorders commonly overlap with migraine and can amplify disability, even when migraine remains the primary diagnosis.

Other secondary headache disorders. The label refractory migraine should trigger renewed scrutiny for secondary headache disorders, especially when the phenotype changes, focal neurologic symptoms emerge, constitutional symptoms are present, or treatment response becomes unexpectedly poor. Refractoriness alone should not be used to justify repeated low-yield testing, but it should lower the threshold for a careful re-evaluation when red flags or atypical features are present.

Associated or underlying disorders

Migraine. A diagnosis of refractory migraine requires an underlying diagnosis of migraine, whether episodic or chronic and with or without aura (27). Although current definitions technically allow episodic migraine, the required level of burden means that patients usually have either chronic migraine or high-frequency episodic migraine (59).

Resistant migraine. Resistant migraine is the nearest adjacent diagnostic state and should usually be considered before refractory migraine. Current consensus definitions distinguish resistant migraine from refractory migraine by the extent of preventive treatment failure: resistant migraine requires failure of at least three evidence-based preventive classes, whereas refractory migraine requires failure of all evidence-based classes (69; 59). Clinically, this distinction matters because resistant migraine implies remaining therapeutic opportunities, whereas refractory migraine represents the most treatment-unresponsive end of the spectrum.

Probable refractory migraine. Probable refractory migraine is useful when the clinical picture strongly suggests refractoriness, but the patient has not been able to complete trials of all evidence-based classes, most often because of intolerance, contraindications, age-related limitations, geographic availability, or insurance barriers (59). This category helps prevent overcalling true refractoriness while acknowledging that real-world access limitations often constrain treatment sequencing.

Comorbidities. Medication overuse, psychiatric comorbidity, obesity, temporomandibular disorders, trigger points, and other pain or medical comorbidities are not alternative diagnoses in themselves, but they are common in difficult-to-treat migraine and can make apparent refractoriness worse. In the REFINE study, both resistant and refractory migraine carried a greater comorbidity burden than non-resistant/non-refractory migraine, with the highest burden seen in refractory migraine (65). These factors should therefore be considered amplifiers and management targets rather than defining features, by themselves, of refractory migraine.

Diagnostic workup

	• Refractory migraine requires two of the following: considerable functional disability, constant background headache, and at least eight monthly migraine days.
	• Refractory migraine requires failure of all categories of preventive treatments.
	• There is no universally accepted diagnostic workup specific to refractory migraine.
	• The workup should prioritize review of prior treatment trials, reconfirmation of diagnosis, and consideration of comorbidity contributions.

Current consensus diagnostic framework. Refractory migraine represents a subpopulation of patients with migraine who do not respond to any category of evidence-based preventive treatments.

Table 1. 2025 International Consensus Definition of Refractory Migraine

A. Established diagnosis of 1.1 migraine without aura and/or 1.2 migraine with aura and/or 1.3 chronic migraine
B. Headache requiring two of the following:
	1. Leads to considerable impairment in personal, educational, and/or occupational areas of functioning
	2. Concomitant continuous or near continuous headache between migraine attacks
	3. ≥8 monthly migraine days
C. Lack of ≥50% reduction in monthly migraine days and/or intolerable side effects and/or absolute contraindication to at least one evidence-based medication from each of the below classes, of which more than four must be due to a true lack of response:
	1. CGRP pathway inhibitor
	2. OnabotulinumtoxinA
	3. Antidepressant
	4. Beta blocker
	5. Angiotensin pathway blocker
	6. Calcium channel blocker
	7. Anti-seizure medication
	8. NMDA receptor antagonist
	9. Newly approved evidence-based medication not currently listed
D. Not better accounted for by another ICHD-3 diagnosis
(59)

Table 2. 2025 International Consensus Definition of Resistant Migraine

	A. Established diagnosis of 1.1 migraine without aura and/or 1.2 migraine with aura and/or 1.3 chronic migraine
	B. Headache requiring two of the following:
	1. Leads to considerable impairment in personal, educational, and/or occupational areas of functioning
	2. Concomitant continuous or near continuous headache between migraine attacks
	3. ≥8 monthly migraine days
C. Lack of ≥50% reduction in monthly migraine days and/or intolerable side effects and/or absolute contraindication to 3 or more, but not all classes, of at least one evidence-based medication from each of the below classes:
	1. CGRP pathway inhibitor
	2. OnabotulinumtoxinA
	3. Antidepressant
	4. Beta blocker
	5. Angiotensin pathway blocker
	6. Calcium channel blocker
	7. Antiseizure medication
	8. NMDA receptor antagonist
	9. Newly approved evidence-based medication not currently listed
D. Not better accounted for by another ICHD-3 diagnosis.
(59)

Establishing the diagnosis. Refractory migraine should not be diagnosed solely by counting prior medication failures. The diagnosis rests on three parallel tasks: confirming that the underlying headache disorder is migraine, establishing that prior preventive trials were genuinely adequate, and excluding alternative or coexisting conditions that materially explain the poor outcome. The most common practical error is to label a patient as refractory before the phenotype, treatment history, or differential diagnosis has been adequately revisited.

History should document headache onset pattern, chronology of escalation, presence or absence of a distinctly remembered day of daily headache onset, aura status, interictal baseline pain, autonomic features, positional features, cough or Valsalva sensitivity, sleep-related worsening, menstrual pattern, comorbid pain conditions, psychiatric history, and prior procedures or surgeries. Acute and preventive treatment history should be reviewed in detail, including dose, duration, adherence, adverse effects, insurance denials, and whether discontinuation reflected true lack of efficacy versus intolerance or lack of access.

