Search

Introduction: Headache is one of the most common neurological complaints, and is most frequent during reproductive age. As a result, we are routinely faced with pregnant or breastfeeding women with this symptom in clinical practice. It is important to know which pharmacological choices are the safest, which should not be used, and when we should suspect secondary headache. To this end, the Spanish Society of Neurology's Headache Study Grouphas prepared a series of consensus recommendations on the diagnostic and therapeutic algorithms that should be followed during pregnancy and breastfeeding. Development: This guide was prepared by a group of young neurologists with special interest and experience in headache, in collaboration with the Group's Executive Committee. Recommendations focus on which drugs should be used for the most frequent primary headaches, both during the acute phase and for prevention. The second part addresses when secondary headache should be suspected and which diagnostic tests should be performed in the event of possible secondary headache during pregnancy and breastfeeding. Conclusions: We hope this guide will be practical and useful in daily clinical practice and that it will help update and improve understanding of headache management during pregnancy and breastfeeding, enabling physicians to more confidently treat these patients., Introducción: La cefalea es uno de los motivos de consulta más comunes en neurología, siendo más frecuente durante la edad reproductiva. Por ello, es habitual encontrar en nuestras consultas pacientes embarazadas o en periodo de lactancia con dicha queja. Es importante conocer las opciones farmacológicas más seguras, cuáles no se deben emplear, así como cuándo sospechar cefaleas secundarias. Por este motivo, el Grupo de Estudio de Cefaleas de la Sociedad Española de Neurología ha elaborado una guía con las recomendaciones consensuadas acerca de los algoritmos diagnósticos y terapéuticos que se deben emplear durante el embarazo y la lactancia

Resumen: Introducción: La fase premonitoria comprende una amplia esfera de síntomas que anteceden hasta en 48 horas al dolor en una crisis de migraña. Este periodo a menudo no es reconocido por el propio paciente y, sin embargo, también merma de forma significativa su calidad de vida.Al ser el estadio más precoz de una crisis de migraña es fundamental para ayudarnos a comprender puntos clave del origen de la misma. Desarrollo: A lo largo de esta revisión, en forma de pregunta-respuesta, se repasan los principales estudios clínicos que analizan de forma dirigida los síntomas premonitorios, se valora la capacidad predictiva de los mismos, se relacionan estos síntomas con la biología de la migraña, se revisa el papel de la neuroimagen en esta fase y, por último, la relevancia como potencial diana terapéutica que pueda tener en un futuro. Conclusiones: El estudio de la fase premonitoria nos ha mostrado que el hipotálamo tiene un papel esencial en el origen de una crisis de migraña, y nos hace plantearnos la búsqueda de nuevas dianas en el tratamiento de una crisis de migraña dirigidas a actuar antes del inicio del dolor, un hecho que implicaría un antes y un después en la vida del paciente migrañoso. Abstract: Introduction: The premonitory phase comprises a wide range of symptoms that precede the onset of pain in a migraine episode by up to 48 hours. Premonitory symptoms are often not recognised by patients but do have a significant impact on their quality of life. As these symptoms represent the first stage of a migraine attack, they are crucial in improving our understanding of the key points of the origin of migraine. Development: This paper uses a question-answer format to review the main clinical studies analysing premonitory symptoms, their predictive capacity, the relationship between these symptoms and the biology of migraine, and the role of neuroimaging in the premonitory phase. Finally, we discuss the relevance of these symptoms as potential therapeutic targets in the future. Conclusions: This study of the premonitory phase has demonstrated that the hypothalamus plays an essential role in the origin of migraine attacks. We should consider the search for new targets in acute migraine treatment in order to act before the onset of the pain. This would imply a radical change in the lives of patients with migraine.

Background Face-to-face procedures have been postponed during COVID-19 pandemic. We aim to evaluate the impact of onabotulinumtoxinA follow-up delay in migraine during COVID-19 pandemic. Methods Subjective worsening, intensity of migraine attacks, and frequency of headache and migraine were retrospectively compared between patients with unmodified and interrupted onabotulinumtoxinA follow-up in Headache Units. Results We included 67 patients with chronic migraine or high-frequency episodic migraine under onabotulinumtoxinA treatment, 65 (97.0%) female, 44.5 ± 12.1 years old. Treatment administration was voluntarily delayed in 14 (20.9%) patients and nine (13.4%) were unable to continue follow-up. Patients with uninterrupted follow-up during lockdown presented 7.6 and 8.1 less monthly days with headache (adjusted p = 0.017) and migraine attacks (adjusted p = 0.009) compared to patients whose follow-up was interrupted, respectively. Conclusion Involuntary delay of onabotulinumtoxinA follow-up in patients with migraine due to COVID-19 pandemic was associated with a higher frequency of headache and migraine attacks. Safe administration of onabotulinumtoxinA during lockdown should be promoted. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10072-021-05180-8.

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.

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 saber 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 (GEC-SEN) 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 que circuitos seguir para así evitar la duplicación de consultas y retrasos en el diagnóstico y en el tratamiento, 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 arethe appropriate complementary examinations to perform and the suitable referral pathway forpatients to follow.In order to establish recommendations on this matter, the Spanish Society of Neurology’sHeadache Study Group (GECSEN) has decided to issue a series of agreed recommendationsconstituting a referral protocol for patients with headache and/or craniofacial neuralgias. Development: Young neurologists with an interest and experience in headache were invitedto 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 primaryheadaches and craniofacial neuralgias and this second article on secondary headaches and othercraniofacial pain. In order for the recommendations to be helpful for daily practice, they followa 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 patientswith headache, identifying complementary tests to prioritise and referral pathways to be followed, in order to avoid duplicated consultations and delayed diagnosis and treatment.

