Multidisciplinary consensus guideline for the diagnosis and management of spontaneous intracranial hypotension.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to create a multidisciplinary consensus clinical guideline for best practice in the diagnosis, investigation and management of spontaneous intracranial hypotension (SIH) due to cerebrospinal fluid leak based on current evidence and consensus from a multidisciplinary specialist interest group (SIG). METHODS: A 29-member SIG was established, with members from neurology, neuroradiology, anaesthetics, neurosurgery and patient representatives. The scope and purpose of the guideline were agreed by the SIG by consensus. The SIG then developed guideline statements for a series of question topics using a modified Delphi process. This process was supported by a systematic literature review, surveys of patients and healthcare professionals and review by several international experts on SIH. RESULTS: SIH and its differential diagnoses should be considered in any patient presenting with orthostatic headache. First-line imaging should be MRI of the brain with contrast and the whole spine. First-line treatment is non-targeted epidural blood patch (EBP), which should be performed as early as possible. We provide criteria for performing myelography depending on the spine MRI result and response to EBP, and we outline principles of treatments. Recommendations for conservative management, symptomatic treatment of headache and management of complications of SIH are also provided. CONCLUSIONS: This multidisciplinary consensus clinical guideline has the potential to increase awareness of SIH among healthcare professionals, produce greater consistency in care, improve diagnostic accuracy, promote effective investigations and treatments and reduce disability attributable to SIH.

Real-world effectiveness of fremanezumab for the preventive treatment of migraine: Interim analysis of the pan-European, prospective, observational, phase 4 PEARL study.

BACKGROUND: The ongoing Pan-European Real Life (PEARL) phase 4 study is evaluating fremanezumab effectiveness and safety for the prevention of episodic and chronic migraine. This interim analysis reports primary, secondary and exploratory endpoints from when 500 participants completed at least six months of treatment. METHODS: Adults with episodic migraine or chronic migraine maintaining daily headache diaries were enrolled upon initiation of fremanezumab. Primary endpoint: proportion of participants with ≥50% reduction in monthly migraine days during the six-month period after fremanezumab initiation. Secondary endpoints: mean change from baseline across months 1-12 in monthly migraine days, acute migraine medication use, and headache-related disability. Exploratory endpoint: mean change in headache severity from baseline across months 1-12. Safety was assessed through adverse events reported. RESULTS: Overall, 897 participants were enrolled and 574 included in the effectiveness analyses (episodic migraine, 25.8%; chronic migraine, 74.2%). Of participants with data available, 175/313 (55.9%) achieved ≥50% monthly migraine days reduction during the six-month period post-initiation. Across months 1-12, there were sustained reductions in mean monthly migraine days, acute medication use, disability scores, and headache severity. Few adverse events were reported. CONCLUSION: PEARL interim results support the effectiveness and safety of fremanezumab for migraine prevention in a real-world population across several European countries.Trial registration: encepp.eu: EUPAS35111.

Long-term outcomes after stenting versus endarterectomy for treatment of symptomatic carotid stenosis: the International Carotid Stenting Study (ICSS) randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Stenting is an alternative to endarterectomy for treatment of carotid artery stenosis, but long-term efficacy is uncertain. We report long-term data from the randomised International Carotid Stenting Study comparison of these treatments. METHODS: Patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis were randomly assigned 1:1 to open treatment with stenting or endarterectomy at 50 centres worldwide. Randomisation was computer generated centrally and allocated by telephone call or fax. Major outcomes were assessed by an independent endpoint committee unaware of treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was fatal or disabling stroke in any territory after randomisation to the end of follow-up. Analysis was by intention to treat ([ITT] all patients) and per protocol from 31 days after treatment (all patients in whom assigned treatment was completed). Functional ability was rated with the modified Rankin scale. This study is registered, number ISRCTN25337470. FINDINGS: 1713 patients were assigned to stenting (n=855) or endarterectomy (n=858) and followed up for a median of 4·2 years (IQR 3·0-5·2, maximum 10·0). Three patients withdrew immediately and, therefore, the ITT population comprised 1710 patients. The number of fatal or disabling strokes (52 vs 49) and cumulative 5-year risk did not differ significantly between the stenting and endarterectomy groups (6·4% vs 6·5%; hazard ratio [HR] 1·06, 95% CI 0·72-1·57, p=0·77). Any stroke was more frequent in the stenting group than in the endarterectomy group (119 vs 72 events; ITT population, 5-year cumulative risk 15·2% vs 9·4%, HR 1·71, 95% CI 1·28-2·30, p<0·001; per-protocol population, 5-year cumulative risk 8·9% vs 5·8%, 1·53, 1·02-2·31, p=0·04), but were mainly non-disabling strokes. The distribution of modified Rankin scale scores at 1 year, 5 years, or final follow-up did not differ significantly between treatment groups. INTERPRETATION: Long-term functional outcome and risk of fatal or disabling stroke are similar for stenting and endarterectomy for symptomatic carotid stenosis. FUNDING: Medical Research Council, Stroke Association, Sanofi-Synthélabo, European Union.