Evaluation for alternative or concurrent diagnoses. Physical examination should include a focused neurologic examination, fundoscopy or formal fundus assessment for papilledema, blood pressure, neck range of movement, palpation for temporomandibular and cervical myofascial pain, jaw opening and tracking, and assessment for features suggesting hemicrania continua or trigeminal autonomic cephalalgias in patients with highly lateralized pain. In a patient with refractory chronic daily headache, papilledema should never be assumed absent without looking for it.

Neuroimaging is not routinely indicated for uncomplicated migraine, but the threshold for imaging is lower in patients being considered for a diagnosis of refractory migraine because alternative or concurrent diagnoses become more consequential in this context. Brain MRI is reasonable in patients with atypical features, substantial change in phenotype, side-locked headache, positional features, persistent focal symptoms, or concern for CSF pressure disorder. Further imaging or lumbar puncture should be directed by the clinical context. In particular, idiopathic intracranial hypertension without papilledema and spontaneous intracranial hypotension should be reconsidered when the story fits rather than dismissed because the presentation is not classic.

Laboratory testing should remain targeted rather than indiscriminate. Screening may be appropriate when suggested by history or medication planning, eg, thyroid studies (27), metabolic studies, or pregnancy testing. Sleep apnea screening is appropriate in patients with snoring, obesity, witnessed apneas, nonrestorative sleep, or prominent morning headache (12; 27). Assessment for medication overuse, depression, anxiety, trauma-related symptoms, and substance use is not ancillary to the workup; these factors can be central determinants of outcome and should be explicitly assessed.

Management

	• There are no randomized controlled trials specifically dedicated to patients meeting the 2025 refractory migraine definition.
	• Management begins with re-evaluation of diagnosis and prior treatment adequacy, not automatic escalation to more invasive care.
	• Treatment generally requires layered care: optimized acute therapy, rational preventive therapy, behavioral and lifestyle treatment, management of comorbidities, and selected infusion, procedural, device-based, or off-label salvage options.
	• A diagnosis of refractory migraine should guide intensity of management and expectation-setting, but it should not be presented as therapeutic futility.

The management literature for refractory migraine is limited by major heterogeneity in definitions, study populations, and treatment access. Many older studies labeled patients as refractory or intractable despite prior failures that would now fit resistant migraine, and some would not even meet current resistant migraine criteria. For that reason, management recommendations are necessarily pragmatic and evidence-tiered. The clearest message is that care should be individualized, specialist-led when possible, and explicit about the difference between evidence-supported care, low-level evidence, and purely empirical salvage treatment.

1. Re-evaluate the diagnosis and the drivers of poor control. The first intervention is diagnostic. Before adding more treatments, reconsider whether the dominant problem is truly migraine alone, whether a secondary headache disorder has been missed, and whether coexisting diagnoses are amplifying burden (58; 46). Particular attention should be paid to spontaneous intracranial hypotension, idiopathic intracranial hypertension, including idiopathic intracranial hypertension without papilledema, new daily persistent headache, hemicrania continua, temporomandibular joint disorders, cervicogenic headache, persistent idiopathic facial pain, medication overuse/medication overuse headache, mood disorders, and sleep disorders. Refractory migraine can coexist with these conditions, but failure to identify them will significantly impact management and potential outcomes.

2. Reassess prior preventive and acute treatment trials. A detailed treatment audit often changes the apparent level of refractoriness. Determine whether each prior preventive was actually taken at a therapeutic dose for a sufficient duration, whether adherence was limited by cost or adverse effects, and whether the patient has access to all currently relevant classes from the most recent guidelines (02; 10; 56). The 2025 consensus criteria are useful here because they distinguish true lack of efficacy from intolerance, contraindication, and lack of access (59). In practice, this step may move a patient from apparent refractory migraine to probable refractory migraine or resistant migraine, which is not semantic pedantry; it changes how confidently one should declare that all evidence-based options have truly failed.

3. Optimize acute and bridge treatment. Even in a highly treatment-resistant disease, acute therapy still matters. Poor acute control can worsen disability, reinforce medication overuse, and contribute to continued chronification. Acute treatment should be optimized with attention to timing of use, route of administration, nausea management, and rescue planning. Gepants may be especially attractive in patients at risk for medication overuse. Balancing allowance for medication overuse to allow treatment of all attacks versus being strict about medication overuse headache thresholds is another consideration in this population. For patients with recurrent prolonged attacks, a written bridging strategy may be appropriate, eg, a time-limited steroid strategy, long-acting triptan bridge, or clinic-based rescue procedures like nerve blocks (58). The specific bridge should be individualized to phenotype, prior response, and safety considerations.

4. Consider repeating categories or rational polypharmacy. In refractory migraine, strict serial monotherapy with only one option from each category is unrealistic. Rational polypharmacy is commonly required, especially when partial benefit has been obtained from one therapy, but disability remains high (54). The modern preventive framework should be anchored in current evidence-based classes when possible, including CGRP-pathway therapies, onabotulinumtoxinA, selected antidepressants, beta blockers, angiotensin-pathway blockers, calcium channel blockers, antiseizure medications, and memantine. Even if all categories were ineffective, another medication from each category can be considered at this point, particularly if they have different mechanisms. For instance, try divalproex from the antiseizure medication category even if topiramate was previously ineffective. As another example, there is evidence that supports trying a different CGRP monoclonal antibody in a previous CGRP nonresponder (89). For specifically resistant migraine, both atogepant and eptinezumab have prospective evidence supporting their use as preventive treatment options (03; 31; 66). When a patient has only partially responded to one evidence-based therapy, combining mechanisms from different categories may be more sensible than repeatedly abandoning partially helpful treatments. However, care should also be taken to avoid unnecessary polypharmacy when the benefit is not worth the risk.

