Search

Introduction: One of the factors contributing to transformation of migraine are sleep disorders, which can act as a trigger and/or perpetuating factor in these patients. This study's primary objective was to identify predictive factors related to sleep quality in patients with chronic migraine (CM); the secondary objective was to identify any differences in psychological variables and disability between patients with CM with better or poorer sleep quality., Methods: A total of 50 patients with CM were included in an observational, cross-sectional study. We recorded data on demographic, psychological, and disability variables using self-administered questionnaires., Results: A direct, moderate-to-strong correlation was observed between the different disability and psychological variables analysed (P < .05). Regression analysis identified depressive symptoms, headache-related disability, and pain catastrophising as predictors of sleep quality; together, these factors explain 33% of the variance. Statistically significant differences were found between patients with better and poorer sleep quality for depressive symptoms (P = .016) and pain catastrophising (P = .036)., Conclusions: The predictive factors for sleep quality in patients with CM were depressive symptoms, headache-related disability, and pain catastrophising. Patients with poorer sleep quality had higher levels of pain catastrophising and depressive symptoms., (Copyright © 2019 Sociedad Española de Neurología. Published by Elsevier España, S.L.U. All rights reserved.)

Objective: This study aimed to assess mechanical hyperalgesia in the trigeminal and extra-trigeminal regions in patients with chronic migraine (CM) and temporomandibular disorders (TMD) in comparison to asymptomatic subjects and to determine the association between sensorimotor variables and psychological and disability variables and evaluate the prediction of a sensorimotor variables though psychological and disability variables in patients with CM and TMD., Material and Methods: A total of 52 subjects with concomitant CM and TMD and 30 asymptomatic subjects were included in the study. The pressure pain threshold (PPT), maximal mouth opening (MMO) and a series of self-reported factors were compared., Results: There were 52 CM and TMD (92.3% women and 7.7% men; age = 46.2 ± 9.5) and 30 asymptomatic subjects (80% women and 20% men; age = 47.4 ± 10). Differences were found between patients with CM and TMD and asymptomatic participants (p < .01) when comparing the PPTs in the trigeminal and extra-trigeminal regions. The PPT for the trigeminal region was predicted by depressive symptoms (variance of 18%) as well as disability and craniofacial pain (variance of 20%). The extra-trigeminal region PPT was predicted by depressive symptoms (variance of 10%), and pain-free MMO was predicted by disability and craniofacial pain (variance of 24%)., Conclusions: This study suggests that patients with CM and TMD present with generalized mechanical hyperalgesia. In addition, an association between sensorimotor, psychological and disability variables was observed.

Aims: To investigate the effects of adding orofacial treatment to cervical physical therapy in patients with chronic migraine and temporomandibular disorders (TMD)., Methods: A total of 45 participants with chronic migraine and TMD aged 18 to 65 years were randomized into two groups: a cervical group (CG) and a cervical and orofacial group (COG). Both groups continued their medication regimens for migraine treatment and received physical therapy. The CG received physical therapy only in the cervical region, and the COG received physical therapy in both the cervical and orofacial regions. Both groups received six sessions of treatment that consisted of manual therapy and therapeutic exercise in the cervical region or the cervical and orofacial regions. Scores on the Craniofacial Pain and Disability Inventory (CF-PDI) and the Headache Impact Test (HIT-6) were primary outcome variables, and the secondary outcome variables were scores on the Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia (TSK-11), pain intensity measured on a visual analog scale (VAS), pressure pain thresholds (PPTs) in the temporal, masseter (2 points, M1 and M2) and extratrigeminal (wrist) regions, and maximal mouth opening (MMO). Data were recorded at baseline, posttreatment, and after 12 weeks of follow-up. The α level was set at .05 for all tests and two-way repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) for within- and between-group interactions., Results: There were 22 CG participants (13.6% men and 86.4% women) and 23 COG participants (13% men and 87% women). The ANOVA analysis revealed statistically significant differences for group × time interaction in CF-PDI, HIT-6 in the last follow-up, pain intensity, PPTs in the trigeminal region, and MMO (P < .05), with a medium-large magnitude of effect. No statistically significant differences were found in the PPTs of the extratrigeminal region or in the TSK-11 (P > .05)., Conclusion: Both groups reported a significant improvement in CF-PDI, HIT-6, and pain intensity. Cervical and orofacial treatment was more effective than cervical treatment alone for increasing PPTs in the trigeminal region and producing pain-free MMO. Physical therapy alone was not effective for increasing the PPTs in the extratrigeminal region (wrist) or decreasing the level of TSK-11.

