Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) use in an Italian cohort of pediatric headache patients: the tip of the iceberg.

The use of complementary alternative medicine (CAM) in paediatric populations is considerably increased, especially for pain and chronic conditions, as demonstrated by epidemiological surveys both in Europe and in the USA. In our study, CAM was used in 76 % patients of a cohort of 124 children affected by headache (age 4-16 years; 67 % female; 70 % migraine without aura, 12 % migraine with aura, 18 % tensive headache according to IHS criteria) consecutively recruited at a Pediatric Headache University Center. CAM was used as preventive treatment in 80 % cases. The main reasons for seeking CAM were: the wish of avoiding chronic use of drugs with their related side effects, the desire of an integrated approach, the reported inefficacy of conventional medicine, and a more suitable children disposition to CAM than to pharmacological compound. Female gender, younger age, migraine without aura, parents' higher educational status, maternal use of CAM and other associated chronic conditions, correlated with CAM use (p < 0.05). 73 % patients chose CAM also to treat other diseases (i.e. allergies, colitis, asthma, insomnia, muscle-scheletric disorders and dysmenorrhoea). The most assumed CAM were: herbal remedies (64 %) such as Valeriana, Ginkgo biloba, Boswellia serrata, Vitex agnus-castus, passion flower, Linden tree; vitamins/minerals supplements (40 %) with magnesium, 5-Hydroxytryptophan, vitamin B6 or B12, Multivitamin compounds; Homeopathy (47 %) with Silicea, Ignatia Amara, Pulsatilla, Aconitum, Nux Vomica, Calcarea phosphorica; physical treatment (45 %) such as Ayurvedic massage, shiatsu, osteopathy; yoga (33 %); acupuncture (11 %). CAM-often integrated with conventional care-was auto-prescribed in 30 % of the cases, suggested by non-physician in 22 %, by the General Practitioner in 24 % and by paediatrician in 24 %. Both general practitioners and neurologists were mostly unaware of their patients' CAM use. In conclusion, neurologists should inquire for CAM use and be prepared to learn about CAM therapies or to directly interact with CAM trained experts, in order to coordinate an integrative approach to health, as especially required in paediatric headache patients and their parents. Further studies are required to investigate safety and efficacy of CAM in pediatric headache, as a possible side-medicine to conventional pharmacological approach.

Brain white matter lesions in migraine: what's the meaning?

Migraine has been associated with structural brain damage. Several studies have reported an association between migraine and brain white matter lesions or clinically silent infarct-like abnormalities in the posterior circulation territory. The origin of these lesions is still unclear. The cause is commonly interpreted as ischemic, which is consistent with the association of migraine, particularly with aura, with vascular risk factors. The relationship between increased volume of white matter hyperintensities and a history of severe headache per se is under debate. The clinical relevance of this brain damage deserves further investigations even if an association between cognitive impairment and migraine or headache of any type is not confirmed.

Excitatory deep repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation with H-coil as add-on treatment of motor symptoms in Parkinson's disease: an open label, pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) has been proposed as a potential treatment for Parkinson's disease (PD). H-coils, inducing deeper and wider magnetic fields compared to traditional coils, may be potentially useful in PD, characterized by widespread, bilateral involvement of cortico-subcortical circuits. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety of repetitive deep TMS (rDTMS) with H-coil as add-on treatment of motor symptoms in PD. METHODS: Twenty-seven PD patients (aged 60.1 ± 6.8 y; PD-duration: 6.3 ± 2.8 y; motor-UPDRS: 39.6 ± 10.1) underwent 12 rDTMS sessions over 4 weeks at excitatory (10 Hz) frequency over primary motor (M1) and bilateral prefrontal (PF) regions. Motor UPDRS off therapy was assessed before and after the last rDTMS session, together with safety records at each treatment session. RESULTS: No drop-outs or adverse events were recorded. Motor UPDRS significantly improved after rDTMS (10.8 points average reduction; P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: High-frequency rDTMS might be a safe treatment for PD motor symptoms. Further placebo-controlled, randomized studies are warranted.