Introduction: When a patient is diagnosed with primary headache or craniofacial neuralgia in the emergency department or in primary care, and is referred to a neurologist due to the complexity of the case, it is useful to know whether additional examination should be sought and the priority (urgent, preferential, or normal) with which the patient should be seen. This will avoid unnecessary delays in patients with disabling headache and where organic causes are suspected.In order to issue recommendations on this matter, the Spanish Society of Neurology's Headache Study Group has decided to create a series of agreed recommendations constituting a referral protocol for patients with headache and/or craniofacial neuralgia. Development: Young neurologists with an interest and experience in headache were invited to draft a series of practical guidelines in collaboration with the Spanish Society of Neurology's Headache Study Group Executive Committee. For practical reasons, the document was divided into 2 articles: this first article focuses on primary headaches and craniofacial neuralgias and the second on secondary headaches. 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 tras una correcta anamnesis y exploración neurológica se diagnostica a un paciente con una cefalea primaria o una neuralgia craneofacial en urgencias o atención primaria y se decide derivar a neurología por complejidad es útil conocer si además se deberían solicitar exploraciones complementarias y la preferencia (urgente, preferente o normal) con la que se debería derivar para que el paciente llegue a la consulta del neurólogo sin demoras innecesarias en pacientes con dolores incapacitantes o con sospecha de organicidad.Por este motivo, el Grupo de Estudio de Cefalea de la Sociedad Española de Neurología, 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 Grupo de Estudio de Cefalea de la Sociedad Española de Neurología que han desarrollado este documento que, por razones prácticas, se ha dividido en 2 artículos. Esta primera centrada en las cefaleas o neuralgias craneofaciales primarias y una segunda que se focaliza en las cefaleas secundarias. 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.

Resumen: Introducción: Cuando tras una correcta anamnesis y exploración neurológica se diagnostica a un paciente con una cefalea primaria o una neuralgia craneofacial en urgencias o atención primaria y se decide derivar a neurología por complejidad es útil conocer si además se deberían solicitar exploraciones complementarias y la preferencia (urgente, preferente o normal) con la que se debería derivar para que el paciente llegue a la consulta del neurólogo sin demoras innecesarias en pacientes con dolores incapacitantes o con sospecha de organicidad.Por este motivo, el Grupo de Estudio de Cefalea de la Sociedad Española de Neurología, 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 Grupo de Estudio de Cefalea de la Sociedad Española de Neurología que han desarrollado este documento que, por razones prácticas, se ha dividido en 2 artículos. Esta primera centrada en las cefaleas o neuralgias craneofaciales primarias y una segunda que se focaliza en las cefaleas secundarias. 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. Abstract: Introduction: When a patient is diagnosed with primary headache or craniofacial neuralgia in the emergency department or in primary care, and is referred to a neurologist due to the complexity of the case, it is useful to know whether additional examination should be sought and the priority (urgent, preferential or normal) with which the patient should be seen. This will avoid unnecessary delays in patients with disabling headache and where organic causes are suspected.In order to issue recommendations on this matter, the Spanish Society of Neurology's Headache Study Group has decided to create a series of agreed recommendations constituting a referral protocol for patients with headache and/or craniofacial neuralgia. Development: Young neurologists with an interest and experience in headache were invited to draft a series of practical guidelines in collaboration with Spanish Society of Neurology's Headache Study Group Executive Committee. For practical reasons, the document was divided into 2 articles: this first article focuses on primary headaches and craniofacial neuralgias and the second on secondary headaches. 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. Palabras clave: Cefalea, Neuralgia, Atención primaria, Urgencias, Pruebas complementarias, Derivación, Keywords: Headache, Neuralgia, Primary care, Emergency department, Complementary test, Patient referral

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) main clinical features include fever, cough, and dyspnea; however, in a recent series, diarrhea (19.2%), headache (13.1%), and impaired consciousness (7.5%) were also frequent symptoms.1 Rare associations like Miller-Fisher syndrome2 or encephalitis3 have been recently reported. However, to date, there are few studies demonstrating the presence of SARS-CoV-2 in CSF and neurologic symptoms.3

Resumen: OnabotulinumtoxinA ha demostrado ser eficaz como tratamiento preventivo en pacientes con migraña crónica (MC). El Grupo de Estudio de Cefalea de la Sociedad Española de Neurología ha considerado que sería de interés, a los 5 años de la aprobación en España de la onabotulinumtoxinA, reunir a un grupo de expertos en el tratamiento de pacientes con MC para elaborar con la evidencia actual y nuestra experiencia unas recomendaciones dirigidas a facilitar su uso en la práctica clínica diaria. Con este fin planteamos 12 preguntas que nos hacemos como médicos y que también nos realizan nuestros pacientes. Cada autor ha contestado una pregunta y luego el documento ha sido revisado por todos. Esperamos que esta revisión constituya una herramienta práctica para ayudar a los neurólogos que tratan a pacientes con MC. Abstract: OnabotulinumtoxinA has been demonstrated to be effective as a preventive treatment in patients with chronic migraine (CM). Five years after the approval of onabotulinumtoxinA in Spain, the Headache Study Group of the Spanish Society of Neurology considered it worthwhile to gather a group of experts in treating patients with CM in order to draw up, based on current evidence and our own experience, a series of guidelines aimed at facilitating the use of the drug in daily clinical practice. For this purpose, we posed 12 questions that we ask ourselves as doctors, and which we are also asked by our patients. Each author responded to one question, and the document was then reviewed by everyone. We hope that this review will constitute a practical tool to help neurologists treating patients with CM. Palabras clave: Consenso, Migraña crónica, OnabotulinumtoxinA, Toxina botulínica A, Tratamiento preventivo, Recomendaciones, Keywords: Consensus, Chronic migraine, OnabotulinumtoxinA, Botulinum neurotoxin A, Preventive treatment, Guidelines