Introduction: Patients with chronic migraine (CM) and medication abuse are difficult to treat, and have a greater tendency towards chronification and a poorer quality of life than those with other types of headache., Aim: To evaluate whether the presence of medication abuse lowers the effectiveness of topiramate., Patients and Methods: A series of patients with CM were grouped according to whether they met abuse criteria or not. They were advised to stop taking the drug that they were abusing. Treatment was adjusted to match their crises and preventive treatment with topiramate was established from the beginning. The number of days with headache and intense migraine in the previous month and at four months of treatment was evaluated., Results: In all, 262 patients with CM criteria were selected and 167 (63.7%) of them fulfilled abuse criteria. In both groups there was a significant reduction in the number of days with headache/month and number of migraine attacks/month at the fourth month of treatment with topiramate. The percentage of reduction in the number of days with headache/month in CM without abuse was 59.3 ± 36.1%, and with abuse, 48.7 ± 41.7% (p = 0.0574). The percentage of reduction in the number of days with intense migraine/month in CM without abuse was 61.2%, and with abuse, 50% (p = 0.0224). Response rate according to the number of days with headache/month in CM without abuse was 69%, and with abuse, 57%. Response rate according to the number of intense migraines/month in CM without abuse was 76.8%, and in CM with abuse, 61% (p = 0.0097)., Conclusions: Topiramate was effective in patients with CM with and without medication abuse, although effectiveness is lower in the latter case.

Introduction: Topiramate and onabotulinumtoxin A have proven to be effective in chronic migraine with or without medication abuse according to recent criteria of the International Headache Society's Headache Classification., Aims: To show that flunarizine is as effective as topiramate in cases of chronic migraine without medication abuse., Patients and Methods: We conducted a prospective, non-randomised, comparative study of two groups of patients paired by age and sex, with chronic migraine without abuse, who had been treated preventively for the first time with topiramate or flunarizine., Results: Forty patients treated with flunarizine were assigned a patient of their same sex and age who was being treated with topiramate. The mean rate of reduction in intense migraines in the topiramate group was 59% and in the flunarizine group, 58.5% (p = 0.9444); the responder rate at four months of treatment did not show any significant differences either, the figures being 75% for topiramate and 70% for flunarizine (p = 0.6236). The mean reduction of other headaches in the topiramate group was 57% and in the flunarizine group, 64% (p = 0.4261); the responder rate at four months of treatment was similar in the two groups: 76%. The percentage of dropouts from treatment was higher with topiramate (19.5%) than with flunarizine (10%) (p = 0.3493). No serious side effects occurred in either of the groups. In all, 78.9% of the patients who took topiramate said they were satisfied with the drug versus 75% of those in the flunarizine group (p = 0.7903)., Conclusions: Flunarizine proved to be as effective as topiramate in the treatment of chronic migraine without medication abuse.

INTRODUCTION. Flunarizine, with level of evidence A, and nadolol, with evidence level C, would be indicated as preventive treatment of migraine. Yet, no previous studies have been conducted to compare the effectiveness of the two drugs. AIM. To compare the effectiveness parameters in independent groups of patients treated preventively with one of the pharmaceuticals from the study, the same protocol being applied in both cases. PATIENTS AND METHODS. The subjects selected for the study were patients with episodic migraine (according to 2004 International Headache Society criteria) who had undergone preventive treatment for the first time, with flunarizine (5 mg/day) or nadolol (20-40 mg/day). The main effectiveness variables (reduction in the number of seizures at four months of treatment and responder rates) were analysed. RESULTS. The study included 227 patients who intended to receive treatment: 155 with flunarizine (80.5% females; mean age: 38.3 ± 12.1 years) and 72 with nadolol (63.8% females; mean age: 37.1 ± 12.0 years). The mean number of seizures prior to treatment was 6.09 ± 2.6 in the flunarizine group and 5.1 ± 1.7 in the nadolol group (p = 0.0079); at four months of treatment it was 2.61 ± 2.4 in the flunarizine group and 2.77 ± 2.4 in the nadolol group (p = NS). Percentage of reduction of migraines: 55.2% with flunarizine and 50.4% with nadolol (p = NS). The responder rate was 69% with flunarizine and 67% with nadolol (p = NS). The excellent response rate (reduction in the number of seizures by 75% or more) was 52.2% with flunarizine and 36.1% with nadolol (p = 0.0077). Percentage of adverse side effects: 48.3% with flunarizine and 25% with nadolol (p = 0.0009). The satisfaction rate was similar in both groups, 68%. CONCLUSIONS. Both flunarizine and nadolol proved to be effective in the preventive treatment of episodic migraine. Flunarizine is used more often in our milieu and was less well tolerated.

