Search

Background Headache is a frequent symptoms of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Its long-term evolution remains unknown. We aim to evaluate the long-term duration of headache in patients that presented headache during the acute phase of COVID-19. Methods This is a post-hoc multicenter ambisective study including patients from six different third-level hospitals between 1 March and 27 April 2020. Patients completed 9 months of neurological follow-up. Results We included 905 patients. Their median age was 51 (IQR 45–65), 66.5% were female, and 52.7% had a prior history of primary headache. The median duration of headache was 14 (6–39) days; however, the headache persisted after 3 months in 19.0% (95% CI: 16.5–21.8%) and after 9 months in 16.0% (95% confidence interval: 13.7–18.7%). Headache intensity during the acute phase was associated with a more prolonged duration of headache (Hazard ratio 0.655; 95% confidence interval: 0.582–0.737). Conclusion The median duration of headache was 2 weeks, but in approximately a fifth of patients it became persistent and followed a chronic daily pattern.

Supplemental material, sj-pdf-2-cep-10.1177_03331024211068074 for Post-COVID-19 persistent headache: A multicentric 9-months follow-up study of 905 patients by David Garcia-Azorin, Almudena Layos-Romero, Jes��s Porta-Etessam, Javier A Membrilla, Edoardo Caronna, Alicia Gonzalez-Martinez, ��lvaro Sierra Mencia, Tom��s Segura, Nuria Gonzalez-Garc��a, Javier D��az-de-Ter��n, Victor J Gallardo, Ana Beatriz Gago-Veiga, Alejandro Ballv��, Javier Trigo L��pez, Mar��a Sastre-Real, Arnau Llaurad��, Ana Cornejo, ����igo de Lorenzo, ��ngel Guerrero-Peral and Patricia Pozo-Rosich in Cephalalgia

Supplemental material, sj-pdf-2-cep-10.1177_03331024211068074 for Post-COVID-19 persistent headache: A multicentric 9-months follow-up study of 905 patients by David Garcia-Azorin, Almudena Layos-Romero, Jes��s Porta-Etessam, Javier A Membrilla, Edoardo Caronna, Alicia Gonzalez-Martinez, ��lvaro Sierra Mencia, Tom��s Segura, Nuria Gonzalez-Garc��a, Javier D��az-de-Ter��n, Victor J Gallardo, Ana Beatriz Gago-Veiga, Alejandro Ballv��, Javier Trigo L��pez, Mar��a Sastre-Real, Arnau Llaurad��, Ana Cornejo, ����igo de Lorenzo, ��ngel Guerrero-Peral and Patricia Pozo-Rosich in Cephalalgia

Supplemental material, sj-pdf-1-cep-10.1177_03331024211068074 for Post-COVID-19 persistent headache: A multicentric 9-months follow-up study of 905 patients by David Garcia-Azorin, Almudena Layos-Romero, Jes��s Porta-Etessam, Javier A Membrilla, Edoardo Caronna, Alicia Gonzalez-Martinez, ��lvaro Sierra Mencia, Tom��s Segura, Nuria Gonzalez-Garc��a, Javier D��az-de-Ter��n, Victor J Gallardo, Ana Beatriz Gago-Veiga, Alejandro Ballv��, Javier Trigo L��pez, Mar��a Sastre-Real, Arnau Llaurad��, Ana Cornejo, ����igo de Lorenzo, ��ngel Guerrero-Peral and Patricia Pozo-Rosich in Cephalalgia

Supplemental material, sj-pdf-1-cep-10.1177_03331024211068074 for Post-COVID-19 persistent headache: A multicentric 9-months follow-up study of 905 patients by David Garcia-Azorin, Almudena Layos-Romero, Jes��s Porta-Etessam, Javier A Membrilla, Edoardo Caronna, Alicia Gonzalez-Martinez, ��lvaro Sierra Mencia, Tom��s Segura, Nuria Gonzalez-Garc��a, Javier D��az-de-Ter��n, Victor J Gallardo, Ana Beatriz Gago-Veiga, Alejandro Ballv��, Javier Trigo L��pez, Mar��a Sastre-Real, Arnau Llaurad��, Ana Cornejo, ����igo de Lorenzo, ��ngel Guerrero-Peral and Patricia Pozo-Rosich in Cephalalgia