Combination modalities can be considered in addition to polypharmacy. Across two small but complementary 2025 trials, noninvasive neuromodulation, via intermittent theta-burst stimulation (iTBS) or combined transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), produced meaningful reductions in headache burden (13; 51). The tDCS was specifically evaluated as an adjunct to CGRP monoclonal antibodies. These studies demonstrate a growing shift toward multimodal, circuit‑targeted strategies for at least resistant migraine. Although noninvasive neuromodulation has a lower yield in patients with resistant or refractory migraine, it is also worth considering, though it remains investigational for these populations (61).

Combination approaches should still be purposeful rather than indiscriminate. The clinician should be able to state the rationale for each component, what outcome it targets, and how success or failure will be judged. Careful follow-up to see if there is objective improvement in headache frequency, severity, other symptoms, or general function needs to be assessed with each treatment change. One useful approach is to identify the current most bothersome symptoms or features, such as attack frequency, continuous baseline pain, prolonged attacks, poor acute control, concurrent pain disorders, nausea, sensory sensitivities, muscle spasms, aura, cognition, or energy/sleep disruption. Consider add-on treatment(s) framed around that key concern. Also consider if any current treatments may be causing worsening and would benefit from a dose decrease or discontinuation.

5. Treat comorbidities and amplifiers as part of standard care. Comorbidity management is central to treatment. Depression, anxiety, trauma-related symptoms, obesity, insomnia, obstructive sleep apnea, temporomandibular disorders, chronic neck or back pain, fibromyalgia, dysautonomia, and medication overuse can all worsen migraine burden and limit response. In severe refractory disease, these factors frequently determine whether a patient stabilizes or continues to spiral through treatment failure. Addressing them is not adjunctive care; it is often core care.

6. Nonpharmacologic and behavioral treatment should be routine. Behavioral and lifestyle therapy should be presented as standard treatment, not as a sign that the clinician has run out of medication options. Regular sleep, hydration, exercise, caffeine reduction, meal consistency, and treatment of sleep disorders remain important. Trigger avoidance can be discussed, but caution that many triggers are misattributions, represent the prodrome, and/or are non-modifiable (42). Cognitive-behavioral therapy, mindfulness, biofeedback, and other psychologically informed approaches may be especially valuable in patients with adverse childhood events, high disability, fear-avoidance, catastrophizing, or strong illness-threat beliefs (24; 87; 83; 08; 67; 88). These interventions do not imply a psychogenic headache or prominent psychiatric feature; they address mechanisms that influence pain processing, coping, and treatment response, so they are appropriate for all patients with refractory migraine.

7. Escalate to infusion-based or inpatient treatment when necessary. For some patients, especially those with continuous pain, recurrent status migrainosus, or repeated emergency department use, escalation to structured infusion-based care is appropriate. Depending on the setting, options may include recurrent outpatient infusion protocols or a single/repeated inpatient treatment. The strongest rationale for these approaches is in patients whose disease has become self-sustaining enough that ordinary outpatient changes never gain traction. Published evidence is largely retrospective and heterogeneous (35; 64; 15), but these strategies remain part of real-world specialist care. Options to consider can borrow from parenteral options used in the emergency room for acute migraine management, like dopamine receptor antagonists (62). Options commonly used despite lower evidence include intravenous dihydroergotamine, lidocaine, and ketamine (49; 15; 80; 47; 77; 84; 78; 91; 28; 79).

8. Selected off-label salvage options may be reasonable with informed consent. A small number of off-label treatments have low-level evidence or case-series support in severe treatment-resistant populations. Examples include olanzapine, phenelzine, and mexiletine (71; 82; 39). These options should not be framed as evidence-based standards, but they may be reasonable in carefully selected patients after a transparent discussion of uncertainty, adverse effects, and monitoring needs. This is a setting in which the distinction between evidence-supported and empirically reasonable treatment should be explicit in the chart and in patient counseling.

9. Opioids should remain exceptional. Continuous opioid therapy is not standard migraine care and should remain exceptional. The older headache literature proposed strict selection and monitoring criteria for rare patients with refractory chronic daily headache, and that conservative spirit still holds. If opioids are considered at all, the threshold should be high, alternative diagnoses and medication overuse should be revisited, psychiatric and substance use risk carefully assessed, and monitoring formalized (73; 74).

10. Procedural and surgical care. Peripheral nerve blocks and trigger point injections may be useful adjuncts (33; 43; 25; 22; 85; 62); however, frequency of use and optimal protocols are unknown. By contrast, surgical approaches to migraine remain outside standard neurologic care pathways and should be discussed cautiously because the evidence base is heterogeneous and patient selection is highly variable. If mentioned, surgery is best framed as an area of ongoing investigation rather than a routine option for refractory migraine. There is some evidence for trigeminal/occipital nerve stimulators (57; 63), and new technology is looking at this option for refractory migraine (ClinicalTrials.gov 2026). For those with a concurrent occipital neuralgia phenotype, posterior decompression has been considered (05). Recent work on middle meningeal artery embolization or lidocaine is being investigated (19; 90).

11. Set expectations without conveying hopelessness. Expectation-setting matters. A diagnosis of resistant migraine or refractory migraine should be used to explain why treatment may need to be layered, prolonged, off-label, and/or iterative, not to signal that meaningful improvement is impossible. Longitudinal data show that some patients move between categories over time, including improvement from refractory or resistant states. Cautious optimism is therefore appropriate: the disease is severe and hard to treat but not necessarily permanently fixed (50).