Carotid artery stenting compared with endarterectomy in patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis (International Carotid Stenting Study): an interim analysis of a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Stents are an alternative treatment to carotid endarterectomy for symptomatic carotid stenosis, but previous trials have not established equivalent safety and efficacy. We compared the safety of carotid artery stenting with that of carotid endarterectomy. METHODS: The International Carotid Stenting Study (ICSS) is a multicentre, international, randomised controlled trial with blinded adjudication of outcomes. Patients with recently symptomatic carotid artery stenosis were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive carotid artery stenting or carotid endarterectomy. Randomisation was by telephone call or fax to a central computerised service and was stratified by centre with minimisation for sex, age, contralateral occlusion, and side of the randomised artery. Patients and investigators were not masked to treatment assignment. Patients were followed up by independent clinicians not directly involved in delivering the randomised treatment. The primary outcome measure of the trial is the 3-year rate of fatal or disabling stroke in any territory, which has not been analysed yet. The main outcome measure for the interim safety analysis was the 120-day rate of stroke, death, or procedural myocardial infarction. Analysis was by intention to treat (ITT). This study is registered, number ISRCTN25337470. FINDINGS: The trial enrolled 1713 patients (stenting group, n=855; endarterectomy group, n=858). Two patients in the stenting group and one in the endarterectomy group withdrew immediately after randomisation, and were not included in the ITT analysis. Between randomisation and 120 days, there were 34 (Kaplan-Meier estimate 4.0%) events of disabling stroke or death in the stenting group compared with 27 (3.2%) events in the endarterectomy group (hazard ratio [HR] 1.28, 95% CI 0.77-2.11). The incidence of stroke, death, or procedural myocardial infarction was 8.5% in the stenting group compared with 5.2% in the endarterectomy group (72 vs 44 events; HR 1.69, 1.16-2.45, p=0.006). Risks of any stroke (65 vs 35 events; HR 1.92, 1.27-2.89) and all-cause death (19 vs seven events; HR 2.76, 1.16-6.56) were higher in the stenting group than in the endarterectomy group. Three procedural myocardial infarctions were recorded in the stenting group, all of which were fatal, compared with four, all non-fatal, in the endarterectomy group. There was one event of cranial nerve palsy in the stenting group compared with 45 in the endarterectomy group. There were also fewer haematomas of any severity in the stenting group than in the endarterectomy group (31 vs 50 events; p=0.0197). INTERPRETATION: Completion of long-term follow-up is needed to establish the efficacy of carotid artery stenting compared with endarterectomy. In the meantime, carotid endarterectomy should remain the treatment of choice for patients suitable for surgery. FUNDING: Medical Research Council, the Stroke Association, Sanofi-Synthélabo, European Union.

Treatment of spontaneous intracranial hypotension: experiences in a UK regional neurosciences Centre.

A robust treatment paradigm for spontaneous intracranial hypotension has yet to be agreed upon. We present retrospective data from the patient cohort at our UK regional neurosciences centre from 2010-2020 and describe our locally developed treatment pathway.Seventy-three patients were identified: 31 men and 42 women; mean age was 42 years. The majority presented with a headache of variable duration, and most had positive imaging. Very few patients (7%) responded to conservative treatment. Sixty-six underwent epidural blood patching, with 39 (59%) having a good response. Twenty-three patients underwent myelography and targeted treatment (injection of fibrin sealant at the leak site), with 13 (57%) showing a good response. One patient had successful surgery. The relapse rate after response to epidural blood patching was 10%, and after response to targeted treatment was 23%. Most patients who relapsed responded to repeated treatments.The outcome data for our diverse patient cohort shows the success of a staged approach to treatment. Relapse rates are low, and surgery is only rarely required. We use these data to inform our discussions with patients, and present them here to enable other centres to develop robust investigation and treatment paradigms of their own.