Background New treatments are currently offering new opportunities and challenges in clinical management and research in the migraine field. There is the need of homogenous criteria to identify candidates for treatment escalation as well as of reliable criteria to identify refractoriness to treatment. To overcome those issues, the European Headache Federation (EHF) issued a Consensus document to propose criteria to approach difficult-to-treat migraine patients in a standardized way. The Consensus proposed well-defined criteria for resistant migraine (i.e., patients who do not respond to some treatment but who have residual therapeutic opportunities) and refractory migraine (i.e., patients who still have debilitating migraine despite maximal treatment efforts). The aim of this study was to better understand the perceived impact of resistant and refractory migraine and the attitude of physicians involved in migraine care toward those conditions. Methods We conducted a web-questionnaire-based cross-sectional international study involving physicians with interest in headache care. Results There were 277 questionnaires available for analysis. A relevant proportion of participants reported that patients with resistant and refractory migraine were frequently seen in their clinical practice (49.5% for resistant and 28.9% for refractory migraine); percentages were higher when considering only those working in specialized headache centers (75% and 46% respectively). However, many physicians reported low or moderate confidence in managing resistant (8.1% and 43.3%, respectively) and refractory (20.7% and 48.4%, respectively) migraine patients; confidence in treating resistant and refractory migraine patients was different according to the level of care and to the number of patients visited per week. Patients with resistant and refractory migraine were infrequently referred to more specialized centers (12% and 19%, respectively); also in this case, figures were different according to the level of care. Conclusions This report highlights the clinical relevance of difficult-to-treat migraine and the presence of unmet needs in this field. There is the need of more evidence regarding the management of those patients and clear guidance referring to the organization of care and available opportunities.

Additional file 1: Supplemental file 1. Do not Do recommendations proposed by the expert panel.

BackgroundHeadache is one of the most prevalent and disabling conditions. Its optimal management requires a coordinated and comprehensive response by health systems, but there is still a wide variability that compromises the quality and safety of the care process.PurposeTo establish the basis for designing a care pathway for headache patients through identifying key subpathways in the care process and setting out quality and clinical safety standards that contribute to providing comprehensive, adequate and safe healthcare.MethodA qualitative research study based on the consensus conference technique. Eleven professionals from the Spanish National Health System participated, seven of them with clinical experience in headache and four specialists in healthcare management and quality. First, identification of the key subpathways in the care process for headache, barriers/limitations for optimal quality of care, and quality and safety standards applied in each subpathway. Second, two consecutive consensus rounds were carried out to assess the content of the subpathway level descriptors, until the expert agreement was reached. Third, findings were assessed by 17 external healthcare professionals to determine their understanding, adequacy and usefulness.ResultsSeven key subpathways were identified: (1) primary care, (2) emergency department, (3) neurology department, (4) specialised headache unit, (5) hospitalisation, (6) outpatients and (7) governance and management. Sixty-seventh barriers were identified, the most frequent being related to diagnostic errors (36,1%), resource deficiency (25%), treatment errors (19,4%), lack of health literacy (13,9%) and inadequate communications with care transitions (5,6%). Fifty-nine quality and 31 safety standards were defined. They were related to evaluation (23.3%), patient safety (21.1%), comprehensive care (12.2%), treatment (12.2%), clinical practice guidelines (7.8%), counselling (6.7%), training (4.4%) and patient satisfaction (3.3%).ConclusionsThis proposal incorporates a set of indicators and standards, which can be used to define a pathway for headache patients and determine the levels of quality.

