Search

Introduction Headache is a frequent cause of consultation; it is important to detect patients with secondary headache, particularly high-risk secondary headache. Such systems as the Manchester Triage System (MTS) are used for this purpose. This study aims to evaluate the frequency of sub-triage in patients attending the Emergency Department due to headache. Material and methods We studied a series of consecutive patients who came to the Emergency Department with headache and presenting some warning sign, defined as the presence of signs leading the physician to request an emergency neuroimaging study and/or assessment by the on-call neurologist. The reference diagnosis was established by neurologists. We evaluated the MTS triage level assigned and the presence of warning signs that may imply a higher level than that assigned. Results We registered a total of 1,120 emergency department visits due to headache, and 248 patients (22.8%) were eligible for study inclusion. Secondary headache was diagnosed in 126 cases (50.8% of the sample; 11.2% of the total), with 60 cases presenting high-risk secondary headache (24.2%; 5.4%). According to the MTS, two patients were classified as immediate (0.8%), 26 as very urgent (10.5%), 147 as urgent (59.3%), 68 as normal (27.4%), and five as not urgent (2%). The percentage of patients under-triaged was 85.1% in the very urgent classification level and 23.3% in the urgent level. Conclusion During the study period, at least one in 10 patients attending the Emergency Department due to headache had secondary headache; one in 20 had high-risk secondary headache. The MTS under-triaged most patients with warning signs suggesting a potential emergency.

Aim To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of the SNNOOP10 list in the detection of high-risk headaches. Methods Patients that visited the Hospital Clínico San Carlos (Madrid) emergency department due to headache that were allocated to a Manchester Triage System level between critical and urgent were prospectively included but retrospectively analysed. A researcher blind to the patients’ diagnosis administered a standardised questionnaire and afterwards a neurologist blind to the questionnaire results diagnosed the patient according to the International Classification of Headache Disorders. The primary endpoint was to assess the sensitivity of the SNNOOP10 list in the detection of high-risk headaches. Secondary endpoints included the evaluation of the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and area under the curve of each SNNOOP10 item. Results Between April 2015 and October 2021, 100 patients were included. Patients were 44 years old (inter-quartile range: 33.6–64.7) and 57% were female. We identified 37 different diagnoses. Final diagnosis was a primary headache in 33%, secondary headache in 65% and cranial neuralgia in 2%. There were 46 patients that were considered as having high-risk headache. Patients from the primary headache group were younger and more frequently female. Sensitivity of SNNOOP10 list was 100% (95% confidence interval: 90.2%–100%). The items with higher sensitivity were neurologic deficit or disfunction (75.5%), pattern change or recent onset of the headache (64.4%), onset after 50 years (64.4%). The most specific items were posttraumatic onset of headache (94.5%), neoplasm in history (89.1%) and systemic symptoms (89%). The area under the curve of the SNNOOP10 list was 0.66 (95% CI: 0.55–0.76). Conclusion The red flags from the SNNOOP10 list showed a 100% sensitivity in the detection of high-risk headache disorders.

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 Objetivos El dolor orofacial y cervical es un motivo de consulta frecuente, y puede deberse a multiples procesos patologicos. Entre ellos se encuentra el sindrome de Eagle, entidad muy infrecuente cuyo origen se atribuye a una osificacion del ligamento estilohioideo o una elongacion de la apofisis estiloides. Presentamos una serie de cinco pacientes con dicho diagnostico. Material y metodos Se describen las caracteristicas demograficas y clinicas de cinco pacientes atendidos en la Unidad de Cefaleas de dos hospitales terciarios por un cuadro compatible con sindrome de Eagle, y su respuesta a distintos tratamientos. Resultados Se trata de tres varones y dos mujeres de entre 24 y 51 anos, con dolor de localizacion predominante en un oido y la region amigdalina ipsilateral, de cualidad sorda y de gran intensidad. En todos ellos el patron temporal era cronico y continuo, con exacerbaciones desencadenadas por la deglucion. Cuatro pacientes habian realizado multiples consultas en servicios de otorrinolaringologia, y uno de ellos habia recibido tratamiento antibiotico ante la sospecha de tubaritis. En todos los casos la palpacion de la fosa amigdalina resulto dolorosa. En tres de los pacientes se demostro elongacion de la apofisis estiloides y/o calcificacion del ligamento estilohioideo mediante tomografia computarizada. Cuatro mejoraron con tratamiento neuromodulador (duloxetina, gabapentina, pregabalina) y solo uno preciso cirugia con escision de la apofisis estiloides. Conclusiones El sindrome de Eagle es una causa de dolor craneofacial poco frecuente y posiblemente infradiagnosticada. Aportamos cinco nuevos casos que permiten delimitar tanto la semiologia como los posibles tratamientos.