12. Newly emerging treatment targets. New migraine targets are being studied. A patient may be refractory to currently available options but respond to treatment with a new mechanism of action. For instance, PACAP-ligand antibodies may represent a new mechanism for individuals with resistant or refractory migraine, including those nonresponsive to CGRP-directed options (04; 32).

Outcomes

Treatment outcome in refractory migraine should not be judged only by a binary 30% or 50% reduction in monthly migraine days. That threshold remains useful, but in severe disease, it can miss clinically meaningful gains, such as reduced continuous background pain, fewer prolonged attacks, lower acute medication use, fewer emergency visits, improved function, or the ability to return to work or school. At the same time, clinicians should avoid setting inappropriately low expectations simply because the patient carries a refractory label.

A practical outcomes framework is to track several domains: monthly migraine days, headache days, average and peak severity, duration of attacks, acute medication use, disability, quality of life, and patient-defined goals. Current migraine position statements increasingly emphasize aiming for very low disease burden or migraine freedom where possible (68). In refractory migraine, the appropriate short-term goal is often staged improvement across multiple domains rather than immediate normalization, but long-term treatment should still aim higher than marginal benefit alone.

Treatment-related complications depend on the therapies used and may be substantial in this population because patients are frequently exposed to polypharmacy, repeated rescue treatment, procedures, and off-label therapies. Common practical complications include weight gain, sedation, cognitive adverse effects, constipation, orthostasis, medication overuse, and treatment discontinuation due to access barriers. These burdens should be explicitly acknowledged when discussing outcome because tolerability failure is one of the central reasons patients enter probable refractory or refractory pathways in the first place.

Special considerations

Pregnancy

Evidence specific to refractory migraine during pregnancy is lacking, so management should follow broader migraine-in-pregnancy principles while recognizing that this subgroup often relies on medications that are difficult to continue during conception planning, pregnancy, or breastfeeding (52). Preconception counseling is especially important. The clinician should review each preventive and rescue medication well before conception attempts, identify therapies that must be discontinued or substituted, and emphasize nonpharmacologic strategies and procedural options when appropriate. For some patients, pregnancy may improve migraine burden, but this should not be assumed, particularly in those with chronic or highly treatment-resistant disease.

Pediatric and adolescent patients

The refractory migraine construct is harder to apply in children and adolescents because medication approvals, evidence base, and insurance access differ substantially from adults (41). For that reason, probable refractory migraine may be especially useful in younger patients when the failure to complete all class trials reflects limited access or age-related treatment constraints rather than true exhaustion of all options. Pediatric care should also place major emphasis on nonpharmaceutical options as well as school function, sleep, behavioral treatment, family dynamics, and adverse childhood experiences when clinically relevant.

Older adults

In older adults, a diagnosis of refractory migraine should be made cautiously because comorbid vascular disease, polypharmacy, orthostatic symptoms, sleep disorders, medication interactions, and secondary headache causes become more common (60). Tolerability may be a greater limiting factor than efficacy alone. Treatment should therefore prioritize careful medication review, minimization of sedating or cognitively impairing regimens, and renewed attention to mimics or secondary contributors.

Anesthesia

There are no anesthesia recommendations specific to refractory migraine. Practical perioperative priorities are to avoid unnecessary interruption of effective migraine therapies when feasible, maintain hydration and sleep as much as possible, limit opioid exposure where appropriate, and have a postoperative rescue plan for patients with a history of severe attacks or status migrainosus. Migraine history can influence perioperative headache burden, but evidence specific to refractory migraine is sparse.