Objective: Thirty percent of the patients for whom code stroke is activated have stroke mimics, the most common being epilepsy. Our purpose was to evaluate the usefulness of multiparametric CT for differentiating between seizure-related symptoms and vascular events. Material and methods: We conducted a retrospective observational study; data were gathered prospectively during one year. We studied multiparametric CT images of patients admitted following code stroke activation and finally diagnosed with epilepsy. Results: The study included a total of 11 patients; 36% were men and mean age was 74.5 years. Three patients had right hemisphere syndrome, 4 displayed left hemisphere syndrome, and the remaining 4 had isolated aphasia. Maximum time from symptom onset to multiparametric CT study was 8.16 hours. Perfusion CT results were normal in 2 patients. Nine patients showed longer or shorter times to peak (Tmax); cerebral blood volume (CBV) and cerebral blood flow (CBF) maps varied. EEG was performed a maximum of 47.6 hours after symptom onset. Four patients showed findings compatible with status epilepticus, 2 displayed focal epileptiform activity, and 5 showed post-ictal slowing ipsilateral to perfusion CT abnormalities. Conclusion: The most sensitive parameter for differentiating between stroke and epilepsy in our series was increased time to peak in multilobar cortical locations in the absence of large-vessel occlusion and basal ganglia involvement. Multiparametric CT is a fast, readily available, and useful tool for the differential diagnosis of acute-onset neurological signs of epileptic origin in patients initially attended after code stroke activation. Resumen: Objetivo: Tras la activación del código ictus, hasta un 30% de los pacientes presentan cuadros imitadores del ictus, siendo la epilepsia el más frecuente. Evaluamos la utilidad de la TC cerebral multiparamétrica para la diferenciación de los déficit de origen comicial versus vascular. Material y métodos: Estudio observacional retrospectivo con recogida prospectiva de datos. Se revisan imágenes de TC multiparamétrica de pacientes atendidos como código ictus durante un año que finalmente fueron diagnosticados de etiología comicial. Resultados: N = 11 (varones 36%, edad media 74,5 años). Tres pacientes presentaban focalidad neurológica derecha, 4 focalidad izquierda y 4 afasia aislada. El tiempo máximo desde el inicio de la clínica hasta la realización de la TC multiparamétrica fue de 8,16 h. La TC perfusión fue normal en 2 pacientes. Nueve pacientes mostraron alargamiento/acortamiento del tiempo al pico (Tmáx), siendo los mapas de flujo y volumen variables. El electroencefalograma se realizó con un tiempo máximo de evolución desde el inicio de la clínica de 47,6 h. Cuatro registros mostraron hallazgos compatibles con estatus epiléptico, 2 actividad epileptiforme focal y los 5 restantes lentificación poscrítica ipsolateral a las anomalías de la TC perfusión. Conclusión: El alargamiento del tiempo al pico en una distribución cortical multilobar en ausencia de oclusión de gran vaso y con respeto de ganglios de la base ha resultado el parámetro más sensible para la diferenciación de estas entidades en nuestra serie. Consideramos que la TC cerebral multiparamétrica es una herramienta rápida, disponible y útil para el diagnóstico diferencial de síntomas neurológicos deficitarios de inicio brusco debidos a etiología comicial que son atendidos como código ictus. Keywords: Stroke mimics, Cerebral perfusion computerised tomography, Multiparametric computerised tomography, Epilepsy, Stroke, Palabras clave: Stroke mimics, Tomografía computarizada perfusión, Tomografía computarizada multiparamétrica, Epilepsia, Ictus

Objective Long-term real-life studies have supported a cumulative effect of OnabotulinumtoxinA (OnabotA) for the prophylactic treatment of chronic migraine (CM) during consecutive cycles, and individual adaptations have been described to improve clinical response. Methods This was a cohort longitudinal retrospective study of consecutive adult patients from the Headache Unit of the Hospital Clínico Universitario de Valladolid and the Hospital Universitario de La Princesa (Madrid) on OnabotA treatment for chronic migraine from May 2012 to December 2017. All patients were followed for 24 weeks. Full-length response to OnabotA was defined as ≥50% reduction in headache days for at least 12 weeks, and wearing off response was defined as a clinical response but with duration shorter than 10 weeks. We have analyzed the incidence and clinical predictors of this wearing off response. Results A total of 193 patients were included, of whom 91 (47.1%) were considered full-length responders and 45 (23.3%) wearing off responders. No statistically significant clinical predictors (including demographic variables and baseline headache characteristics) of full-length response or wearing off response were detected in our study. An increase in dose during the second treatment cycle was attempted in 68.9% of the wearing off patients, achieving a longer duration of response of up to 12 weeks in 74.2%. Conclusions Wearing off response to OnabotA during the first treatment cycle is not uncommon in patients with CM. Increasing the dose in subsequent cycles could improve clinical response, but further multicenter long-term studies are needed to establish predictors and solutions to this problem.