Introduction: The drop-out rate among patients receiving preventive treatment for migraine is higher than 30%. This situation is not very widely known and the risk factors that lead patients to drop out from treatment have yet to be identified., Aim: To evaluate some of the factors that can predispose patients to drop out of preventive treatment., Patients and Methods: We conducted a prospective study of patients suffering from migraine who required preventive treatment for the first time with one of what are considered the top three first-choice drugs, i.e. a beta-blocker (nadolol), a neuromodulator (topiramate) or a calcium antagonist (flunarizine). Two groups were established according to whether patients dropped out of treatment or not. Different demographic and clinical variables were analysed and compared in the two groups., Results: Of 800 patients with migraine who required preventive treatment for the first time, the drop-out rate was 19.7%. In the drop-out group, the variables 'age', 'number of seizures', 'number of seizures prior to preventive treatment' and 'side effects' showed significant differences with those from the group of patients who did not drop out of preventive treatment., Conclusions: The drug used as preventive treatment, the side effects, a younger age and a lower number of seizures before starting the preventive treatment favoured higher drop-out rates. Whether the migraine was episodic or chronic, the presence of medication abuse and the drugs used to treat the seizures were not related with dropping out of preventive treatment., (© 2011 Revista de Neurología)

Introduction: Topiramate and nadolol with levels A and C of scientific evidence, respectively, would be indicated as preventive treatments of migraine. To date only one study of satisfaction has been carried out to compare the two pharmaceuticals., Aim: To compare the effectiveness parameters in independent groups of patients treated preventively with one of the pharmaceuticals from the study., Patients and Methods: From a database of 700 patients with migraine, those with episodic migraine and who had followed a course of preventive treatment, for the first time, with topiramate or nadolol were selected for the study. The effectiveness variables (reduction in the number of crises at four months of preventive treatment and responder rates) were analysed., Results: Altogether 208 patients with were included for treatment: 140 with topiramate (77.8% females; mean age, 37.9) and 68 with nadolol (69% females; mean age, 36.9). The mean number of crises in the month prior to treatment was: topiramate group, 6.3 +/- 2.6; nadolol group 5.3 +/- 2.0 (p = 0.0066). At four months after starting treatment: topiramate group, 2.69 +/- 2.6; nadolol group 2.6 +/- 2.2 (NS). The percentage of reduction in the number of migraines was 56.6% with topiramate and 51.6% with nadolol (NS). The responder rate (reduction in the frequency of crises by at least 50%) was 71.3% with topiramate versus 69% with nadolol (NS). The excellent response rate (reduction in crises by at least 75%) was 53.3% with topiramate versus 32.2% with nadolol (p = 0.0077). Adverse side effects were reported by 54% of patients treated with topiramate versus 30.8% of those treated with nadolol (p = 0.0015). The rate of satisfaction was 61% for the topiramate group and 71% for the group with nadolol (NS)., Conclusions: Both topiramate and nadolol proved to be effective in the preventive treatment of episodic migraine. Topiramate was found to be more effective than nadolol, although it was used in patients with a higher frequency of crises, and was not tolerated so well.

Introduction: Chronic migraine refractory to preventive treatment is a common clinical situation in general neurology clinics. The aim is to analyse our experience with zonisamide in the preventive treatment of patients with frequent refractory migraine., Patients and Methods: Those patients with no response or intolerance to topiramate and at least one more preventative received zonisamide. This drug was increased 25 mg per week up to 200 mg/day. The efficacy of zonisamide was evaluated in terms of 'response' (reduction in attack frequency below 50%) at the third month of treatment., Results: Our series comprises a total of 172 patients, with ages ranging from 22 to 69 years. 85% were women. The final dosage of zonisamide was 50-200 mg/day, with the 100 mg/day being the most frequently administered dose. Zonisamide was efficacious (response) in 76 (44%) patients; response being excellent in 22 (13%). MIDAS score was reduced by 43.2%. Zonisamide was not tolerated by 27% of the patients, mainly due to subjective mental slowness or digestive symptoms., Conclusions: These results, obtained in a big sample of patients refractory or intolerant to topiramate and other preventatives, indicate that, at least in conditions of daily clinical practice, zonisamide, at relatively low dosages, is an option to be considered for the preventive treatment of patients with frequent migraine.

