Search

Background: Anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies (anti-CGRP MAbs) are approved and available treatments for migraine prevention. Patients do not respond alike and many countries have reimbursement policies, which hinder treatments to those who might respond. This study aimed to investigate clinical factors associated with good and excellent response to anti-CGRP MAbs at 6 months., Methods: European multicentre, prospective, real-world study, including high-frequency episodic or chronic migraine (CM) patients treated since March 2018 with anti-CGRP MAbs. We defined good and excellent responses as ≥50% and ≥75% reduction in monthly headache days (MHD) at 6 months, respectively. Generalised mixed-effect regression models (GLMMs) were used to identify variables independently associated with treatment response., Results: Of the 5818 included patients, 82.3% were females and the median age was 48.0 (40.0-55.0) years. At baseline, the median of MHD was 20.0 (14.0-28.0) days/months and 72.2% had a diagnosis of CM. At 6 months (n=4963), 56.5% (2804/4963) were good responders and 26.7% (1324/4963) were excellent responders. In the GLMM model, older age (1.08 (95% CI 1.02 to 1.15), p=0.016), the presence of unilateral pain (1.39 (95% CI 1.21 to 1.60), p<0.001), the absence of depression (0.840 (95% CI 0.731 to 0.966), p=0.014), less monthly migraine days (0.923 (95% CI 0.862 to 0.989), p=0.023) and lower Migraine Disability Assessment at baseline (0.874 (95% CI 0.819 to 0.932), p<0.001) were predictors of good response (AUC of 0.648 (95% CI 0.616 to 0.680)). These variables were also significant predictors of excellent response (AUC of 0.691 (95% CI 0.651 to 0.731)). Sex was not significant in the GLMM models., Conclusions: This is the largest real-world study of migraine patients treated with anti-CGRP MAbs. It provides evidence that higher migraine frequency and greater disability at baseline reduce the likelihood of responding to anti-CGRP MAbs, informing physicians and policy-makers on the need for an earlier treatment in order to offer the best chance of treatment success., Competing Interests: Competing interests: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at http://www.icmje.org/disclosure-of-interest/ and declare: EC has received honoraria from Novartis, Chiesi, Lundbeck, MedScape; his salary has been partially funded by Río Hortega grant Acción Estratégica en Salud 2017–2020, Instituto de Salud Carlos III (CM20/00217). He is a junior editor for Cephalalgia. GE received travel grants and honoraria from Eli-Lilly, Novartis, Lusofarmaco, New Penta and Ecupharma. CNC has received honoraria for advisories, educational or commercial symposia from: Abbvie-Allergan, Kern Pharma, Chiesi, Lilly, Lundbeck, Novartis and Teva Pharmaceuticals And has participated as subinvestigator in Clinical Trials for: Abbvie-Allergan, Amgen, Biohaven, Lilly, Lundbeck, Pfizer and Teva Pharmaceuticals. JAM has received honoraria as consultant and/or speaker for Lilly, Novartis, Teva. FS-C received honoraria from Novartis, Lilly, TEVA, Abbvie. AM has received honoraria from Teva, Lilly, Roche, UCB, Bial, Chiesi, Allergan, Esai, Zambon, Kern Pharma, Pfizer, Biogen Idec, Novartis, TEVA, Merck, Janssen, Neuraxpharm, Genzyme, Sanofi, Bayer, Almirall and/or Celgene. JS received honoraria from Allergan, Lilly, Teva, Novartis. IBB received honoraria for presentations from Novartis, Lilly, Teva, Lundbeck and Abbvie. MW-P received honoraria from Pfizer, Allergan-Abbvie, TEVA, Polpharma. MW-P is member of Editorial Board: The Journal of Headache and Pain. LP received honoraria from Pfizer, Lilly, Abbvie, TEVA, Novartis. AL-R received honoraria for Abbvie, Lilly, Novartis and Teva. IL received honoraria from Novartis, Abbvie, Teva, Eisai, Tecnifar and Bial. LD received honoraria as a speaker for Allergan, Lilly, Teva and Lundbeck. MRA-E, received honoraria from ABBVIE, Lilly, and Novartis. AM has no COI to declare. The University Clinic Hamburg got an unrestricted scientific grant from Novartis (2019-2023). IPM has received honoraria from Allergan Teva, Novartis, Lundbeck and Eli Lilly for lecturing or participating in advisory boards; is