Introduction Headache represents about 25% of the total neurological consultations at the emergency department (ED). Up to 80% of these consultations are represented by primary headaches, in which an accurate and directed history-taking may help reach the specific diagnosis avoiding unnecessary complementary tests and reducing diagnostic latencies. Methods We carried out a training session on headache management at the ED, focusing on history-taking and primary headaches’ diagnoses and management. We retrospectively compared the number of variables included in the medical reports and the percentage of patients who were diagnosed and/or treated for a primary headache between two months before and two months after the training session. Results A total of 369 medical histories were analyzed for this study (196 before and 173 after the training session). The number of essential variables regarding pain characteristics included in the medical reports showed a post-intervention increment from 4.34 ± 1.224 to 4.67 ± 1.079 (P = .007) and the number of total items registered also increased from 6.87 ± 1.982 to 7.53 ± 1.686 (P = 0.001). The percentage of patients that were given a specific diagnosis for primary headache showed an increment of 11.8% (P = .002) in the post-intervention group. Conclusion Educational interventions can improve history-taking in headache patients in the ED. This fact grants them as potential efficient measures to optimize patient management at Emergency Room.

Migraine attacks have a high impact on daily activities. There is limited research on the burden of migraine on sexual functioning.To determine the prevalence of sexual dysfunction in patients with migraine and its relationship with migraine features and comorbidities.This is a cross-sectional study. We included migraine patients between 18 and 60 years-old from 8 Headache Clinics in Spain. We recorded demographic data and migraine features. Patients fulfilled a survey including comorbidities, Arizona Sexual Experiences Scale, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and a questionnaire about migraine impact on sexual activity. A K-nearest neighbor supervised learning algorithm was used to identify differences between migraine patients with and without sexual dysfunction.We included 306 patients (85.6% women, mean age 42.3±11.1 years). A 41.8% of participants had sexual dysfunction. Sexual dysfunction was associated with being female (OR [95% CI]: 2.42 [1.17-5.00]; p0.001), being older than 46.5 years (4.04 [2.48-6.59]; p0.001), having chronic migraine (2.31 [1.41-3.77]; p=0.001), using preventive medication (2.45 [1.35-4.45]; p=0.004), analgesic overusing (3.51 [2.03-6.07]; p0.001), menopause (4.18 [2.43-7.17]; p0.001) and anxiety (2.90 [1.80-4.67]; p0.001) and depression (6.14 [3.18-11.83]; p0.001). However, only female gender, age, menopause and depression were the statistically significant variables selected in the model to classify migraine patients with or without sexual dysfunction (Accuracy [95% CI]: 0.75 (0.62-0.85), Kappa: 0.48, p=0.005).Sexual dysfunction is frequent in migraine patients visited in a headache clinic. However, migraine characteristics or use of preventive medication are not directly associated with sexual dysfunction. Instead, risk factors for sexual dysfunction were female gender, higher age, menopause and depression.

Background and objective: CGRP, a neuropeptide involved in migraine pathophysiology, is also known to play a role in the respiratory system and in immunological conditions such as sepsis. We analyzed the impact of the use of CGRP antagonists in patients with migraine during the COVID-19 pandemic, caused by the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus. Methods: This is a multicentre cross-sectional study. From May to November 2020, through a national survey distributed by the Spanish Society of Neurology, we collected data about the presence of COVID-19 symptoms including headache and their characteristics and severity in patients with migraine treated with anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies (mAb), and compared them with patients with migraine not receiving this treatment. We also conducted a subanalysis of patients with COVID-19 symptoms. Results: We recruited 300 patients with migraine: 51.7% (155/300) were taking anti-CGRP mAbs; 87.3% were women (262/300). Mean age (standard deviation) was 47.1 years (11.6). Forty-one patients (13.7%) met diagnostic criteria for COVID-19, with no statistically significant difference between patients with and without anti-CGRP mAb treatment (16.1% vs 11.0%, respectively; P = .320). Of the patients with COVID-19, 48.8% (20/41) visited the emergency department and 12.2% (5/41) were hospitalised. Likewise, no clinical differences were found between the groups of patients with and without anti-CGRP mAb treatment. Conclusion: Anti-CGRP mAbs may be safe in clinical practice, presenting no association with increased risk of COVID-19. Resumen: Antecedentes y objetivo: El péptido relacionado con el gen de la calcitonina (CGRP, por sus siglas en inglés), es un neuropéptido involucrado en la fisiopatología de la migraña, que también es conocido por participar en la regulación del sistema respiratorio y en algunas enfermedades inmunológicas como la sepsis. Hemos analizado el impacto del uso de los antagonistas de CGRP en pacientes con migraña durante la pandemia de COVID-19, causada por el coronavirus SARS-CoV-2. Métodos: Estudio transversal multicéntrico desarrollado entre mayo y noviembre de 2020, en el que la Sociedad Española de Neurología distribuyó a nivel nacional una encuesta de la que recogimos datos sobre la presencia, las características y la gravedad de síntomas de COVID-19, entre los que se encontraba la cefalea, en pacientes con migraña tratados con anticuerpos monoclonales (AcM) anti-CGRP, y los comparamos con los de pacientes con migraña que no recibían dicho tratamiento. También realizamos un subanálisis de los pacientes con síntomas de COVID-19. Resultados: Identificamos 300 pacientes con migraña: 51,7% (155/300) recibían AcM anti-CGRP; el 87,3% eran mujeres (262/300) y la edad media (desviación estándar) de la muestra fue de 47,1 (11,6) años. Un total de 41 pacientes (13,7%) cumplían los criterios diagnósticos de COVID-19, sin diferencias estadísticamente significativas entre los pacientes que recibían tratamiento con AcM anti-CGRP y los que no (16,1% y 11,0%, respectivamente; p = 0,320). De los pacientes con COVID-19, el 48,8% (20/41) acudieron a urgencias y el 12,2% (5/41) fueron hospitalizados. Igualmente, no se detectaron diferencias clínicas entre los pacientes que recibían dicho tratamiento y los que no. Conclusión: El tratamiento con AcM anti-CGRP parece un recurso seguro en la práctica clínica, y no se asocia a un mayor riesgo de COVID-19.