Several variables have been reported to be associated with anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor or ligand antibody response, but with differing results. Our objective was to determine whether machine-learning (ML)-based models can predict 6-, 9- and 12-month responses to anti-CGRP receptor or ligand therapies among migraine patients.We performed a multicenter analysis of prospectively collected data from patients with migraine receiving anti-CGRP therapies. Demographic and clinical variables were collected. Response rates in the 30% to 50% range, or at least 30%, in the 50% to 75% range, or at least 50%, and response rate of at least 75% regarding the reduction in the number of headache days per month at 6, 9 and 12 months were calculated. A sequential forward feature selector was used for variable selection and ML-based predictive models for the response to anti-CGRP therapies at 6, 9 and 12 months, with model accuracy not less than 70%, were generated.A total of 712 patients were included, 93% were women, and the mean (SD) age was 48 (11.6) years. Eighty-four percent of patients had chronic migraine. ML-based models using headache days/month, migraine days/month and the Headache Impact Test (HIT-6) yielded predictions with an F1 score range of 0.70-0.97 and an area under the receiver-operating curve score range of 0.87-0.98. SHAP (SHapley Additive exPlanations) summary plots and dependence plots were generated to evaluate the relevance of the factors associated with the prediction of the above-mentioned response rates.Our results show that ML models can predict anti-CGRP response at 6, 9 and 12 months. This study provides a predictive tool that can be used in a real-world setting.

Background: Series of patients with SARS‐CoV‐2 infection report headache in 6%‐15% of cases, although some data suggest that the actual frequency is higher, and that headache is not associated with fever. No study published to date has analyzed the characteristics of headache in these patients. Objective: To analyze the characteristics of COVID‐19 related headaches. Methods: We conducted a survey of Spaniard healthcare professionals who have been infected by SARS‐CoV‐2 and presented headache during the course of the disease. The survey addressed respondents’ medical history and headache characteristics, and we analyzed the association between both. Results: We analyzed the responses of a sample of 112 healthcare professionals. History of migraine was reported by 20/112 (17.9%) of respondents, history of tension‐type headache by 8/112 (7.1%), and history of cluster headache was reported by a single respondent; 82/112(73.2%) of respondents had no history of headache. Headache presented independently of fever, around the third day after symptom onset. The previous history of migraine was associated with a higher frequency of pulsating headache (20% in patients with previous migraine vs 4.3% in those with no history of migraine, P = .013). Conclusion: Headache is often holocranial, hemicranial, or occipital, pressing, and worsens with physical activity or head movements. Because the characteristics of the headache and the associated symptoms are heterogeneous in our survey, we suggest that several patterns with specific pathophysiological mechanisms may underlie the headache associated with COVID‐19.

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.

Background: Headache is a leading reason for presentation to the emergency department (ED) with migraine being the most frequently headache. To ensure the adequate staffing of healthcare providers ...

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.

Introduction The evaluation of red flags is crucial for the accurate the diagnosis of headache disorders, especially for thunderclap headache. We analysed if secondary headache disorders were adequately ruled out in patients that presented to the emergency room with thunderclap headache. Methods In this retrospective cohort study, we screened all patients that visited the emergency room for headache, including those that described thunderclap headache. We measured the frequency with which secondary causes were not adequately ruled out. We analysed the order of the exams, the final diagnosis, and the time elapsed between arrival, initial request for imaging, and the completion of the imaging. Results We screened 2132 patients, and 42 (1.9%) fulfilled eligibility criteria. Mean age was 43.1 ± 17.1 years, and 57% of patients were female. For 22 (52.4%) patients, the work-up was incomplete. Vascular study was missing in 16 (38.1%) patients, cerebrospinal fluid evaluation in nine (21.4%), and magnetic resonance imaging in seven (16.7%), with multiple assessments missing in six (14.3%). There were ten different combinations in which the exams were performed, with the most frequent being the second exam’s cerebral spinal fluid evaluation in 18 (52.9%) and the computed tomography angiogram in 10 (29.4%). A secondary cause of thunderclap headache was found in 16 (38.1%) patients, and four (9.5%) had a primary headache diagnosis after an adequate and complete study. Conclusions Thunderclap onset was described in one of every 50 patients that visited the emergency room for headache. More than half of these patients were not adequately managed. More than a third of thunderclap headache patients had a secondary cause.