Introduction: Patients with headache and medication abuse (HMA) are difficult to treat, have a greater tendency towards chronification and a poorer quality of life than those with other types of headache. AIM. To evaluate the indicators showing that these patients are responding to ambulatory treatment., Patients and Methods: From a series of patients with migraine, we selected those who satisfied HMA criteria according to the appendix of the 2006 International Classification of the Headache Disease (ICHD-2) and who had never previously undergone treatment. As outpatients, they were advised to stop taking the drug that they were abusing. The treatment of their seizures was adjusted with the most efficient drugs and preventive treatment was started from the outset with topiramate or flunarizine. Patients were grouped according to whether they continued with HMA or not. Comparisons were made between the number of days with headache during the previous month and after four months of treatment and the persistence of abuse., Results: HMA criteria were met by 178 patients (mean age 40.9; 88.7% females). Results showed that 68.5% (122 patients) responded and no longer met HMA criteria after treatment. The treatment used for their seizures (triptans, nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs, analgesics) and preventive treatment (topiramate or flunarizine) were similar in both groups. The average number of days with headache prior to treatment was 18.52 in the group that responded and 20.87 (p = 0.0263) in the group that did not respond to treatment. In the group of responders 7.3% dropped out of preventive treatment compared with 35% (p = 0.0001) in the group of non-responders., Conclusions: A higher number of days with headache during the previous month and withdrawing from preventive treatment were indicators of a bad progression.

Introduction: Chronic migraine is a primary headache that is difficult to treat and has an important impact on the patient's quality of life. The international headache classification recently modified the criteria for chronic migraine and therefore few studies have been conducted that analyse groups according to these new criteria. AIM. To analyse a group of patients with chronic migraine who were referred to a general neurology service., Patients and Methods: The first 100 patients with migraine were selected. Researchers established and analysed a number of subgroups of patients with episodic, chronic or chronic migraine with probable headache due to medication abuse, in accordance with the International Headache Society (IHS) headache classification and its revised version from 2006., Results: Of the total sample of 738 new patients, 100 (13.5%) suffered from migraines and of these 100 new patients with migraine 42 (5.6% of the total series) satisfied criteria for chronic migraine and 15 patients with chronic migraine met the criteria for probable headache due to medication abuse. Before visiting the neurology service, only 41% had been diagnosed as suffering from migraine, 38% had received no information about this condition, only 17% took triptans for symptomatic relief and 23% had followed some kind of preventive treatment., Conclusions: One notable finding was the importance of episodic and chronic migraine in a general neurology service, on applying the recent IHS criteria. A high percentage of patients with chronic migraine who were referred to the neurology service have not been diagnosed or given any information or proper treatment; an elevated degree of self-medication and medication abuse also exists. Preventive treatment and triptans in cases of intense migraines are still not commonly used in primary care.

Introduction: Chronic daily headache (CDH) includes primary headaches that last more than four hours with a frequency equal or superior to 15 days a month over the last three months. It has a prevalence of 4-5% in the general population and is a frequent reason for visiting the physician in headache units., Aim: To evaluate the effectiveness of topiramate, as the primary drug, in CDH due to probable chronic migraine with or without medication abuse., Patients and Methods: From the 447 patients with migraine in our database, we selected those: a) satisfying Silberstein criteria for CDH; b) that had not followed prior prophylactic treatment; and c) who were treated with topiramate as the primary drug. The mean number of days with headache and bouts of severe migraine in the fourth month of treatment using topiramate as compared to the month preceding treatment, as well as the percentage of responses and the rate of respondents in the fourth month were all analysed., Results: Eighty-three patients (88% females) with a mean age of 38.0 +/- 14.13 years were selected. Medication abuse was reported in 44% of cases. At the fourth month of treatment, the mean number of days with headache dropped significantly from 20.8 to 7.9 (p < 0.0001) and the mean number of bouts of severe migraine diminished from 4.4 to 1.7 (p < 0.0001). The rate of respondents was 72%. Medication abuse continued in 14% of cases. Side effects were produced in 58% of patients and the dropout rate was 24%., Conclusions: Topiramate proved to be effective in the treatment of CDH due to probable chronic migraine and with probable medication abuse in de novo migraine patients.

