Search

Introduction: When secondary headache is suspected and the patient is referred to the emergency department or to the outpatient neurology clinic, it is important to know which are the appropriate complementary examinations to perform and the suitable referral pathway for patients to follow.In order to establish recommendations on this matter, the Spanish Society of Neurology's Headache Study Group (GECSEN) has decided to issue a series of agreed recommendations constituting a referral protocol for patients with headache and/or craniofacial neuralgias. Development: Young neurologists with an interest and experience in headache were invited to draft a series of practical guidelines in collaboration with GECSEN's Executive Committee. For practical reasons, the document was divided into 2 articles: the first focuses on primary headaches and craniofacial neuralgias and this second article on secondary headaches and other craniofacial pain. In order for the recommendations to be helpful for daily practice, they follow a practical approach, with tables summarising referral criteria, examinations to be performed, and referral to other specialists. Conclusions: We hope to offer a guide and tools to improve decision-making regarding patients with headache, identifying complementary tests to prioritise and referral pathways to be followed, in order to avoid duplicated consultations and delayed diagnosis and treatment. Resumen: Introducción: Cuando se sospecha que estamos ante una cefalea secundaria y se deriva un paciente a Urgencias o a la consulta de Neurología es importante sabre qué exploraciones complementarias son oportunas hacer en cada caso, además de saber posteriormente cuál es el circuito adecuado que ha de seguir el paciente.Por este motivo, el Grupo de Estudio de Cefaleas de la Sociedad Española de Neurología (GECSEN) ha decidido crear unas recomendaciones consensuadas que establezcan un protocolo de derivación de pacientes con cefalea y/o neuralgias craneofaciales. Desarrollo: Se ha contactado con neurólogos jóvenes con interés y experiencia en cefalea y con la Junta Directiva del GECSEN han desarrollado este documento que, por razones prácticas, se ha dividido en 2 artículos. El primero centrado en las cefaleas primarias y neuralgias craneofaciales, y este centrado en las cefaleas secundarias y otros dolores craneofaciales. El enfoque es práctico, con tablas que resumen los criterios de derivación con exploraciones complementarias y otros especialistas a los que derivar, para que sea útil y facilite su uso en nuestra práctica asistencial diaria. Conclusiones: Esperamos ofrecer una guía y herramientas para mejorar la toma de decisiones ante un paciente con cefalea valorando exploraciones a priorizar y qué circuitos seguir para así evitar la duplicación de consultas y retrasos en el diagnóstico y en el tratamiento.

Objective Previous studies have demonstrated that emotional stress, changes in lifestyle habits and infections can worsen the clinical course of migraine. We hypothesize that changes in habits and medical care during coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) lockdown might have worsened the clinical course of migraine. Design Retrospective survey study collecting online responses from migraine patients followed-up by neurologists at three tertiary hospitals between June and July 2020. Methods We used a web-based survey that included demographic data, clinical variables related with any headache (frequency) and migraine (subjective worsening, frequency, and intensity), lockdown, and symptoms of post-traumatic stress. Results The response rate of the survey was 239/324 (73.8%). The final analysis included 222 subjects. Among them, 201/222 (90.5%) were women, aged 42.5 ± 12.0 (mean±SD). Subjective improvement of migraine during lockdown was reported in 31/222 participants (14.0%), while worsening in 105/222 (47.3%) and was associated with changes in migraine triggers such as stress related to going outdoors and intake of specific foods or drinks. Intensity of attacks increased in 67/222 patients (30.2%), and it was associated with the subjective worsening, female sex, recent insomnia, and use of acute medication during a headache. An increase in monthly days with any headache was observed in 105/222 patients (47.3%) and was related to symptoms of post-traumatic stress, older age and living with five or more people. Conclusions Approximately half the migraine patients reported worsening of their usual pain during the lockdown. Worse clinical course in migraine patients was related to changes in triggers and the emotional impact of the lockdown.