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.

BACKGROUND: OnabotulinumtoxinA is an effective preventive treatment for chronic migraine. In chronic migraine, besides a reduction in headache frequency, a decreased reliance on oral prophylactics is also indicative of treatment effectiveness. This study aimed to quantify the change in the use of oral prophylactics after treatment with onabotulinumtoxinA in patients with chronic migraine.; METHODS: This was a retrospective, multicentric, cross-sectional study. Patients with chronic migraine (ICHD-3b) that had been treated with onabotulinumtoxinA were enrolled consecutively. We collected parameters related to each patient's pre-treatment situation, as well as their current one, focusing on frequency and intensity of migraine, number of oral prophylactics and the respective cycle of onabotulinumtoxinA. Univariate and logistic regression analyses were performed.; RESULTS: We included 542 patients. 90.0% were taking oral preventive treatments. During treatment with onabotulinumtoxinA, 47.8% withdrew at least one prophylactic and 41.6% stopped using oral prophylactics altogether. Factors associated with a reduction or cessations of oral prophylactics were: having>50% improvement in frequency and intensity, remission to episodic migraine, the use of topiramate as an initial treatment, an increased number of infiltrations and a shorter chronification period (pfive cycles of onabotulinumtoxinA, >50% improvement in pain intensity and topiramate as an initial treatment were predictors of a reduction in oral prophylactics (AUC of 70.3%; p

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.

Ana B Gago-Veiga,1 Josué Pagán,2,3 Kevin Henares,2,4 Patricia Heredia,1 Nuria González-García,5 María-Irene De Orbe,4 Jose L Ayala,3,4 Mónica Sobrado,1 Jose Vivancos1 1Headache Unit, Department of Neurology, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria Hospital, Universitario de la Princesa, Madrid, Spain; 2Department of Electronic Engineering, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Madrid, Spain; 3Center for Computational Simulation, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Madrid, Spain; 4Department of Computer and Automation Architecture, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Madrid, Spain; 5Headache Unit, Hospital Clínico Universitario San Carlos, Madrid, Spain Purpose: Premonitory symptoms (PSs) of migraine are those that precede pain in a migraine attack. Previous studies suggest that treatment during this phase may prevent the onset of pain; however, this approach requires that patients be able to recognize their PSs. Our objectives were to evaluate patients’ actual ability to predict migraine attacks based on their PSs and analyze whether good predictors meet any characteristic profile. Patients and methods: This prospective, observational study included patients with migraine with and without aura. Patients’ baseline characteristics were recorded. During a 2-month follow-up period, patients used a mobile application to record what they believed to be PSs and later to record the onset of pain, if this occurred. When a migraine attack ended, patients had to complete a form on the characteristics of the episode (including the presence of PSs not identified prior to the attack). Results: Fifty patients were initially selected. A final total of 34 patients were analyzed, recording 229 attacks. Of whom, 158 (69%) were accompanied by PSs and were recorded prior to the pain onset in 63 (27.5%) cases. A total of 67.6% of the patients were able to predict at least one attack, but only 35.3% were good predictors (>50% of attacks). There were only 11 cases in which a patient erroneously reported their PSs (positive predictive value: 85.1%). Good predictors were not differentiated by any specific clinical characteristic. However, a range of symptoms were particularly predictive; these included photophobia, drowsiness, yawning, increased thirst, and blurred vision. Conclusion: A large majority of patients with migraine experienced a PS and were able to predict at least one attack. Besides, only a small percentage of patients were considered as good predictors; however, they could not be characterized by any specific profile. Nonetheless, when patients with migraine believed that they were experiencing PSs, they were frequently correct. Keywords: migraine, premonitory symptoms, prediction, real-time, electronic diary, machine learningA Letter to the Editor has been received and published for this article.

Background Ring chromosome 20 (R20) syndrome is a chromosomal disorder characterized mainly by drug-resistant frontal lobe seizures, recurrent nonconvulsive status epilepticus (NCSE), and typical EEG features. The aim of this study was to investigate if this triad is common and specific to all patients with R20. Methods In this cross-sectional study (from 2000 to 2011), we selected patients who fulfilled at least two out of three criteria: drug-resistant frontal lobe seizures, recurrent NCSE, and characteristic electroencephalography (EEG) features. In all patients, diagnosis was based on karyotype analysis of at least 100 metaphases. Results We identified 36 patients who met at least two of the selected criteria: six patients (16.7%) with R20 and 30 (83.3%) without R20 (non-R20). All patients with R20 met all three criteria. Eleven (36.7%) patients without R20, however, also displayed the full triad. In 19 patients without R20 (63.3%), one of the three clinical features was missing: frontal lobe seizures were not resistant to antiepileptic drugs (AED) in four (13.3%), recurrent NCSE was missing in six (20%), and nine (30%) patients did not have typical EEG features. Based on this data, specificity was 63.3%, positive predictive value was 35.3%, and sensitivity and negative predictive values were 100%. Additionally, a review of all publications describing the R20 phenotype revealed that 81.98% of patients with R20 display the full electroclinical triad. Conclusions In our study, all patients with R20 displayed the three electroclinical characteristics. This is in line with previous reports (presenting high sensitivity and negative predictive value). However, these features can also be observed in other epilepsies and are not specific to R20. Our findings suggest that in the presence of the full triad of symptoms, karyotype analysis focused on chromosome 20 should be conducted.