Introduction: Both flunarizine and, more recently, topiramate have proved to be effective in the prophylaxis of migraine., Aim: To compare two independent groups of patients with similar clinical and demographic characteristics who were treated with flunarizine or topiramate as the preferred drug in the prevention of their migraines and to evaluate effectiveness and safety according to the medication they received., Patients and Methods: All the patients reported more than four episodes a month and/or transformed migraine according to Silberstein's criteria, and had never received prophylactic treatment. Data determined: the number and average number of migraines in the previous month and at the fourth month of treatment, and the rate of respondents., Results: A total of 125 patients were included in each group. No significant differences were found between the groups as regards mean age or the average number of migraines in the previous month. With both drugs there was a significant decrease (0.0001) in the mean number of episodes in the fourth month of treatment, but with no significant difference between them: topiramate (5.88 +/- 3.7 to 2.1 +/- 2.5) and flunarizine (5.24 +/- 3.2 to 2.3 +/- 2.7). The mean reduction in the number of migraines at the fourth month was 58.2 +/- 38.2% with topiramate, and 55.4 +/- 37.5% with flunarizine. The respondent rate was 71% with topiramate and 67% with flunarizine. The percentage of dropouts with topiramate (28%) was higher than with flunarizine (11%) (0.0013). With topiramate 69 patients reported side effects and 53 patients reported them with flunarizine (0.0427)., Conclusions: Both drugs showed a high degree of effectiveness when used as the preferred drug in the preventive treatment of migraine. Topiramate offered better results as far as effectiveness is concerned, but also more side effects, none of which were serious.

Introduction: Open-label studies and three large and controlled trials had demostrated the efficacy of topiramate in migraine prophylaxis., Objectives: The objective of this study was to assess the effectiveness and tolerability of topiramate in patients not previously treated with any prophylactic drug., Patients and Methods: Patients selection was made on sequential patients attending our outpatient clinic. Patients were adults diagnosed of either transformed migraine or migraine with a frequency of more than four migraine attacks per month. Topiramate was started at 25 mg and titrated in 4 weeks by weekly increments of 25 mg, up to 100 mg/day. Patients were then followed up for a 12-week maintenance phase. Efficacy was assessed by change in mean monthly migraine attack frequency from baseline. Additional assessments included responder rates, mean number of migraine days and global impression by a seven-point improvement scale., Results: Mean monthly migraine attacks decreased significantly from baseline (from 5.2 +/- 2.6 to 2.1 +/- 2.2; p < 0.0001). Sixty-nine percent of patients were considered responders and mean reduction rate in migraine was 55.6 %. Topiramare was overall well tolerated. Twentyfive (28.4 %) patients stopped treatment due to adverse events. The most common adverse events were paresthesia, weight loss and cognitive effects. Some grade of satisfaction was reported by 55 % of patients at the end of the study., Conclusion: This naturalistic study confirms clinical trial data that 100 mg/day is an effective target dose for patients with migraine and presents the possible beneficial effect in transformed migraine.

Objective: To perform an economic evaluation of migraine attack treatment comparing standard doses of existing triptans in 2003, and using different outcome measurements of anti-migraine effectiveness., Methods: A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed from the National Health System perspective, using 2003 prices, comparing almotriptan 12.5 mg, eletriptan 40 mg, naratriptan 2.5 mg, rizatriptan 10 mg, sumatriptan 50 mg, sumatriptan 100 mg, zolmitriptan 2.5 mg and zolmitriptan 5 mg. Effectiveness measurements were obtained from an efficacy meta-analysis of published clinical trials, and they consisted of therapeutic gain (crude effect of triptan after placebo effect subtraction) for 2 h--anti-migraine response, pain free at 2 h, and 24 h--sustained pain free. Rescue medication use and 24 h-attack relapse rates were assessed., Results: Thirty-eight clinical trials (19,872 patients) were used to assess triptans effectiveness. Eletriptan 40 mg and rizatriptan 10 mg showed the highest 24 h-sustained pain free response (20.2 % in both cases), pain-free at 2 h (27.7 % and 32.2 %) and antimigraine response at 2 h (38.6 % and 31.3 %), respectively. Less rescue medication was used with eletriptan 40 mg and sumatriptan 50 mg (21 % and 20 %), and the lowest 24 h-relapse rates were observed with eletriptan 40 mg and naratriptan 2.5 mg (27 % and 21 %). Eletriptan 40 mg and sumatriptan 50 mg showed the lowest costs per successfully treated attacks with 2 h--anti-migraine response (16.50 and 17.44e) and with 24 h--sustained pain free (31.47 and 33.61e), while the lowest costs per attack that was pain free at 2 h were observed with rizatriptan 10 mg (21.36e) and eletriptan 40 mg (22.99e)., Conclusions: Considering the cost-effectiveness measurements assessed, eletriptan 40 mg was the most costeffective triptan in the majority of economic analyses carried out.