principal investigator for phase IV trials sponsored by Novartis, Lundbeck and Teva. CS has received personal fees for lectures/ advisory boards: Novartis, Abbvie and TEVA. PI received honoraria from TEVA, Novartis, Lilly, Abbvie, Lundbeck, Exeltis. ALR received honoraria from TEVA. ABG-V has received speaker honoraria and/or clinical advisor from Novartis, Lilly, TEVA, Exeltis, Chiesi, Abbvie, Pfizer and Lundbeck. RR has received travel grants and/or honoraria for lectures or advisory boards from Allergan/AbbVie, Hormosan, Lilly, Lundbeck, Novartis, Pfizer and Teva. SS reports consultant, speaker or advisory board fees from Abbott, Allergan/Abbvie, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Medscape, Medtronic, Novartis, Pfizer, Starmed, Teva and Uriach. EC-G received honoraria from TEVA. DGA has received personal compensation for consulting/advising from the WHO. Non-profit board membership in the Spanish Society of Neurology, and the European Union of Medical Specialist section of Neurology. Research funding from the Regional Health Administration (Gerencia Regional de Salud SACYL) in Castilla y Leon, Spain and Carlos III institute, Madrid, Spain. Speaker/travel grants/ clinical trials from Teva, Allergan, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Lundbeck, Novartis and Biohaven. JP has received honoraria from Abbvie, Lilly, Lundbeck, Novartis and Teva. RG-G received honoraria from Allergan/ Abbvie, Lilly, Lundbeck, Novartis, Pfizer, Tecnifar, Teva. MH-V has received honoraria for participating on advisory boards and for collaborations as consultant, scientific communications, speaker, research support as well as funding for travel and congress-attending expenses for Abbie-Allergan, Novartis, Lundbeck, Lilly, Almirall, Chiesi, Esai, Exeltis, Kern Pharma, Menarini, TEVA and Zambon. His research group has received research grants from Abbie-Allergan and has received funding for clinical trials from Lilly, Novartis, TEVA. JVR received honoraria from Novartis, Abbvie, Lilly, TEVA, Lundbeck. SS-L received honoraria from Allergan, Almirall, Amgen, Chiesi, Eisai, Exeltis, Lilly, Lündbeck, Novartis, Pfizer y Teva. MG-S has received honoraria and been involved in research, education and advisory boards with Teva, Lily, Novartis and Abbvie. CT received personal fees for participating in advisory or for speaking at scientific events from AbbVie, Allergan, Biohaven, Dompé, Eli Lilly, Lundbeck, Novartis and Teva. CT has received research funding from the European Commission, the Italian Ministry of Health and Migraine Research Foundation. JDdT has received honoraria as consultant and/or speaker for Lilly, Novartis, Teva. SDI has received honoraria for advisories, educational or commercial symposia from: Abbvie-Allergan, Fundació Universitat-Empresa, Ipsen Pharma, Kern Pharma, Lilly, Lundbeck, MSD-Organon, Novartis and Teva Pharmaceuticals And has participated as PI in Clinical Trials for: Abbvie-Allergan, Alder, Amgen, Biohaven, Ipsen Pharma, Lilly, Lundbeck, Pfizer and Teva Pharmaceuticals. CGO participated in clinical trials from Novartis, St Jude Medical, Lilly, Lundbeck; TEVA, Biohaven, Pfizer. CGO received honoraria as consultant for Novartis, Lilly, Allergan-abbvie, Lundbeck, TEVA, Pfizer. CGO received honoraria as speaker for Allergan-Abbvie, TEVA, Novartis,Lilly, Chiesi, MSD, Almirall. PB reports personal compensation for consulting, serving on a scientific advisory board, speaking, research support, collaborated for clinical trials or other activities with Abbvie, Alder, Allergan, Amgen, Angelini, Assosalute, Bayer, Biohaven, ElectroCore, Eli-Lilly, Fondazione Ricerca e Salute, GSK, Lundbeck, Lusofarmaco, 1MED, MSD, New Penta, Noema Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Stx-Med, Teva, Visufarma, Zambon and serves as President with Italian Association of Headache Sufferers. PP-R has received, in the last 3 years, honoraria as a consultant and speaker for: AbbVie, Biohaven, Chiesi, Eli Lilly, Lundbeck, Medscape, Novartis, Pfizer and Teva. Her research group has received research grants from AbbVie, Novartis and Teva; as well as, Instituto Salud Carlos III, EraNet Neuron, European Regional Development