References

01: Ahmad SR, Levin M. Prevalence of adverse childhood experiences in the refractory chronic migraine population compared to non-refractory chronic and episodic migraine. Headache 2025;65(10):1800-10. PMID 40542535
02: Ailani J, Burch RC, Robbins MS; Board of Directors of the American Headache Society. The American Headache Society Consensus Statement: update on integrating new migraine treatments into clinical practice. Headache 2021;61(7):1021-39. PMID 34160823
03: Andreou AP, Hill B, Al-Rawi R, et al. A prospective real-world analysis of intravenous eptinezumab in migraine management: the first UK experience. J Headache Pain 2025;26(1):35. PMID 41168777
04: Ashina M, Phul R, Khodaie M, Lof E, Florea I. A monoclonal antibody to PACAP for migraine prevention. N Engl J Med 2024;391:800-9. PMID 39231342
05: Austen WG Jr, Remy K, Packowski K, Hazewinkel MH, Gfrerer L, Mathew PG. Refractory occipital neuralgia treatment with nerve decompression surgery: a case series. Front Neurol 2023;14:1284101. PMID 38090265
06: Barbanti P, Goadsby PJ, Lambru G, et al. Effects of eptinezumab on self-reported work productivity in adults with migraine and prior preventive treatment failure in the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled DELIVER study. J Headache Pain 2022;23(1):153. PMID 36460983
07: Bigal ME, Lipton RB. Modifiable risk factors for migraine progression. Headache 2006;46(9):1334-43. PMID 17040331
08: Bottiroli S, Galli F, Viana M, et al. Negative short-term outcome of detoxification therapy in chronic migraine with medication overuse headache: role for early life traumatic experiences and recent stressful events. Front Neurol 2019;10:173. PMID 30899242
09: Buse DC, Greisman JD, Baigi K, Lipton RB. Migraine progression: a systematic review. Headache 2019;59(3):306-38. PMID 30589090
10: Charles AC, Digre KB, Goadsby PJ, Robbins MS, Hershey A; American Headache Society. Calcitonin gene-related peptide-targeting therapies are a first-line option for the prevention of migraine: an American Headache Society position statement update. Headache 2024;64(4):333-41. PMID 38466028
11: Chen BS, Britton JOT. Expanding the clinical spectrum of idiopathic intracranial hypertension. Curr Opin Neurol 2023;36(1):43-50. PMID 36444979
12: Chung F, Abdullah HR, Liao P. STOP-Bang Questionnaire: a practical approach to screen for obstructive sleep apnea. Chest 2016;149(3):631-8. PMID 26378880
13: Clemente L, Paparella G, Scannicchio S, et al. Dorso lateral prefrontal cortex stimulation with TMS in chronic migraine individuals refractory to anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies: clinical, neuropsychological and neurophysiological effects. Cephalalgia 2025;45(9):3331024251364843. PMID 40961282
14: ClinicalTrials.gov. The RECLAIM Study. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT06450444. Available at: https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT06450444. Accessed March 2026.
15: Connelly M, Sekhon S, Stephens D, Boorigie M, Bickel J. Enhancing outpatient dihydroergotamine infusion with interdisciplinary care to treat refractory pediatric migraine: preliminary outcomes from the comprehensive aggressive migraine protocol ("CAMP"). Headache 2020;60(1):101-9. PMID 31626335
16: D'Amico D, Leone M, Grazzi L, Bussone G. When should "chronic migraine" patients be considered "refractory" to pharmacological prophylaxis? Neurol Sci 2008;29 Suppl 1:S55-8. PMID 18545898
17: D'Antona L, Jaime Merchan MA, Vassiliou A, et al. Clinical presentation, investigation findings, and treatment outcomes of spontaneous intracranial hypotension syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Neurol 2021;78(3):329-37. PMID 33393980
18: D'Antona L, Matharu M. Identifying and managing refractory migraine: barriers and opportunities? J Headache Pain 2019;20(1):89. PMID 31443629
19: Fakih R, Ranjini NJ, Gillani SA, et al. Middle meningeal artery lidocaine infusion for refractory migraine: angiographic dose response and 3-month outcomes. J Neuroimaging 2025;35(6):e70096. PMID 41185441
20: Ferrari MD, Diener HC, Ning X, et al. Fremanezumab versus placebo for migraine prevention in patients with documented failure to up to four migraine preventive medication classes (FOCUS): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3b trial. Lancet 2019;394(10203):1030-40. PMID 31427046
21: Ferrari MD, Reuter U, Goadsby PJ, et al. Two-year efficacy and safety of erenumab in participants with episodic migraine and 2–4 prior preventive treatment failures: results from the LIBERTY study. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2022;93(3):254-62. PMID 34845002
22: File C, Fang X, Ahmad R, et al. Efficacy of nerve blocks for managing refractory posttraumatic headaches. Pain Physician 2025;28(2):137-45. PMID 40168565
23: Goadsby PJ, Schoenen J, Ferrari MD, Silberstein SD, Dodick D. Towards a definition of intractable headache for use in clinical practice and trials. Cephalalgia 2006;26:1168-70. PMID 16919073
24: Goldstein LH, Seed PT, Clark LV, Dowson AJ, Jenkins LM, Ridsdale L. Predictors of outcome in patients consulting their general practitioners for headache: a prospective study. Psychol Health 2011;26(6):751-64. PMID 21432726
25: Hassan R, Gudiwala V, Dawn P, Jeynes L. Greater occipital nerve block as an effective intervention for medically refractory pediatric migraine: a retrospective study. Cureus 2023;15(2):e34930. PMID 36938185
26: Hautakangas H, Winsvold BS, Ruotsalainen SE, et al. Genome-wide analysis of 102,084 migraine cases identifies 123 risk loci and subtype-specific risk alleles. Nat Genet 2022;54(2):152-60. PMID 35115687
27: Headache Classification Committee of the International Headache Society. Headache Classification Committee of the International Headache Society (IHS) The International Classification of Headache Disorders, 3rd edition. Cephalalgia 2018;38(1):1-211.** PMID 29368949
28: Hoydonckx Y, Feoktistov A, Amoozegar F, et al. Practice advisory for intravenous management of headache disorders in hospitalized patients: a review of the evidence and consensus recommendations. Reg Anesth Pain Med 2026;51(2):117-31. PMID 40602807
29: Hubig LT, Smith T, Williams E, et al. Measuring interictal burden among people affected by migraine: a descriptive survey study. J Headache Pain 2022;23(1):97. PMID 35941572
30: Irimia P, Palma JA, Fernandez-Torron R, et al. Refractory migraine in a headache clinic population. BMC Neurol 2011;11:94. PMID 21806790