Resumen: Introducción: Los años de residencia son la base fundamental para el ejercicio posterior de cualquier especialidad médica. El objetivo de nuestro estudio es evaluar la situación actual, grado de implicación y calidad percibida en la formación como neurólogos de los residentes, específicamente en el área de cefaleas. Métodos: Desde el Grupo de Estudio de Cefaleas de la Sociedad Española de Neurología (GECSEN) se diseñó una encuesta autoadministrada que fue enviada vía e-mail a todos socios los residentes de Neurología (mayo de 2015). Resultados: Completaron la encuesta 53 residentes (53/426: 12,4%; R1: 6%; R2: 25,5%; R3: 23,5% y R4: 45% de 13 comunidades autónomas). Las áreas que más les interesan son por orden: vascular, cefalea y epilepsia. El 85% considera que el área de cefalea está infravalorada. Más de la mitad (52,8%) no rotan en consultas específicas de cefaleas y solo el 35,8% terminan su formación con dominio de la técnica de bloqueos anestésicos e infiltración de toxina. El 81,1% considera que la investigación es escasa o nula. El 69,8% nunca ha realizado un póster/comunicación, el 79,3% no ha publicado y solo un 15% colabora en proyectos de investigación en esta área. El 40% considera que no ha recibido una formación adecuada. Conclusiones: La cefalea está entre las enfermedades que más interesan a nuestros residentes, sin embargo, consideramos que hay que mejorar su formación tanto en el ámbito asistencial como investigador, así como la visión que tienen de ella. Aumentar los cursos, crear páginas web formativas, involucrarles en investigación y considerar obligatoria la rotación en una unidad especializada son algunos de los objetivos fundamentales que planteamos desde el GECSEN. Abstract: Introduction: The years of residency are the pillars of the subsequent practice in every medical specialty. The aim of our study is to evaluate the current situation, degree of involvement, main interests, and perceived quality of the training received by Spanish residents of neurology, specifically in the area of headache. Methods: A self-administered survey was designed by the Headache Study Group of the Spanish Society of Neurology (GECSEN) and was sent via e-mail to all residents who were members of the Society as of May 2015. Results: Fifty-three residents completed the survey (N = 426, 12.4%): 6% were first year residents, 25.5% second year, 23.5% third year, and 45% fourth year residents, all from 13 different Spanish autonomous communities. The areas of greatest interest are, in this order: Vascular neurology, headache, and epilepsy. Of them, 85% believe that the area of headache is undervalued. More than half of residents (52.8%) do not rotate in specific Headache Units and only 35.8% complete their training dominating anaesthetic block and toxin infiltration techniques. Of them, 81.1% believe that research is scarce or absent; 69.8% have never made a poster/presentation, 79.3% have not published and only 15% collaborate on research projects in this area. Lastly, 40% believe that they have not received adequate training. Conclusions: Headache is among the areas that interest our residents the most; however, we believe that we must improve their training both at a patient healthcare level and as researchers. Thus, increasing the number of available courses, creating educational web pages, involving residents in research, and making a rotation in a specialised unit mandatory are among the fundamental objectives of the GECSEN. Palabras clave: Residentes, Neurología, Cefalea, Investigación, Formación, Docencia, Keywords: Residents, Neurology, Headache, Research, Training, Teaching

OBJECTIVE The aim of this study was to analyze the potential association between personality traits and onabotulinumtoxin A (onabotA) response in patients with chronic migraine (CM). BACKGROUND Previous studies from a categorial perspective show that patients with CM have anxious or obsessive personality according to the Salamanca screening test. However, the influence of personality traits in onabotA response in patients with CM has not yet been studied. We hypothesize that cluster C personality traits may be associated with non-response to onabotA. METHODS This case-control observational study includes patients with CM who received at least 2 treatment cycles of onabotA in 2 headache units between January and May 2018. onabotA response was defined as a reduction of at least 50% in the number of monthly migraine days. Personality traits were evaluated using the Salamanca questionnaire, a validated categorial inventory assessing 11 personality traits. RESULTS One hundred and twelve patients, 100/112 (89.6%) females, mean age (standard deviation): 43 (11) years, were recruited. 96/112 (85.7%) achieved response to onabotA. Dependent trait was significantly associated with non-response to onabotA (P = .008; OR: 0.223 [95%CI: 0.074 to 0.675]). Significant association with other personality traits or confounders was not found. CONCLUSIONS To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study showing personality traits may predict onabotA response in patients with CM. The presence of dependent personality trait in patients with CM is associated with non-response to onabotA.

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.