Introduction: Numerous invasive and non-invasive neuromodulation devices have been developed and applied to patients with headache and neuralgia in recent years. However, no updated review addresses their safety and efficacy, and no healthcare institution has issued specific recommendations on their use for these 2 conditions. Methods: Neurologists from the Spanish Society of Neurology’s (SEN) Headache Study Group and neurosurgeons specialising in functional neurosurgery, selected by the Spanish Society of Neurosurgery (SENEC), performed a comprehensive review of articles on the MEDLINE database addressing the use of the technique in patients with headache and neuralgia. Results: We present an updated review and establish the first set of consensus recommendations of the SEN and SENEC on the use of neuromodulation to treat headache and neuralgia, analysing the current levels of evidence on its effectiveness for each specific condition. Conclusions: Current evidence supports the indication of neuromodulation techniques for patients with refractory headache and neuralgia (especially migraine, cluster headache, and trigeminal neuralgia) selected by neurologists and headache specialists, after pharmacological treatment options are exhausted. Furthermore, we recommend that invasive neuromodulation be debated by multidisciplinary committees, and that the procedure be performed by teams of neurosurgeons specialising in functional neurosurgery, with acceptable rates of morbidity and mortality. Resumen: Introducción: En los últimos años han surgido numerosos dispositivos de neuromodulación, invasivos y no invasivos, que se han aplicado en pacientes con cefaleas y neuralgias sin que exista una revisión actualizada de su eficacia y seguridad, ni recomendaciones de ninguna institución sanitaria sobre su uso específico en cada entidad nosológica. Métodos: Neurólogos del Grupo de Cefaleas de la Sociedad Española de Neurología (SEN) y neurocirujanos expertos en neurocirugía funcional seleccionados por la Sociedad Española de Neurocirugía (SENEC), hemos realizado una revisión exhaustiva en el sistema Medline sobre neuromodulación en cefaleas y neuralgias. Resultados: Presentamos una revisión actualizada y establecemos por primera vez unas recomendaciones consensuadas entre la SEN y la SENEC sobre el uso de la neuromodulación en cefaleas y neuralgias, adjudicando niveles de evidencia sobre su eficacia actual, específicamente en cada entidad nosológica. Conclusiones: Los resultados actuales de los estudios proporcionan evidencias para la indicación de técnicas de neuromodulación en casos refractarios de cefaleas y neuralgias (sobre todo en migraña, cefalea en racimos y neuralgia del trigémino), seleccionados por neurólogos expertos en cefaleas, tras comprobar el agotamiento de las opciones farmacológicas. Adicionalmente, en el caso de la neuromodulación invasiva, se recomienda que los casos sean debatidos en comités multidisciplinarios y la cirugía sea realizada por equipos de neurocirujanos expertos en neurocirugía funcional y con una morbimortalidad aceptable.