Background Headache is one of the most prevalent diseases. The Global Burden of Disease Study ranks it as the seventh most common disease overall and the second largest neurological cause of disability in the world. The "Do Not Do" recommendations are a strategy for increasing the quality of care and reducing the cost of care for headache. This study aimed to identify specific low-value practices in headache care, determine their frequency, and estimate the cost overrun that they represent, in order to establish "Do not Do" recommendations specifically for headache by consensus and according to scientific evidence. Methods This was a mixed methods research study that combined qualitative consensus-building techniques, involving a multidisciplinary panel of experts to define the "Do Not Do" recommendations in headache care, and a retrospective observational study with review of a randomized set of patient records from the past 6 months in four hospitals, to quantify the frequency of these "Do Not Do" practices. We calculated the sum of direct costs of medical consultations, medicines, and unnecessary diagnostic tests. Results Seven "Do Not Do" recommendations were established for headache. In total, 3507 medical records were randomly reviewed. Low-value practices had a highly variable occurrence, depending on the hospital and type of headache. Overall, 34.1% of low-value practices were related to treatment, 21% were related to overuse of imaging in consultation, and 19% were related to emergency care. The estimated cost of low-value practices in the four hospitals was 203,520.47 euros per 1000 patients. Conclusions This study identified low-value headache practices that need to be eradicated and provided data on their frequency and cost overruns.

Background Headache is one of the most prevalent and disabling conditions. Its optimal management requires a coordinated and comprehensive response by health systems, but there is still a wide variability that compromises the quality and safety of the care process. Purpose To establish the basis for designing a care pathway for headache patients through identifying key subpathways in the care process and setting out quality and clinical safety standards that contribute to providing comprehensive, adequate and safe healthcare. Method A qualitative research study based on the consensus conference technique. Eleven professionals from the Spanish National Health System participated, seven of them with clinical experience in headache and four specialists in healthcare management and quality. First, identification of the key subpathways in the care process for headache, barriers/limitations for optimal quality of care, and quality and safety standards applied in each subpathway. Second, two consecutive consensus rounds were carried out to assess the content of the subpathway level descriptors, until the expert agreement was reached. Third, findings were assessed by 17 external healthcare professionals to determine their understanding, adequacy and usefulness. Results Seven key subpathways were identified: (1) primary care, (2) emergency department, (3) neurology department, (4) specialised headache unit, (5) hospitalisation, (6) outpatients and (7) governance and management. Sixty-seventh barriers were identified, the most frequent being related to diagnostic errors (36,1%), resource deficiency (25%), treatment errors (19,4%), lack of health literacy (13,9%) and inadequate communications with care transitions (5,6%). Fifty-nine quality and 31 safety standards were defined. They were related to evaluation (23.3%), patient safety (21.1%), comprehensive care (12.2%), treatment (12.2%), clinical practice guidelines (7.8%), counselling (6.7%), training (4.4%) and patient satisfaction (3.3%). Conclusions This proposal incorporates a set of indicators and standards, which can be used to define a pathway for headache patients and determine the levels of quality.

Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has spread worldwide since December 2019 Spain is one of the most affected countries, with high incidence a

Background The aim of this study was to have a better understanding of the influence of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in people with epilepsy (PWE) and to assess whether there have been changes in seizure control during the current COVID-19 outbreak, exploring the possible causes thereof. Methods This is an observational, retrospective study based on prospective data collection of 100 successive patients who attended an epilepsy outpatient clinic either face-to-face or telephonically during the months of the COVID-19 outbreak and national state of emergency. Results One hundred patients were included, 52% women, mean age 42.4 years. During the COVID-19 period, 27% of the patients presented an increase of > 50% of seizure frequency. An increase of stress/anxiety (odds ratios (OR): 5.78; p = 0.008) and a prior higher seizure frequency (OR: 12.4; p = 0.001) were associated with worsening of seizures. Other risk factors were exacerbation of depression, sleep deprivation, less physical activity, and history of epilepsy surgery. Three patients had status epilepticus (SE) and one a cluster of seizures. Likewise, 9% of patients improved their seizure control. Reduction in stress/anxiety (OR: 0.05; p = 0.03) and recent adjustment of antiepileptics (OR: 0.07; p = 0.01) acted as protecting factors. Conclusions A high proportion of PWE suffered a significant worsening of their seizure control during the months of the COVID-19 pandemic. Emotional distress due to home confinement was the main factor for the change in seizure control. Promoting physical activity and adequate sleep may minimize the potential impact of the pandemic in PWE. Ensuring correct follow-up can prevent decompensation in those PWE at high risk., Highlights • During COVID-19 pandemic, seizure control worsened in 27% of people with epilepsy. • Emotional distress was the most important risk factor for seizure control worsening. • Promoting physical activity and adequate sleep can minimize seizures exacerbation. • Ensuring correct follow-up can prevent decompensations in people with epilepsy.