Fund (001-P-001682) under the framework of the FEDER Operative Programme for Catalunya 2014-2020 - RIS3CAT; has received funding for clinical trials from AbbVie, Amgen, Biohaven, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Teva. She is the Honorary Secretary of the International Headache Society. She is in the editorial board of Revista de Neurologia. She is an associate editor for Cephalalgia, Headache, Neurologia, The Journal of Headache and Pain and Frontiers of Neurology. She is a member of the Clinical Trials Guidelines Committee of the International Headache Society. She has edited the Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Headache of the Spanish Neurological Society. She is the founder of www.midolordecabeza.org. PP-R does not own stocks from any pharmaceutical company. VJG, MMV, GV, JR-M, NFF, AJS, RO, GG, YG-O, GC, AL-B, FVJ, JR-V and VO reports no disclosures. RO reports personal fees from Eli Lilly, Novartis, Teva, and Pfizer, and non-financial support from Novartis, Teva, and Allergan/AbbVie. CT has received honoraria for lectures from TEVA, Lundbeck and for advisory boards from TEVA. He has received travel support from TEVA and Lundbeck. SS received honoraria from TEVA. AH declares no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. HB received honoraria from Novartis, Teva and Lundbeck. NPRP received honoraria from ABBVIE, Lilly and Novartis. CF received honoraria from Novartis and Abbvie. AAL received honoraria for Abbvie, Lilly, Novartis and Teva. EMS received a grant from the Portuguese Headache Society, supported by Teva. MTF has received honoraria from Allergan-AbbVie, Novartis, Chiesi and Teva. AA has received honoraria from Allergan-AbbVie, Novartis, Chiesi. PT received grants and honoria from Novartis, Teva, Eli-Lilly and Allergan. CA received travel grants from FB-Health, Lusofarmaco, Almirall, Eli-Lilly Novartis and Teva. RDI received speaker honoraria from Eli-Lilly, TEVA and Lundbeck. GS received personal fees as speaker or advisory board from Eli Lilly, Novartis, Teva, Lundbeck, Pfizer. SB has received honoraria from Teva. SC has received honoraria from Teva, Lilly, Roche, UCB, Bial, Chiesi, Allergan, Esai, Zambon, Kern Pharma, Pfizer, Biogen Idec, Novartis, TEVA, Merck, Janssen, Neuraxpharm, Genzyme, Sanofi, Bayer, Almirall and/or Celgene. EP reports personal fees from Novartis, Teva and Lilly. ALGP Research funding from the Regional Health Administration (Gerencia Regional de Salud SACYL) in Castilla y Leon, Spain. Speaker/travel grants/ clinical trials from Teva, Allergan, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Lundbeck, Novartis, Pfizer and Biohaven. AS has received honoraria for advisory boards and lectures from Allergan/AbbVie, Hormosan, Lilly, Lundbeck, Novartis, Sanofi, Teva. AGM has received speaker honoraria from TEVA. SQ has received speaker honoraria from Novartis, Lilly and Exeltis. MSR has received consulting fees and honoraria for lectures/presentations from Eli Lily, Lundbeck, Novartis, Teva and Pfizer. Intellectual as Secretary of the European Headache Federation, Review Editor on the Editorial Board of Headache and Neurogenic Pain (specialty section of Frontiers in Neurology). Margarita Sanchez-del-Rio serves as a member of the Board of Directors in the European Headache Federation. ET has received personal fees for lectures/ advisory boards: Novartis, Eli Lilly, Abbvie, TEVA, Roche, Lundbeck, Pfizer, Biogen. Consultant for and owner of stocks and IP in Man & Science. Stocks and IP in Nordic Brain Tech and Keimon Medical. Non-personal research grants from EU, Norwegian Research Council, Dam foundation, KlinBeForsk. Commissioned research (non-personal): Lundbeck, Pfizer. BVP received honoraria from ABBVIE. AOD received honoraria from ABBVIE, Lilly, Teva, Novartis. MR received honoraria from Lilly, Novartis. BC received grants and honoria from Eli-Lilly, Novartis, Teva; SC received travel grants, honoraria for advisory boards, speaker panels or clinical investigation studies from Novartis, Teva, Lilly, Allergan, Abvie, Ibsa, Amgen, Angelini and Lundbeck; FF has received fees for participation on advisory boards, speaker honoraria or consulting