Introducción: La cefalea es el motivo de consulta neurológico más prevalente en los distintos niveles asistenciales, donde la anamnesis y exploración son primordiales para realizar un diagnóstico y tratamiento adecuados. Con la intención de unificar la atención de esta patología, el Grupo de Estudio de Cefalea de la Sociedad Española de Neurología (GECSEN) ha decidido elaborar unas recomendaciones consensuadas para mejorar y garantizar una adecuada asistencia en atención primaria, urgencias y neurología. Metodología: El documento es práctico, sigue el orden de la dinámica de actuación durante una consulta: anamnesis, escalas que cuantifican el impacto y la discapacidad y exploración. Además, finaliza con pautas para realizar un seguimiento adecuado y un manejo de las expectativas del paciente con el tratamiento pautado.Conclusiones: Esperamos ofrecer una herramienta que mejore la atención al paciente con cefalea para garantizar una asistencia adecuada y homogénea a nivel nacional., Introduction: Headache is the most common neurological complaint at the different levelsof the healthcare system, and clinical history and physical examination are essential in thediagnosis and treatment of these patients. With the objective of unifying the care given topatients with headache, the Spanish Society of Neurology’s Headache Study Group (GECSEN)has decided to establish a series of consensus recommendations to improve and guaranteeadequate care in primary care, emergency services, and neurology departments.Methods: With the aim of creating a practical document, the recommendations follow thedynamics of a medical consultation: clinical history, physical examination, and scales quantif-ying headache impact and disability. In addition, we provide recommendations for follow-upand managing patients’ expectations of the treatment.Conclusions: With this tool, we aim to improve the care given to patients with headache inorder to guarantee adequate, homogeneous care across Spain.

[Background] Some variables have been proposed as predictors of efficacy of OnabotulinumtoxinA in chronic migraine patients, but data available are inconclusive. We aimed to analyse the influence of single nucleotide polymorphisms in the response to OnabotulinumtoxinA., [Methods] We included 156 female patients treated with OnabotulinumtoxinA accordingly to PREEMPT paradigm in three headache units. OnabotulinumtoxinA was offered to patients that had not responded to topiramate and at least one other preventative. Age at first procedure was 43.7 ± 11.8 years (16–74). Patients with a reduction of at least 50% in the number of migraine days after two OnabotulinumtoxinA procedures were considered as responders. We analysed 25 polymorphisms selected for their relevance regarding migraine pathophysiology and their association with migraine according to previously published genome-wide association studies. Genotyping was performed using KASP probes and a LightCycler-480 (Roche-Diagnostics). Allelic, genotypic frequencies and dominance/recesivity hypothesis of the allelic variants were compared between responders and non-responders by Fisher’s exact test., [Results] Response to treatment with OnabotulinumtoxinA was achieved in 120 patients (76,9%). Two polymorphisms showed differences: CALCA rs3781719, where allele C represents 26.9% in responders and 40.9% in non-responders (p = 0.007, OR = 3.11 (1.33–7.26)); and TRPV1 rs222749, where allele A represents 4.17% in responders and 12.5% in non-responders (p = 0.013, OR = 3.29 (1.28–8.43)). No significant differences in rest of polymorphisms or clinical or demographic variables were found., [Conclusions] Polymorphic variations of CALCA and TRPV1 genes might play a role as prognostic markers of efficacy of OnabotulinumtoxinA in chronic migraine female patients in our population., This study was supported by Allergan Inc. via an independent and unrestricted research grant.

Perampanel, a non-competitive antagonist of the α-amino-3-hydroxy-5-methyl-4-isoxazole-propionic acid receptors, is the most recent antiepileptic drug available in Spain, marketed in January 2014. It was initially approved by the European Medicines Agency as adjunctive treatment for partial-onset seizures in patients 12 years and older, but recently also for primary generalized tonic-clonic seizures. Although clinical trials provide essential information about the drug, they do not reflect daily clinical practice. This retrospective study shows the initial experience with perampanel in 11 Spanish hospitals during its first year post-commercialisation. All patients who started perampanel treatment were included, but efficacy and tolerability were only assessed in those patients with a minimum follow-up period of six months. In total, 256 patients were treated with perampanel before September 2014, and 253 had an observational period of one year. After six months, 216/256 patients (84%) continued on perampanel and 180/253 (71.1%) completed one year of treatment. The mean number of previous antiepileptic drugs used was 6.83 and the median number of concomitant antiepileptic drugs was 2. The mean perampanel dose was 7.06 mg and 8.26 mg at six and 12 months, respectively. The responder rate was 39.5% and 35.9% at both follow-up points, respectively. Adverse events were experienced by 91/253 (35.5%) and resulted in withdrawal in 37 (14.6%). The most common adverse events were somnolence, dizziness, and irritability. We found no significant differences between concomitant use of enzyme-inducing and non-inducing antiepileptic drugs, regarding efficacy, adverse effects, or withdrawals. Irritability was not influenced by concomitant use of levetiracetam, relative to other drugs, but was more frequently observed in patients with a history of psychiatric problems or learning disabilities.

Introduction The syndrome of transient headache and neurological deficits with cerebrospinal fluid lymphocytosis (HaNDL) may mimic stroke when patients present with acute/subacute focal neurological deficits. It would be helpful to identify investigations that assist the neurologist in differentiating between HaNDL and stroke. Case reports We describe three cases that proved to be HaNDL, but were initially considered to be strokes. Hypoperfusion was noted in the CT perfusion (CTP) studies in all three cases, which extended beyond any single cerebral arterial supply. The CTP findings suggested a stroke mimic, and there was no improvement on thrombolysis. MRI failed to show any abnormalities in diffusion and EEGs showed non-epileptiform changes. Lumbar punctures demonstrated a lymphocytic pleocytosis. Conclusion The diagnosis of HaNDL is based on clinical and CSF criteria, but neuroimaging, including CT perfusion, can be helpful in differentiating the clinical syndrome from stroke.