Introduction: Migraine accounts for 10% of patients first visits due to neurological reasons in Spain and over half the new visits in headache units (HU) and hence the importance of this pathology., Aims: The aim of this study is to determine whether there are any differences between migraine patients referred to a general neurology service (GNS) or to a HU., Patients and Methods: Two groups of patients with migraine were compared: those sent for the first time to a GNS and the others, who were sent directly to a HU., Results: In a GNS, 10.7% (374 patients) of the overall number of new visits concerned migraines; these were compared with 107 migraines (64%) from the total number of headaches treated for the first time in the HU during the year 2000. The average age and distribution of sexes were similar in both groups. In the group of migraines from the HU there were more requests for CAT/MRI (20%), 77.5% had previous treatment, 71% were given preventive therapy, 51% received triptans and 44.8% needed an examination. In the group of migraines from visits to general service, there were fewer requests for CAT/MRI (14%), only 20% had previous therapy, preventive therapy was started in 45%, 6% received triptans and 25% required an examination., Conclusions: The group of patients with migraine who were sent to the HU presented a more serious pathology, required more preventive therapies, more triptans and more monitoring than the group of patients with migraine referred to the GNS.

Background: Migraine is one of the most important reason of neurological consultation in Spain., Objective: The aim of the present study was to analyse the profile of the patient with migraine and investigate epidemiological, clinical and therapeutical differences between migraine with aura o without aura., Patients and Method: For three consecutive months all patients attending for the first time the Neurology clinics of the Health Service of Aragón, were given a specially designed questionnaire., Results: 374 patients who met migraine diagnostic criteria were included. They were 10.7% of the all patients. The majority of the patients were women (70%). Patients with migraine without aura were 299 (79.9%). The average age was 33.6 +/- 15.1. The family doctor referred 87% of the patients. Further investigations were requested in 20% of the patients with migraine without aura and 49.3% with aura. Cerebral CT was performed in 5.6% of migraine without aura and in 38.6% of migraine with aura patients, MR in 0.6% of migraine without aura and in 6.6% of migraine with aura patients. Treatment was given to 73% of the migraine patients attending for the first time. Calcium antagonists (45.3%) were the most common used drugs., Conclusions: Migraine generates a considerable demand for neurological consultations. There are significant differences in investigations requested, treatments and follow-ups of patients with migraine with o without aura.

Objective: To analyze the patients sent to Neurology Clinics for headache and to investigate the differences in epidemiology, clinical findings and therapeutics as compared with those consulting for other neurological disorders., Patients and Methods: Eighteen neurologists from all the Outpatient Departments of the Community of Aragon Health Service were analysed using a specially designed questionnaire for all the patients who attended the Neurology Clinics for the first time during a period of three months., Results: Of 3,489 patients assessed, 25.5% complained of headache. Of these, 70% were women of an average age of 41.2 +/- 18.8 years. In 42% the consultation was for migraine followed by chronic tension headache in 30.1%. Family doctors sent 86.7% of the patients and requested complementary tests for 31.1%. Cerebral TAC (12.4%) and EEG (7.6%) were the investigations most often requested. Treatment was given to 68.6% of the patients with headache. Calcium-antagonists and anti-depressants were the drugs most used., Conclusions: Headache is the commonest cause for consulting a neurologist. It affects young adults, with marked predominance of the female sex. There are significative differences in clinical attention (fewer complementary tests are requested and less follow-up is necessary, although more treatment is given) than for other neurology patients.