activities from Angelini, Cristalfarma, Ecupharma, IBSA, Lundbeck, Novartis, PIAM, Teva; FdO received travel grant, honoraria as a speaker or for partecipating in advisory boards from Novartis, Teva, Neopharmed Gentili, Qbgroup srl, K link srl and Eli-Lilly; MA received grants from Novartis and Lilly; RR received honoraria for speaker panels from Teva, Lilly, Novartis, Allergan, Lundbeck; MZ received travel grants and honoraria from Novartis; MA received travel grants and honoraria from Novartis, Teva, Eli-Lilly and Lundbeck; CF received grants and honoraria from Novartis, Eli Lilly, TEVA, AIM group; AR received travel grants and honoraria from Teva and Eli-Lilly; SZ, RLP, MJRC, VGQ, HCO, SA, IKZ, DGA, IFL, BFP, SB, PRA, AC, AEU, AGG, IM, JPS, VC, AFR, YVE, MT, AS, AC, FZ and MA has no disclosures to declare., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background and Purpose: Influenza is a common cause of acute respiratory infection, with headache being one of the symptoms included in the European Commission case definition. The prevalence of headache as a symptom of influenza remains unknown. We aimed to describe the incidence and prevalence of headache in patients with influenza., Methods: All consecutive patients who met the definition criteria of influenza-like illness during the influenza seasons 2010-2011 through 2021-2022 were included. The seasonal cumulative incidence of influenza per 1000 patients at risk and the prevalence of headache as an influenza symptom were calculated, including the 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Subgroup analyses were done based on patients' sex, age group, microbiological confirmation, vaccination status, and influenza type/subtype/lineage., Results: During the study period, 8171 patients were eligible. The incidence of headache in the context of influenza varied between 0.24 cases per 1000 patients (season 2020-2021) and 21.69 cases per 1000 patients (season 2017-2018). The prevalence of headache was 66.1% (95% CI = 65.1%-67.1%), varying between 49.6% (season 2021-2022) and 80.1% (season 2010-2011). The prevalence of headache was higher in women (67.9% vs. 65.7%, p = 0.03) and higher in patients between 15 and 65 years old. Headache was more prevalent in patients infected with B subtypes than A subtypes (68.7% vs. 56.9%, p < 0.001). There were no notable differences regarding vaccination status or microbiological confirmation of the infection., Conclusions: Headache is a common symptom in patients with influenza, with a prevalence higher than that observed in other viral infections., (© 2024 The Authors. European Journal of Neurology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Academy of Neurology.)

To describe the need and effectiveness of acute and preventive medications in a series of 100 consecutive patients referred due to COVID-19-related headaches. Patients were aged 48.0 (standard deviation (SD): 12.4), 84% were female, and 56% had a prior history of headache. The most common headache phenotype was holocranial (63%), frontal (48%), pressing (75%), of moderate intensity (7 out of 10), and accompanied by photophobia (58%). Acute medication was required by 93%, with paracetamol (46%) being the most frequently used drug, followed by ibuprofen (44%). The drugs with the highest proportion of a 2 h pain-freedom response were dexketoprofen (58.8%), triptans (57.7%), and ibuprofen (54.3%). Preventive treatment was required by 75% of patients. The most frequently used drugs were amitriptyline (66%), anesthetic blockades (18%), and onabotulinumtoxinA (11%). The drugs with the highest 50% responder rate were amitriptyline (45.5%), mirtazapine (50%), and anesthetic blockades (38.9%). The highest 75% responder rate was experienced following onabotulinumtoxinA (18.2%). In conclusion, most patients required acute medication, with triptans and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs achieving the best responses. Three-quarters of patients required preventive medication. The most frequently used drug was amitriptyline, which obtained the best results. In some treatment-resistant patients, anesthetic blockades and onabotulinumtoxinA were also beneficial.