31: Jaimes A, Rodríguez-Vico J, Pajares O, et al. Retrospective cohort study of anti-CGRP monoclonal antibody unresponsive migraine individuals treated with atogepant: the RESCUE study. Cephalalgia 2025;45(6):3331024251346925. PMID 40501126
32: Johnson MP, Krikke-Workel J, Patel CN, et al. Preclinical and clinical evaluation of LY3451838, a PACAP-neutralizing monoclonal antibody, in randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 1 and phase 2 studies involving healthy adults and adults with treatment-resistant migraine. Cephalalgia 2025;45(8):3331024251368757. PMID 40836866
33: Kocer A. Greater occipital nerve blocks in the treatment of refractory chronic migraine: an observational report of nine cases. World J Clin Cases 2016;4(10):323-7. PMID 27803914
34: Kung TA, Totonchi A, Eshraghi Y, Scher MS, Gosain AK. Review of pediatric migraine headaches refractory to medical management. J Craniofac Surg 2009;20(1):125-8. PMID 19165008
35: Lake AE 3rd, Saper JR, Hamel RL. Comprehensive inpatient treatment of refractory chronic daily headache. Headache 2009;49(4):555-62. PMID 19245391
36: Lipton RB, Buse DC, Nahas SJ, et al. Risk factors for migraine disease progression: a narrative review for a patient-centered approach. J Neurol 2023;270(12):5692-710. PMID 37615752
37: Lipton RB, Fanning KM, Serrano D, Reed ML, Cady R, Buse DC. Ineffective acute treatment of episodic migraine is associated with new-onset chronic migraine. Neurology 2015;84(7):688-95. PMID 25609757
38: Lipton RB, Silberstein S, Dodick D, et al. Topiramate intervention to prevent transformation of episodic migraine: the topiramate INTREPID study. Cephalalgia 2011;31(1):18-30. PMID 20974598
39: Marmura MJ, Passero FC Jr, Young WB. Mexiletine for refractory chronic daily headache: a report of nine cases. Headache 2008;48(10):1506-10. PMID 18793209
40: Marmura MJ, Pello SJ, Young WB. Interictal pain in cluster headache. Cephalalgia 2010;30(12):1531-4. PMID 20974600
41: Marshall A, Lindsay R, Clementi MA, Gelfand AA, Orr SL. Outpatient approach to resistant and refractory migraine in children and adolescents: a narrative review. Curr Neurol Neurosci Rep 2022;22(10):611-24. PMID 36018499
42: Martinelli D, Pocora MM, De Icco R, Putortì A, Tassorelli C. Triggers of migraine: where do we stand? Curr Opin Neurol 2022;35(3):360-6. PMID 35674080
43: Martelletti P, Giamberardino MA, Mitsikostas DD. Greater occipital nerve as target for refractory chronic headaches: from corticosteroid block to invasive neurostimulation and back. Expert Rev Neurother 2016;16(8):865-6. PMID 26959293
44: Martelletti P, Katsarava Z, Lampl C, et al. Refractory chronic migraine: a consensus statement on clinical definition from the European Headache Federation. J Headache Pain 2014;15(1):47. PMID 25169882
45: Minguez-Olaondo A, Quintas S, Morollón Sánchez-Mateos N, et al. Cutaneous allodynia in migraine: a narrative review. Front Neurol 2022;12:831035. PMID 35153995
46: Mitsikostas DD, Deligianni C, Mavridi A, Gkotzamanis V, Mavridis T. Steps to manage treatment-refractory migraine in adults. Expert Rev Neurother 2025;25(11):1275-89. PMID 40916161
47: Mojica JJ, Schwenk ES, Lauritsen C, Nahas SJ. Beyond the Raskin Protocol: ketamine, lidocaine, and other therapies for refractory chronic migraine. Curr Pain Headache Rep 2021;25(12):77. PMID 34894295
48: Mulleners WM, Kim BK, Láinez MJA, et al. Safety and efficacy of galcanezumab in patients for whom previous migraine preventive medication from two to four categories had failed (CONQUER): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3b trial. Lancet Neurol 2020;19(10):814-25. PMID 32949542
49: Nagy AJ, Gandhi S, Bhola R, Goadsby PJ. Intravenous dihydroergotamine for inpatient management of refractory primary headaches. Neurology 2011;77(20):1827-32. PMID 22049203
50: Ornello R, Andreou AP, De Matteis E, Jürgens TP, Minen MT, Sacco S. Resistant and refractory migraine: clinical presentation, pathophysiology, and management. EBioMedicine 2024;99:104943.** PMID 38142636
51: Ornello R, D'Atri A, De Icco R, et al. Effectiveness of transcranial direct current stimulation and monoclonal antibodies acting on the CGRP as a combined treatment for migraine (TACTIC): results of a randomized controlled trial. Cephalalgia 2025a;45(5):3331024251325567. PMID 40384614
52: Ornello R, Maassen van den Brink A, Puledda F, et al. Migraine management during pregnancy, breastfeeding and in women planning pregnancy. Cephalalgia 2025b;45(11):3331024251393945. PMID 41263702
53: Pensato U, Ornello R, Rosignoli C, et al. Longitudinal assessment of migraine burden in resistant and refractory migraine - data from the prospective REFINE study. J Headache Pain 2025;26(1):184.** PMID 40817153
54: Peterlin BL, Calhoun AH, Siegel S, Mathew NT. Rational combination therapy in refractory migraine. Headache 2008;48(6):805-19. PMID 18549358
55: Pijpers JA, Kies DA, van Zwet EW, de Boer I, Terwindt GM. Cutaneous allodynia as predictor for treatment response in chronic migraine: a cohort study. J Headache Pain 2023;24(1):118. PMID 37644420
56: Puledda F, Sacco S, Diener HC, et al. International Headache Society Global Practice Recommendations for Preventive Pharmacological Treatment of Migraine. Cephalalgia 2024;44(9):3331024241269735. PMID 39262214
57: Reed KL, Black SB, Banta CJ 2nd, Will KR. Combined occipital and supraorbital neurostimulation for the treatment of chronic migraine headaches: initial experience. Cephalalgia 2010;30(3):260-71. PMID 19732075
58: Robblee J. Breaking the cycle: unraveling the diagnostic, pathophysiological and treatment challenges of refractory migraine. Front Neurol 2023;14:1263535. PMID 37830088
59: Robblee J, Khan FA, Marmura MJ, et al. Reaching international consensus on the definition of refractory migraine using the Delphi method. Cephalalgia 2025a;45(9):3331024251367767.** PMID 40953156
60: Robblee J, Singh RH. Headache in the older population: causes, diagnoses, and treatments. Curr Pain Headache Rep 2020;24(7):34. PMID 32472308
61: Robblee J, Stancl R, Hutson TN. Prospective observational study of three-month response to eCOT-NS device in patients with headache. Cephalalgia Reports 2025b;8.
62: Robblee J, Minen MT, Friedman BW, Cortel-LeBlanc MA, Cortel-LeBlanc A, Orr SL. 2025 guideline update to acute treatment of migraine for adults in the emergency department: The American Headache Society evidence assessment of parenteral pharmacotherapies. Headache 2026;66(1):53-76. PMID 41321235
