Search

Background and Purpose: Patients presenting at the emergency room (ER) with headache often encounter a hostile atmosphere and experience delays in diagnosis and treatment. The aim of this study was to design a protocol for the ER with the goal of optimizing the care of patients with urgent headache to facilitate diagnosis and expedite treatment., Methods: A narrative literature review was conducted via a MEDLINE search in October 2021. The "Code Headache" protocol was then developed considering the available characteristics and resources of the ER at a tertiary care center within the Spanish National Public Health system., Results: The Code Headache protocol comprises three assessments: two scales and one checklist. The assessments identify known red flags and stratify patients based on suspected primary/secondary headaches and the need for pain treatment. Initial assessments, performed by the triage nurse, aim to first exclude potentially high morbidity and mortality etiologies (HEAD1 scale) and then expedite appropriate pain management (HEAD2 scale) based on scoring criteria. HEAD1 evaluates vital signs and symptoms of secondary serious headache disorders that can most benefit from earlier identification and treatment, while HEAD2 assesses symptoms indicative of status migrainosus, pain intensity, and vital signs. Subsequently, ER physicians employ a third assessment that reviews red flags for secondary headaches (grouped under the acronym 'PEACE') to guide the selection of complementary tests and aid diagnosis., Conclusions: The Code Headache protocol is a much needed tool to facilitate quick clinical assessment and improve patient care in the ER. Further validation through comparison with standard clinical practice is warranted., (© 2024 The Author(s). European Journal of Neurology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Academy of Neurology.)

Objective: To identify and disseminate research priorities for the headache field that should be areas of research focus during the next 10 years., Background: Establishing research priorities helps focus and synergize the work of headache investigators, allowing them to reach the most important research goals more efficiently and completely., Methods: The Headache Research Priorities organizing and executive committees and working group chairs led a multistakeholder and international group of experts to develop headache research priorities. The research priorities were developed and reviewed by clinicians, scientists, people with headache, representatives from headache organizations, health-care industry representatives, and the public. Priorities were revised and finalized after receiving feedback from members of the research priorities working groups and after a public comment period., Results: Twenty-five research priorities across eight categories were identified: human models, animal models, pathophysiology, diagnosis and management, treatment, inequities and disparities, research workforce development, and quality of life. The priorities address research models and methods, development and optimization of outcome measures and endpoints, pain and non-pain symptoms of primary and secondary headaches, investigations into mechanisms underlying headache attacks and chronification of headache disorders, treatment optimization, research workforce recruitment, development, expansion, and support, and inequities and disparities in the headache field. The priorities are focused enough that they help to guide headache research and broad enough that they are widely applicable to multiple headache types and various research methods., Conclusions: These research priorities serve as guidance for headache investigators when planning their research studies and as benchmarks by which the headache field can measure its progress over time. These priorities will need updating as research goals are met and new priorities arise., (© 2024 American Headache Society.)

Objective: To characterize the direct impact of monthly headache days (MHDs) on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in people with migraine and the potential mediating effects of anxiety, depression, and allodynia., Background: Although the general relationship between increased migraine frequency (i.e., MHDs) and reduced HRQoL is well established, the degree to which reduced HRQoL is due to a direct effect of increased MHDs or attributable to mediating factors remains uncertain., Methods: Cross-sectional baseline data from participants with migraine who completed the Core and Comorbidities/Endophenotypes modules in the 2012-2013 US Chronic Migraine Epidemiology and Outcomes (CaMEO) study, a longitudinal web-based survey study, were analyzed. The potential contribution of depression, anxiety, and/or allodynia to the observed effects of MHDs on HRQoL as measured by the Migraine-Specific Quality-of-Life Questionnaire version 2.1 (MSQ) was evaluated., Results: A total of 12,715 respondents were included in the analyses. The MSQ domain scores demonstrated progressive declines with increasing MHD categories (B = -1.23 to -0.60; p < 0.001). The observed HRQoL decrements associated with increasing MHDs were partially mediated by the presence of depression, anxiety, and allodynia. The MHD values predicted 24.0%-32.4% of the observed variation in the MSQ domains. Depression mediated 15.2%-24.3%, allodynia mediated 9.6%-16.1%, and anxiety mediated 2.3%-6.0% of the observed MHD effects on the MSQ., Conclusions: Increased MHD values were associated with lower MSQ scores; the impact of MHDs on the MSQ domain scores was partially mediated by the presence of depression, anxiety, and allodynia. MHDs remain the predominant driver of the MSQ variation; moreover, most of the variation in the MSQ remains unexplained by the variables we analyzed. Future longitudinal analyses and studies may help clarify the contribution of MHDs, comorbidities, and other factors to changes in HRQoL., (© 2023 The Authors. Headache: The Journal of Head and Face Pain published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Headache Society.)