Introduction: Effectiveness of candesartan in migraine prevention is supported by two randomized controlled trials. We aimed to assess the effectiveness, tolerability, and response predictors of candesartan in the preventive treatment of migraine., Methods: Observational, multicenter, prospective cohort study. The 50%, 75% and 30% responder rates, between weeks 8-12 and 20-24, were compared with the baseline. Treatment emergent adverse effects were systematically evaluated. Response predictors were estimated by multivariate regression models., Results: Eighty-six patients were included, 79.1% females, aged 39.5 (inter-quartile range [IQR] 26.3-50.3), with chronic migraine (43.0%), medication overuse headache (55.8%) and a median of two (inter-quartile range: 0.75-3) prior preventive treatments. At baseline patients had 14 (10-24) headache and 8 (5-11) migraine days per month. The 30%, 50% and 75% responder rates were 40%, 34.9% and 15.1% between weeks 8-12, and 48.8%, 36%, and 18.6% between weeks 20-24. Adverse effects were reported by 30 (34.9%) and 13 (15.1%) patients between weeks 0-12 and 12-24, leading to discontinuation in 15 (17.4%) patients. Chronic migraine, depression, headache days per month, medication overuse headache, and daily headache at baseline predicted the response between weeks 20-24., Conclusion: Candesartan effectiveness and tolerability in migraine prevention was in line with the clinical trials' efficacy. Trial registration: The study protocol is registered in ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04138316)., Competing Interests: Declaration of conflicting interestsThe authors declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: DGA received honoraria for lectures/presentations from Abbvie/Allergan, Eli Lilly, Teva, Lundbeck, and Novartis. DGA Participated in clinical trials as the principal investigator for Pfizer, BioHaven and Lundbeck. DGA is junior editor of The Journal of Headache and Pain and Neurological Sciences. DGA received honoraria from the World Health Organization as subject matter expert.ABGV received honoraria for lectures/presentations from Novartis, Lilly, Teva, Exeltis, Chiesi, Abbvie, Pfizer and Lundbeck.ÁLGP received honoraria for lectures/presentations from Abbvie/Allergan, Eli Lilly, Teva, Lundbeck, and Novartis. ALGP Participated in clinical trials as the principal investigator for Eli Lilly, Teva, Abbvie, Novartis, Amgen and Lundeck.The rest of the authors report no conflicts of interest.

Headache is a common symptom of influenza infection; however, its causes and consequences remain uncertain. In this manuscript, we analyzed which demographic and clinical factors were associated with the presence of headache during the course of influenza infection and whether patients with headache had a different prognosis, evaluated by need of hospitalization, sick leave or school absenteeism. The influence study (NCT05704335) was an observational study that analyzed data routinely collected from the Health Sentinel Network between 2010 and 2020. During the study period, 7832 cases were considered, among which, 5275 (67.4%) reported headache. The presence of headache was independently associated with myalgia (2.753; 95%CI: 2.456-3.087, P < 0.001), asthenia (OR: 1.958; 95%CI: 1.732-2.214, P < 0.001), shivering (OR: 1.925; 95%CI: 1.718-2.156, P < 0.001), nasopharyngeal erythema (OR: 1.505; 95%CI: 1.293-1.753, P < 0.001), fever (OR: 1.469; 95%CI: 1.159-1.861; P = 0.001), sudden onset of symptoms (OR: 1.380; 95%CI: 1.120-1.702, p = 0.004), female sex (OR: 1.134; 95%CI: 1.023-1.257, P = 0.018), and gastrointestinal symptoms (OR: 1.169; 95%CI: 1.039-1.315; P = 0.01). Patients with headache had a sex and age adjusted lower odds of being referred to the hospital (OR: 0.463; 95%CI: 0.264-0.812, P = 0.007) and a higher odd of having a sick leave and/or school absenteeism (absenteeism (OR: 1.342; 95%CI: 1.190-1.514, P < 0.001). In conclusion, the presence of headache seems associated with symptoms caused by the innate immune response. These findings support a headache pathophysiology linked with the innate immune response. Due to the potential negative consequences and its treatable nature, clinicians should systematically evaluate it and, whenever necessary, treat it too., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Galcanezumab has shown efficacy