63: Rodrigo D, Acin P, Bermejo P. Occipital nerve stimulation for refractory chronic migraine: results of a long-term prospective study. Pain Physician 2017;20(1):E151-9. PMID 28072807
64: Rosen N, Marmura M, Abbas M, Silberstein S. Intravenous lidocaine in the treatment of refractory headache: a retrospective case series. Headache 2009;49(2):286-91. PMID 19222600
65: Rosignoli C, Ornello R, Caponnetto V, et al. Resistant and refractory migraine - two different entities with different comorbidities? Results from the REFINE study. J Headache Pain 2024;25(1):212. PMID 39627727
66: Russo A, Silvestro M, Finkelstein I, et al. Effectiveness and tolerability of atogepant as preventive treatment in resistant individuals with chronic migraine: six-month real-world evidence. Cephalalgia 2025;45(8):3331024251370608. PMID 40874574
67: Russo A, Silvestro M, Scotto di Clemente F, et al. Multidimensional assessment of the effects of erenumab in chronic migraine patients with previous unsuccessful preventive treatments: a comprehensive real-world experience. J Headache Pain 2020;21(1):69. PMID 32517693
68: Sacco S, Ashina M, Diener HC, et al. Setting higher standards for migraine prevention: a position statement of the International Headache Society. Cephalalgia 2025;45(2):3331024251320608. PMID 39980456
69: Sacco S, Braschinsky M, Ducros A, et al. European headache federation consensus on the definition of resistant and refractory migraine: developed with the endorsement of the European Migraine & Headache Alliance (EMHA). J Headache Pain 2020;21(1):76.** PMID 32546227
70: Sacco S, Lampl C, Maassen van den Brink A, et al. Burden and attitude to resistant and refractory migraine: a survey from the European Headache Federation with the endorsement of the European Migraine & Headache Alliance. J Headache Pain 2021;22(1):39.** PMID 34006218
71: Sandyk R, Iacono RP. Phenelzine in migraine headaches. Int J Neurosci 1987;35(3-4):243. PMID 3654082
72: Santoro JD, Moon PK, Han M, et al. Early onset diffusion abnormalities in refractory headache disorders. Front Neurol 2022;13:898219. PMID 35775057
73: Saper JR, Lake AE 3rd. Continuous opioid therapy (COT) is rarely advisable for refractory chronic daily headache: limited efficacy, risks, and proposed guidelines. Headache 2008;48(6):838-49. PMID 18549361
74: Saper JR, Lake AE 3rd, Bain PA, et al. A practice guide for continuous opioid therapy for refractory daily headache: patient selection, physician requirements, and treatment monitoring. Headache 2010;50(7):1175-93. PMID 20649650
75: Schulman EA, Lake AE 3rd, Goadsby PJ, et al. Defining refractory migraine and refractory chronic migraine: proposed criteria from the Refractory Headache Special Interest Section of the American Headache Society. Headache 2008;48(6):778-2. PMID 18484982
76: Schwedt TJ, Hentz JG, Sahai-Srivastava S, et al. Patient-centered treatment of chronic migraine with medication overuse: a prospective, randomized, pragmatic clinical trial. Neurology 2022;98(14):e1409-21. PMID 35169011
77: Schwenk ES, Torjman MC, Moaddel R, et al. Ketamine for refractory chronic migraine: an observational pilot study and metabolite analysis. J Clin Pharmacol 2021;61(11):1421-9. PMID 34125442
78: Schwenk ES, Walter A, Torjman MC, et al. Lidocaine infusions for refractory chronic migraine: a retrospective analysis. Reg Anesth Pain Med 2022;47(7):408-13. PMID 35609890
79: Sebastian R, Wright T, Lee SJ, Gattu K. Efficacy of lidocaine infusion in the management of chronic myofascial pain and intractable migrainous headache in a patient with hypermobile Ehlers-Danlos syndrome: a case report. Cureus 2026;18(2):e103015. PMID 41798527
80: Shafqat R, Flores-Montanez Y, Delbono V, Nahas SJ. Updated evaluation of IV dihydroergotamine (DHE) for refractory migraine: patient selection and special considerations. J Pain Res 2020;13:859-64. PMID 32431533
81: Silberstein SD, Dodick DW, Pearlman S. Defining the pharmacologically intractable headache for clinical trials and clinical practice. Headache 2010;50(9):1499-506. PMID 20958296
82: Silberstein SD, Peres MF, Hopkins MM, Shechter AL, Young WB, Rozen TD. Olanzapine in the treatment of refractory migraine and chronic daily headache. Headache 2002;42(6):515-8. PMID 12167140
83: Sirri L, Pierangeli G, Cevoli S, Cortelli P, Grandi S, Tossani E. Illness perception in patients with migraine: an exploratory study in a tertiary care headache centre. J Psychosom Res 2018;111:52-7. PMID 29935755
84: Srouji R, Schenkel SR, Forbes P, Cahill JE. Dihydroergotamine infusion for pediatric refractory headache: a retrospective chart review. Headache 2021;61(5):777-89. PMID 34105158
85: Taha NA, Fathy M, Elsadek A, et al. Efficacy and safety of ultrasound-guided peripheral nerve blocks in management of chronic resistant migraine. J Headache Pain 2025;26(1):80. PMID 40240919
86: Tang CH, Chen YC, Ng K, Wang SJ. A retrospective matched case-control study on medical costs of refractory migraine in Taiwan. Headache 2013;53(3):526-39. PMID 23406446
87: Tietjen GE, Khubchandani J, Herial NA, Shah K. Adverse childhood experiences are associated with migraine and vascular biomarkers. Headache 2012;52(6):920-9. PMID 22533684
88: van den Hoek TC, Pijpers JA, van Zwet EW, de Boer I, Terwindt GM. Pain coping in patients with chronic migraine and medication overuse headache. Brain Behav 2025;15(8):e70739. PMID 40791067
89: van Veelen N, van der Arend BWH, Hiele E, van Zwet EW, Terwindt GM. Switching from ligand to receptor anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) antibodies or vice versa in non-responders: a controlled cohort study. Eur J Neurol 2025;32(1):e16542. PMID 39607215
90: Vanzin JR, Manzato LB. Chronic migraine and bilateral occlusion of the middle meningeal artery. Interv Neuroradiol 2025:15910199251337520. PMID 40452399
91: Wang VS, Kosman J, Yuan H, et al. Safety, tolerability, and effectiveness of repetitive intravenous dihydroergotamine for refractory chronic migraine with cardiovascular risk factors: a retrospective study. Headache 2023;63(9):1251-8. PMID 37740562
92: Wober C, Wessely P. Comment on: Martelletti et al. Refractory chronic migraine: a consensus statement on clinical definition from the European Headache Federation. J Headache Pain 2014;15(1):77. PMID 25418797
93: Yuan H, Hoffmann J, de la Torre ER, Marmura M, Peres MFP. Chronic cluster headache is a rare disease: implications for diagnosis, treatment and public health. Cephalalgia 2025;45(8):03331024251369752. PMID 40836704
94: References especially recommended by the author or editor for general reading.