Background and Purpose: Cluster headache is a relatively rare, disabling primary headache disorder with a major impact on patients' quality of life. This work presents evidence-based recommendations for the treatment of cluster headache derived from a systematic review of the literature and consensus among a panel of experts., Methods: The databases PubMed (Medline), Science Citation Index, and Cochrane Library were screened for studies on the efficacy of interventions (last access July 2022). The findings in these studies were evaluated according to the recommendations of the European Academy of Neurology, and the level of evidence was established using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation)., Recommendations: For the acute treatment of cluster headache attacks, there is a strong recommendation for oxygen (100%) with a flow of at least 12 L/min over 15 min and 6 mg subcutaneous sumatriptan. Prophylaxis of cluster headache attacks with verapamil at a daily dose of at least 240 mg (maximum dose depends on efficacy and tolerability) is recommended. Corticosteroids are efficacious in cluster headache. To reach an effect, the use of at least 100 mg prednisone (or equivalent corticosteroid) given orally or at up to 500 mg iv per day over 5 days is recommended. Lithium, topiramate, and galcanezumab (only for episodic cluster headache) are recommended as alternative treatments. Noninvasive vagus nerve stimulation is efficacious in episodic but not chronic cluster headache. Greater occipital nerve block is recommended, but electrical stimulation of the greater occipital nerve is not recommended due to the side effect profile., (© 2023 The Authors. European Journal of Neurology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Academy of Neurology.)

Background and Purpose: The response pattern to monoclonal antibodies against calcitonin gene-related peptide (anti-CGRP MAbs) shown in migraine prevention clinical trials is not always reproducible at an individual level. This study was undertaken to describe patterns of start and consistency of the response to anti-CGRP MAbs during the first 6 months of treatment and the association with baseline clinical characteristics., Methods: This is a prospective clinical cohort observational study. We included migraine patients treated with erenumab or galcanezumab evaluated at baseline and after 3 and 6 months (M3, M6) of treatment. The response was categorized according to reduction in monthly headache days (MHD): Sustained-response (SustainedR, ≥50% at M3 and M6), Short-Response (ShortR, M3 ≥50% and M6 <50%), Late-Response (LateR, M3 <50% and M6 ≥50%), Limited-Response (LimitedR, 25%-50% at M3 and M6), and No-Response (NoR, <25% at M3 and M6). Response patterns were compared at baseline and with outcome variables at M3 and M6., Results: We included 357 patients with a headache frequency of 21.0 (interquartile range = 16.0-28.0) MHD, and 84.0% (300/357) were chronic migraine. The distribution according to response pattern was 37.0% (110/297) SustainedR, 16.8% (50/297) LateR, 10.4% (31/297) ShortR, 22.6% (67/297) LimitedR, and 13.1% NoR (39/297). The SustainedR and LateR groups showed statistically significant anxiety and depression score reduction at M3 and M6 compared to the other groups., Conclusions: Initial response to anti-CGRP MAbs is not consistent in all patients. Persistence of anxiety and depression might be associated with lower response rates at M6., (© 2023 European Academy of Neurology.)