Resumen: Introducción: En el campo de las cefaleas, onabotulinumtoxinA (onabotA) tiene indicación bien establecida en la migraña crónica (MC). Además, en los últimos años su uso se está extendiendo a otras cefaleas primarias (migraña episódica de alta frecuencia, cefaleas trigémino-autonómicas, cefalea numular) y a la neuralgia del trigémino. Al ser una opción terapéutica que se va a ir incorporando de forma progresiva en el manejo de estas entidades, creemos que es necesario reflejar con un carácter eminentemente práctico cuáles son las posibles indicaciones de onabotA, más allá de la MC, así como su protocolo de administración, que diferirá en función del tipo de cefalea y/o neuralgia. Desarrollo: A partir de una revisión de la bibliografía existente y de nuestra propia experiencia clínica, se ha elaborado este documento de consenso cuyo objetivo es servir de guía a aquellos profesionales que quieran aplicar estas técnicas en su actividad asistencial. En la primera parte se abordará el mecanismo de acción de onabotA y la razón de su utilización en diversas cefaleas distintas de la MC desde un punto de vista fisiopatológico y clínico. En la segunda parte se hará una revisión de la evidencia disponible y los estudios publicados en los últimos años. Para cada una de estas entidades, se añadirá una «recomendación de experto», basada en la propia experiencia clínica, que refleje el perfil de paciente que puede ser candidato a este tratamiento, las dosis y el protocolo de administración de onabotA. Conclusión: El tratamiento con onabotA en entidades distintas a la MC debe ser siempre individualizado y se planteará en pacientes seleccionados que no hayan respondido a la terapia convencional. Abstract: Introduction: In the field of headaches, onabotulinumtoxinA (onabotA) is well established as a treatment for chronic migraine (CM). In recent years, it has been used increasingly to treat other primary headaches (high-frequency episodic migraine, trigeminal-autonomic cephalalgias, nummular headache) and trigeminal neuralgia. As this treatment will progressively be incorporated in the management of these patients, we consider it necessary to reflect, with a fundamentally practical approach, on the possible indications of onabotA, beyond CM, as well as its administration protocol, which will differ according to the type of headache and/or neuralgia. Development: This consensus document was drafted based on a thorough review and analysis of the existing literature and our own clinical experience. The aim of the document is to serve as guidelines for professionals administering onabotA treatment. The first part will address onabotA's mechanism of action, and reasons for its use in other types of headache, from a physiopathological and clinical perspective. In the second part, we will review the available evidence and studies published in recent years. We will add an “expert recommendation” based on our own clinical experience, showing the best patient profile for this treatment and the most adequate dose and administration protocol. Conclusion: Treatment with onabotA should always be individualised and considered in selected patients who have not responded to conventional therapy.

Miguel Malo-Urriés,1 César Hidalgo-García,1 Elena Estébanez-de-Miguel,1 José Miguel Tricás-Moreno,1 Sonia Santos-Lasaosa,2 Marjan Jahanshahi3 1Physiotherapy Research Unit, Department of Physiatry and Nursing, University of Zaragoza, Zaragoza, Spain; 2Neurology Service, University Clinical Hospital Lozano Blesa, Zaragoza, Spain; 3Cognitive Motor Neuroscience Group, Department of Clinical and Movement Neurosciences, University College London Queen Square Institute of Neurology, The National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery, London, UK Background: Based on inconsistent sensory alterations demonstrated in cluster headache (CH), the aim of this study was to determine whether patients with CH develop sensory changes in the symptomatic side compared to the asymptomatic side.Methods: Quantitative sensory testing (QST), including pressure pain threshold (PPT), tactile detection threshold (TDT), prick detection threshold (PDT), and two-point detection threshold (2PDT), was evaluated in 16 patients (seven women; age 41.9±6.8 years) with CH. Test sites included the first, second, and third divisions of the trigeminal nerve, cervical spine, and thenar eminence in the symptomatic and asymptomatic sides.Results: The symptomatic side, compared to the asymptomatic side, presented significantly decreased PPT in the first (P=0.011; 423.81±174.05 kPa vs 480.13±214.99 kPa) and second (P=0.023; 288.88±140.80 kPa vs 326.38±137.33 kPa) divisions of the trigeminal nerve, significantly increased TDT in the first (P=0.002; 2.44±0.40 vs 1.74±0.24) and second (P=0.016; 1.92±0.34 vs 1.67±0.09) divisions, and increased 2PDT in the first division (P=0.004; 18.13±4.70 mm vs 15.0±4.92 mm) and neck (P=0.007; 45.31±20.65 mm vs 38.44±16.10 mm).Conclusion: These results support the prior evidence suggesting a specific pattern of alteration of sensory function with alterations in the symptomatic side compared to the asymptomatic side. Keywords: cluster headache, trigeminal autonomic cephalalgia, quantitative sensory testing