Introduction: The premonitory phase comprises a wide range of symptoms that precede the onset of pain in a migraine episode by up to 48 hours. Premonitory symptoms are often not recognised by patients but do have a significant impact on their quality of life. As these symptoms represent the first stage of a migraine attack, they are crucial in improving our understanding of the key points of the origin of migraine. Development: This paper uses a question-answer format to review the main clinical studies analysing premonitory symptoms, their predictive capacity, the relationship between these symptoms and the biology of migraine, and the role of neuroimaging in the premonitory phase. Finally, we discuss the relevance of these symptoms as potential therapeutic targets in the future. Conclusions: This study of the premonitory phase has demonstrated that the hypothalamus plays an essential role in the origin of migraine attacks. We should consider the search for new targets in acute migraine treatment in order to act before the onset of the pain. This would imply a radical change in the lives of patients with migraine, La fase premonitoria comprende una amplia esfera de síntomas que anteceden hasta en 48 horas al dolor en una crisis de migraña. Este periodo a menudo no es reconocido por el propio paciente y, sin embargo, también merma de forma significativa su calidad de vida. Al ser el estadio más precoz de una crisis de migraña es fundamental para ayudarnos a comprender puntos clave del origen de la misma. Desarrollo A lo largo de esta revisión, en forma de pregunta-respuesta, se repasan los principales estudios clínicos que analizan de forma dirigida los síntomas premonitorios, se valora la capacidad predictiva de los mismos, se relacionan estos síntomas con la biología de la migraña, se revisa el papel de la neuroimagen en esta fase y, por último, la relevancia como potencial diana terapéutica que pueda tener en un futuro. Conclusiones El estudio de la fase premonitoria nos ha mostrado que el hipotálamo tiene un papel esencial en el origen de una crisis de migraña, y nos hace plantearnos la búsqueda de nuevas dianas en el tratamiento de una crisis de migraña dirigidas a actuar antes del inicio del dolor, un hecho que implicaría un antes y un después en la vida del paciente migrañoso

Introduction: The years of residency are the pillars of the subsequent practice in every medical specialty. The aim of our study is to evaluate the current situation, degree of involvement, main interests, and perceived quality of the training received by Spanish residents of neurology, specifically in the area of headache. Methods: A self-administered survey was designed by the Headache Study Group of the Spanish Society of Neurology (GECSEN) and was sent via e-mail to all residents who were members of the Society as of May 2015. Results: Fifty-three residents completed the survey (n = 426, 12.4%): 6% were first year residents, 25.5% second year, 23.5% third year, and 45% fourth year residents, all from 13 different Spanish autonomous communities. The areas of greatest interest are, in this order: Vascular neurology, headache, and epilepsy. Of them, 85% believe that the area of headache is undervalued. More than half of residents (52.8%) do not rotate in specific Headache Units and only 35.8% complete their training dominating anaesthetic block and toxin infiltration techniques. Of them, 81.1% believe that research is scarce or absent; 69.8% have never made a poster/presentation, 79.3% have not published and only 15% collaborate on research projects in this area. Lastly, 40% believe that they have not received adequate training. Conclusions: Headache is among the areas that interest our residents the most; however, we believe that we must improve their training both at a patient healthcare level and as researchers. Thus, increasing the number of available courses, creating educational web pages, involving residents in research, and making a rotation in a specialised unit mandatory are among the fundamental objectives of the GECSEN. Resumen: Introducción: Los años de residencia son la base fundamental para el ejercicio posterior de cualquier especialidad médica. El objetivo de nuestro estudio es evaluar la situación actual, grado de implicación y calidad percibida en la formación como neurólogos de los residentes, específicamente en el área de cefaleas. Métodos: Desde el Grupo de Estudio de Cefaleas de la Sociedad Española de Neurología (GECSEN) se diseñó una encuesta autoadministrada que fue enviada vía e-mail a todos socios los residentes de Neurología (mayo de 2015). Resultados: Completaron la encuesta 53 residentes (53/426: 12,4%; R1: 6%; R2: 25,5%; R3: 23,5% y R4: 45% de 13 comunidades autónomas). Las áreas que más les interesan son por orden: vascular, cefalea y epilepsia. El 85% considera que el área de cefalea está infravalorada. Más de la mitad (52,8%) no rotan en consultas específicas de cefaleas y solo el 35,8% terminan su formación con dominio de la técnica de bloqueos anestésicos e infiltración de toxina. El 81,1% considera que la investigación es escasa o nula. El 69,8% nunca ha realizado un póster/comunicación, el 79,3% no ha publicado y solo un 15% colabora en proyectos de investigación en esta área. El 40% considera que no ha recibido una formación adecuada. Conclusiones: La cefalea está entre las enfermedades que más interesan a nuestros residentes, sin embargo, consideramos que hay que mejorar su formación tanto en el ámbito asistencial como investigador, así como la visión que tienen de ella. Aumentar los cursos, crear páginas web formativas, involucrarles en investigación y considerar obligatoria la rotación en una unidad especializada son algunos de los objetivos fundamentales que planteamos desde el GECSEN. Keywords: Residents, Neurology, Headache, Research, Training, Teaching, Palabras clave: Residentes, Neurología, Cefalea, Investigación, Formación, Docencia