and effectiveness in the treatment of episodic and chronic migraine (CM), however, the population represented in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) differs from the population observed in real-world setting. To describe the long-term effectiveness and tolerability of galcanezumab in clinical practice in patients excluded from RCTs., Methods: Multicenter prospective cohort study of consecutive patients with chronic and high-frequency episodic migraine (HFEM) with prior failure to three or more migraine preventive drugs, treated with galcanezumab and followed up for 12 months., Results: We enrolled 1055 patients, aged 50 (IQR: 42-58), 82.9% female, 76.4% chronic migraine, 69% with at least one exclusion criteria for RCTs, including age > 65 (n = 121), concomitant use of onabotulinumtoxinA (n = 185), daily headache at baseline (n = 347), chronic painful syndromes (n = 206), fibromyalgia (n = 101) or treatment resistance (n = 957). The median number of prior preventive treatments was 4 (IQR: 3-5). The retention rate was 90.8%, 76.8% and 71.4% at 3, 6 and 12 months. The main reasons for treatment discontinuation were lack of effectiveness (21.1%) and inadequate tolerability (6.6%). The 30%, 50% and 75% responder rates were 62.6%, 49.8% and 24.2% between weeks 8-12; 60.9%, 48.8% and 24.6% between weeks 20-24; and 59.7%, 48.3% and 24.6% between weeks 44-48. Daily headache at baseline (OR: 0.619; 95%CI: 0.469-0.817) and patient's age (OR: 1.016; 95%CI: 1.005-1.026) were associated with 50% response at weeks 20-24. The variables that were associated with a higher reduction of headache days between weeks 20-24 were patient's age (0.068; 95% CI: 0.018-0.119) and headache days per month at baseline (0.451; 95% CI: 0.319-0.583), while psychiatric comorbidity (-1.587; 95% CI: -2.626-0.538) and daily headache at baseline (-2.718; 95% CI: -4.58-0.869) were associated with fewer reduction in the number of headache days between weeks 20-24., Conclusion: This study provides class III evidence of effectiveness and tolerability of galcanezumab in patients with HFEM and CM with comorbidities that would result in exclusion of the pivotal RCTs. Nonetheless, the clinical results over a 12-month period were similar to the efficacy observed in randomized controlled trials. Few patients discontinued the drug due to inadequate tolerability., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Introduction: Headache is a frequent symptom at the acute phase of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and also one of the most frequent adverse effects following vaccination. In both cases, headache pathophysiology seems linked to the host immune response and could have similarities. We aimed to compare the clinical phenotype and the frequency and associated onset symptoms in patients with COVID-19 related-headache and COVID-19 vaccine related-headache., Subjects and Methods: A case-control study was conducted. Patients with confirmed COVID-19 infection and COVID-19-vaccine recipients who experienced new-onset headache were included. A standardised questionnaire was administered, including demographic variables, prior history of headaches, associated symptoms and headache-related variables. Both groups were matched for age, sex, and prior history of headache. A multivariate regression analysis was performed., Results: A total of 238 patients fulfilled eligibility criteria (143 patients with COVID-19 related-headache and 95 subjects experiencing COVID-19 vaccine related-headache). Patients with COVID-19 related-headache exhibited a higher frequency of arthralgia, diarrhoea, dyspnoea, chest pain, expectoration, anosmia, myalgia, odynophagia, rhinorrhoea, cough, and dysgeusia. Further, patients with COVID-19 related-headache had a more prolonged daily duration of headache and described the headache as the worst headache ever experienced. Patients with COVID-19 vaccine-related headache, experienced more frequently pain in the parietal region, phonophobia, and worsening of the headache by head movements or eye movements., Conclusion: Headache caused by SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 vaccination related-headache have more similarities than differences, supporting a shared pathophysiology, and the activation of the innate immune response. The main differences were related to associated symptoms.