Background Many different preventatives have showed efficacy in the treatment of migraine. National guidelines differ in their recommendations and patients’ characteristics are usually taken into account in their selection. In Spain, real life use of preventive therapies seems to be heterogeneous. We aimed to evaluate differences in clinical practice and adherence to national guidelines among Spanish neurologists. Methods Observational descriptive study. A survey was conducted among neurologists ascribed to the Spanish Society of Neurology. Participants were differentiated in accordance with their dedication to headache disorders. We analysed socio-demographic parameters and evaluated 43 questions considering migraine management as well as therapeutic choices regarding migraine sub-types and finally, neurologists’ personal perception. Results One hundred fifty-five neurologists participated from 17 different regions, 43.4% of them female and 53.3% under 40 years of age. 34.9% confirmed headache disorders as their main interest. The first choice for preventive therapy in chronic migraine among participants was topiramate (57%) followed by amytriptiline (17.9%) and beta-blockers (14.6%). However in episodic migraine, the preferred options were beta-blockers (47.7%), topiramate (21.5%) and amytriptiline (13.4%). Regarding perceived efficacy, topiramate was considered the best option in chronic migraine (42.7%) followed by onabotulinumtoxinA (25.5%) and amitryptiline (22.4%). Where episodic migraine was concerned, surveyed neurologists perceived topiramate (43.7%) and beta-blockers (30.3%) as the best options. When we evaluated the duration of treatment use with a view to adequate therapeutic response, 43.5% of neurologists preferred 3 months duration and 39.5% were in favour of 6 months duration in episodic migraine. However, considering the preferred duration of treatment use in chronic migraine, 20.4% recommended 3 months, 42.1% preferred 6 months and 12.5% and 22.4% opted for 9 and 12 months respectively. When considering onabotulinumtoxinA therapy, the number of prior therapeutic failures was zero in 7.2% of neurologists, one in 5.9%, two in 44.1%, three in 30.9% and four or more in 11.9%. Following an initial treatment failure with onabotulinumtoxinA, 49% of subjects decided against a second treatment. The number of OnabotA procedures before considering it as ineffective was two in 18.9% of neurologists, three in 70.8% and four in 10.4%. Conclusions The initial management of migraine among Spanish Neurologists is in line with most guidelines, where first choice preventative drugs are concerned. The Management of episodic migraine differed from chronic migraine, both in terms of neurologist preference and in their perceived efficacy. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s10194-019-0971-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background. This study assesses the lifetime and active prevalence of epilepsy in Spain in people older than 18 years.Methods. EPIBERIA is a population-based epidemiological study of epilepsy prevalence using data from three representative Spanish regions (health districts in Zaragoza, Almería, and Seville) between 2012 and 2013. The study consisted of two phases: screening and confirmation. Participants completed a previously validated questionnaire (EPIBERIA questionnaire) over the telephone.Results. A total of 1741 valid questionnaires were obtained, including 261 (14.99%) raising a suspicion of epilepsy. Of these suspected cases, 216 (82.75%) agreed to participate in phase 2. Of the phase 2 participants, 22 met the International League Against Epilepsy’s diagnostic criteria for epilepsy. The estimated lifetime prevalence, adjusted by age and sex per 1,000 people, was 14.87 (95% CI: 9.8–21.9). Active prevalence was 5.79 (95% CI: 2.8–10.6). No significant age, sex, or regional differences in prevalence were detected.Conclusions. EPIBERIA provides the most accurate estimate of epilepsy prevalence in the Mediterranean region based on its original methodology and its adherence to ILAE recommendations. We highlight that the lifetime prevalence and inactive epilepsy prevalence figures observed here were compared to other epidemiological studies.

Medication overuse headache (MOH) implies secondary headache on a daily or near daily basis, for 15 days or more a month for 3 month and chronic migraine CM is the most common subtypes of MOH in speciality care [1]. Flunarizine and topiramate are considered as first-choice drugs in prophylactic treatment of episodic or transformed migraine(2). Topiramate is considered as first-choice drug in treatment of CM (3).