We investigated if dynamic pressure pain sensitivity in the symptomatic area is associated with pressure sensitivity in local and distant pain-free areas in cluster headache (CH). A pressure algometry set consisting of 8 rollers with fixed pressure levels ranging from 500 to 5300 g was used to assess dynamic pressure pain sensitivity in men with episodic CH. Each roller was moved from an anterior-to-posterior direction over the temporalis muscle. The load level of the first painful roller was considered the dynamic pain threshold (DPT). Further, pain elicited during DPT (roller evoked pain) was also assessed. We used a pressure algometer to determine pressure pain thresholds (PPTs) over the temporalis muscle, C5/C6 joint, second metacarpal, and tibialis anterior. Patients were assessed in an asymptomatic (remission) phase, at least 6 months after their last cluster period and without taking pharmacological treatment. Forty men with episodic CH (mean age 42 years) were included. Both outcomes, DPTs (r = 0.781, P

The COVID‐19 pandemic has undoubtedly changed our practice of medicine. With our collective resources and attention focused on caring for those afflicted with the disease, other medical conditions have temporarily but understandably faced constraint. For migraine patients who often require in‐person visits for infusions and procedures, this has become particularly challenging. Here, we share our experience in navigating this exigency amidst a local surge of COVID‐19.

Background Epicrania fugax consists of brief paroxysms of pain, which radiate in a line or in zigzag trajectory across the surface of the scalp or the face. Methods A prospective, descriptive study was performed in five patients presenting with an epicrania fugax-type pain with extracephalic irradiation. Results All patients were women, and the mean age at onset was 59.8 (standard deviation, 10.9). They had unilateral paroxysms of electrical pain starting at a particular point in the head (parietal, n = 3; vertex, n = 1; frontal, n = 1) and rapidly radiating downwards in a lineal trajectory to reach extracephalic regions (ipsilateral limbs, n = 2; shoulder, n = 2; low neck, n = 1) in 1–3 seconds. Pain intensity was moderate or severe. Three patients had nummular headache at the point where the paroxysms originated. One patient had spontaneous remission, and four patients achieved complete or almost complete response with therapy (onabotulinumtoxinA, n = 2; indomethacin, n = 1; amitriptyline, n = 1; lamotrigine, n = 1). Conclusion The spectrum of epicrania fugax may include paroxysms with extracephalic irradiation. The propagation of pain beyond the head and the face supports the involvement of central mechanisms in the pathophysiology of this entity.

Introduction Epicrania fugax (EF) is a primary headache whose main feature is the dynamic character of the pain. EF pain typically moves across different dermatomes in a linear or zigzag trajectory. Recently, a facial variant of EF has been described, with the pain starting in the lower face and radiating upwards. Aim We report eight patients with an EF-type of pain of facial location and either upward or downward radiation. Methods For each patient, we recorded relevant demographic and clinical data. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with fast imaging employing steady state acquisition (FIESTA) was obtained in all cases for the assessment of neurovascular compression of the trigeminal nerve. Results There were seven women and one man, and the mean age was 76.1 years (standard deviation, 11.3). Six patients had a paroxysmal pain starting at the lower face and moving upwards, while two patients had downward radiation. The pain always followed a fixed linear trajectory across different dermatomes. All cases had triggers, and pain intensity was consistently severe. Half of the patients had accompanying autonomic features. Neurovascular compression with imprinting over the trigeminal root on the symptomatic side was identified in three patients. All cases responded to antiepileptic drugs, and three had spontaneous remissions. Conclusions This series reinforces the facial variant of EF and extends the phenotype with cases of downward radiation. It also contributes to enriching the differential diagnosis of facial pain. Neurovascular compression of the trigeminal nerve may be found in some cases, although a possible pathogenic link needs further research.