Introduction: Headache is a frequent symptom of infections. We aimed to characterize the clinical phenotype and duration of headache attributed to influenza infection., Methods: Prospective cohort study done in 53 primary care centers between January and April 2023. Patients were included if they had a confirmed influenza diagnosis, were older than 15 years and had a new-onset headache. Patients' demographics, prior medical history, headache phenotype and duration, associated symptoms and patients' outcomes were assessed. The International Classification of Headache Disorders criteria for headache attributed to a systemic viral infection, migraine and tension-type headache were assessed., Results: Of the 478 patients 75 fulfilled eligibility criteria. The mean age was 43, 56% were men, and 27% had a prior headache history. The headache phenotype was a bilateral headache (52%), with frontal topography (48%), pressing quality (61%), moderate intensity, rhinorrhea (79%), nasal congestion (76%), and photophobia (59%). All patients fulfilled headache attributed to acute systemic viral infection criteria, 43% fulfilled migraine criteria and 31% tension-type headache criteria. The median duration of the headache was four (Inter-quartile range: two-six) days., Conclusion: The clinical phenotype of headache attributed to influenza infection was similar to other infections, with more pronounced cranial autonomic symptoms. The headache was an early symptom and was self-limited within a few days. Trial Registration: The study protocol is registered in ClinicalTrial.gov (NCT05704335)., Competing Interests: Declaration of conflicting interestsThe authors declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: DGA received honoraria for lectures/presentations from Abbvie/Allergan, Eli Lilly, Teva, Lundbeck, and Novartis. DGA Participated in clinical trials as the principal investigator for Pfizer, BioHaven and Lundbeck. DGA is junior editor of The Journal of Headache and Pain and Neurological Sciences. DGA received honoraria from the World Health Organization as subject matter expert.ÁLGP received honoraria for lectures/presentations from Abbvie/Allergan, Eli Lilly, Teva, Lundbeck, and Novartis. ALGP Participated in clinical trials as the principal investigator for Eli Lilly, Teva, Abbvie, Novartis, Amgen and Lundeck.All other authors report no conflicts of interest.

Background: Since the first description of nummular headache (NH), more than 500 cases have been described, delineating its clinical phenotype and response to treatment. However, data on the natural history of NH and outcomes during long-term follow-up are not currently available. The present study aimed to describe the long-term outcomes and follow-up of a large series of patients with NH., Methods: A descriptive observational ambisective study with a series of cases was conducted. The study population included adult patients with primary NH and a minimum of 12 months of follow-up. Demographic variables, previous medical history, clinical phenotype, diagnosis and treatment of NH, temporal pattern, and long-term evolution were analysed., Results: In total, 168 patients were enrolled and followed for a median [interquartile range (IQR)] of 80.5 (55-118.5) months. The temporal pattern after NH onset was chronic in 67.9% and, at diagnosis, the median (IQR) number of pain days per month was 20 [10-30] days with 138 (82.1%) patients with ≥8 days of pain per month. Preventive treatment was needed by 112 (66.7%) patients. The most frequently used drugs were gabapentin (69/112; 61.6%), onabotulinumtoxinA (38/112; 33.9%), amitriptyline (31/112; 27.7%) and lamotrigine (21/112; 18.7%). Response to preventive treatment was at least partial in 91/112 (81.3%) patients. At the end of follow-up, 81 (48.2%) patients had inactive NH. Of patients with active NH, the median (IQR) number of headache days per month was 3 (1-12) days and patients had ≥8 days of pain in 35 (20.8%) cases., Conclusions: Long-term outcomes of NH were positive in most patients. After a median of 6.7 years of follow-up, 48% of cases were inactive. Two-thirds of patients required preventive treatment, and 80% of them were treatment-responsive. In NH cases that remained symptomatic, the headache frequency was lower, and the proportion of patients with chronic NH decreased from 68% to 11%.

Nummular headache (NH) is a primary headache characterized by superficial coin-shaped pain. NUMITOR (NCT05475769) is an observational study evaluating the responder rate of preventive drugs in NH patients. The treatment response was assessed between weeks 8 and 12 compared with the baseline. Patients were included between February 2002 and October 2022. Demographic and clinical variables were assessed; treatment response was estimated by 50%, 30%, and 75% responder rates and treatment discontinuation due to inadequate tolerability. A total of 183 out of 282 patients fulfilled eligibility criteria and completed the study. Patients were aged 49.5 (standard deviation (SD): 16.8) years, and 60.7% were female. NH phenotype was a parietal circular pain of four centimeters' diameter, moderate intensity, and oppressive quality. At baseline, patients had 25 (interquartile range) pain days per month. Preventive treatment was used by 114 (62.3%) patients. The highest 50% and 75% responder rates corresponded to onabotulinumtoxinA (62.5%, 47.5%), followed by gabapentin (43.7%, 35.2%). Oral preventive drugs were not tolerated by 12.9-25%. The present study provides class IV evidence of the effectiveness of oral preventive drugs and onabotulinumtoxinA in the treatment of primary NH. OnabotulinumtoxinA was the most effective and best-tolerated drug, positioning it as first-line treatment of NH.