Contributors

All contributors' financial relationships have been reviewed and mitigated to ensure that this and every other article is free from commercial bias.

Author

Jennifer Robblee MD MSc FRCPC

Dr. Robblee of Barrow Neurological Institute received research support from Barrow Neurological Foundation as principal investigator and served on advisory boards for Tonix.
See Profile

Editor

Hsiangkuo Yuan MD PhD FAHS

Dr. Yuan of Jefferson Health-Thomas Jefferson University Hospitals received a consultant honorarium from Abbvie, Cerenovous, Pfizer, and Salvia.
See Profile

Patient Profile

Age range of presentation: Typical: adulthood after years of migraine evolution

Atypical: childhood to older adulthood
Sex preponderance: Likely similar to migraine with a female preponderance, but epidemiological studies specific to refractory migraine are needed
Heredity: Complex polygenic susceptibility inherited through migraine biology; no known refractory migraine-specific Mendelian pattern
Population groups selectively affected: No population group selectively affected
Occupation groups selectively affected: No occupation group selectively affected

This is an article preview.
Start a Free Account
to access the full version.

Nearly 3,000 illustrations, including video clips of neurologic disorders.
Every article is reviewed by our esteemed Editorial Board for accuracy and currency.
Full spectrum of neurology in 1,200 comprehensive articles.
Listen to MedLink on the go with Audio versions of each article.

Questions or Comment?

MedLink, LLC

3525 Del Mar Heights Rd, Ste 304
San Diego, CA 92130-2122

Toll Free (U.S. + Canada): 800-452-2400

US Number: +1-619-640-4660

Support: service@medlink.com

Editor: editor@medlink.com

ISSN: 2831-9125

Refractory migraine

Associated Disorders

Migraine
Resistant migraine
Probable refractory migraine
Medication overuse
psychiatric comorbidity
- Obesity
- Temporomandibular disorders
- Trigger points
- Chronic overlapping pain conditions

Differential Diagnosis

New daily persistent headache
CSF pressure disorders
Hemicrania continua
Chronic cluster headache
Medication overuse headache
- Cervicogenic headache
- Temporomandibular disorder-related headache
- Secondary headache disorder

Refractory migraine

Cite this article

Introduction

Overview

Key points

Historical note and terminology

Clinical manifestations

Presentation and course

Prognosis and complications

Biological basis

Etiology and pathogenesis

Epidemiology

Prevention

Differential diagnosis

Confusing conditions

Associated or underlying disorders

Diagnostic workup

Table 1. 2025 International Consensus Definition of Refractory Migraine

Table 2. 2025 International Consensus Definition of Resistant Migraine

Management

Outcomes

Special considerations

Pregnancy

Pediatric and adolescent patients

Older adults

Anesthesia

Media

References

Contributors

Author

Editor

Patient Profile

This is an article preview. Start a Free Account to access the full version.

Questions or Comment?

Also in This Category

Suzetrigine

Atogepant

Headache attributed to disorders of homeostasis

Indomethacin-responsive headache syndromes

Cluster headache

Headache associated with HIV and AIDS

Primary exercise headache

Chiropractic manipulation: neurologic complications

This is an article preview.
Start a Free Account
to access the full version.