Introduccion. Las consultas por cefalea son el motivo mas frecuente de demanda de atencion de causa neurologica en la atencion primaria y en los servicios de neurologia. Las unidades de cefalea mejoran la calidad asistencial, reducen las listas de espera, facilitan el acceso a nuevos tratamientos de eficacia contrastada y optimizan el gasto sanitario. No obstante, la implantacion de estas unidades no esta extendida en Espana debido a la relativa importancia atribuida a la patologia y a la suposicion de que su coste es elevado. Objetivo. Definir la estructura y los requerimientos minimos de una unidad de cefalea con la intencion de contribuir a su extension en los hospitales de Espana. Sujetos y metodos. Estudio de consenso entre profesionales tras la revision de la bibliografia sobre la estructura, las funciones y los recursos de una unidad de cefalea para un area de 350.000 habitantes. Resultados. Se tomaron como referencia ocho publicaciones para la identificacion de recursos minimos necesarios de una unidad de cefalea. El panel de expertos estuvo integrado por 12 profesionales de diferentes especialidades. El principal recurso para la implementacion de estas unidades son profesionales (superiores y tecnicos), lo que puede suponer un coste adicional para el primer ano de alrededor de 107.287,19 euros. Conclusiones. Si consideramos los costes directos e indirectos debidos a las perdidas por productividad laboral por paciente y los comparamos con los costes estimados de implantacion de estas unidades y su expectativa de resultados, todo apunta a que es necesaria la generalizacion de unidades de cefalea en Espana.

7569 Background: Recent clinical trials have shown that immune-checkpoint blockade can result in striking and durable responses in advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Preliminary data suggest a re...

87 Background: Chemotherapy has improved overall survival (OS) in patients (p) with AGC and docetaxel (D), oxaliplatin (O) and capecitabine (X), have shown consistent activity in this setting. We defined "Suboptimal" p as those with PS ECOG-2 and/or weight loss 10-25% and/or age ≥70 years. This population is usually underrepresented in AGC clinical trials. Methods: We explored in 43 previously untreated "suboptimal" AGC p the "miniDOX" regimen (D: 40 mg/m2 iv, d1; O: 80 mg/m2 iv d1; C: 625 mg/m2 po bid, d1 to 21, every 21d; after 6 courses only C was maintained). D and O dose were allowed to be increased to 45 and 90 mg/m2 respectively (dose level +1) and to 50 and 100 mg/m2 (level +2) if less than grade 2 toxicity after the first 2 courses. One p that did not received any dose of chemotherapy, was included in the ITT efficacy analysis but not in the safety analysis. Primary endpoint was Response Rate (RR), Toxicity, Progression Free Survival (PFS) and OS were secondary objectives. Results: p characteristics: PS ECOG-2:12 p, Weigh loss 10-25%:23 p; median age 73.3 years (40-87); 32 males; locally advanced:8 p/metastatic:35 p; Primary site:Gastric 32 p/ EGJ 11; In 19 p the dose of D and O were increased to level +1 and in 8 of them to level +2. Worst toxicity per p (Grade 3-4): neutropenia: 5 p (3 of them with febrile neutropenia); pulmonary embolism (PE):4 p (3 of them suffered sudden death and the PE was suspected but not confirmed); diarrhea:9 p; paronychia:2 p; CVA:1 p; renal failure:1 p (this p suffered infection/bacteriemia without neutropenia and died); hand-foot syndrome:4 p and asthenia:5 p. Response: CR:1 p, PR:23 p (RR: 56%), SD:12 p, Progression:3 p, No determined:4 p; With a median follow-up of 27 months, 36 p have died (toxicity:4 p, progressive disease:32 p). Median and 1 year actuarial PFS and OS are 5.5 months/19% and 13.3 months/54% respectively. Conclusions: Although relevant the toxicity of miniDOX has been found, its activity is encouraging in "suboptimal" pts with AGC and this combination should be further investigated in this setting. Clinical trial information: NCT00733616.