Redefining migraine prevention: early treatment with anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies enhances response in the real world.

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.

Post-COVID-19 persistent headache: A multicentric 9-months follow-up study of 905 patients.

BACKGROUND: Headache is a frequent symptoms of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Its long-term evolution remains unknown. We aim to evaluate the long-term duration of headache in patients that presented headache during the acute phase of COVID-19. METHODS: This is a post-hoc multicenter ambisective study including patients from six different third-level hospitals between 1 March and 27 April 2020. Patients completed 9 months of neurological follow-up. RESULTS: We included 905 patients. Their median age was 51 (IQR 45-65), 66.5% were female, and 52.7% had a prior history of primary headache. The median duration of headache was 14 (6-39) days; however, the headache persisted after 3 months in 19.0% (95% CI: 16.5-21.8%) and after 9 months in 16.0% (95% confidence interval: 13.7-18.7%). Headache intensity during the acute phase was associated with a more prolonged duration of headache (Hazard ratio 0.655; 95% confidence interval: 0.582-0.737). CONCLUSION: The median duration of headache was 2 weeks, but in approximately a fifth of patients it became persistent and followed a chronic daily pattern.

Proposal of a clinical care pathway for quality and safe management of headache patients: a consensus study report.

BACKGROUND: Headache is one of the most prevalent and disabling conditions. Its optimal management requires a coordinated and comprehensive response by health systems, but there is still a wide variability that compromises the quality and safety of the care process. PURPOSE: To establish the basis for designing a care pathway for headache patients through identifying key subpathways in the care process and setting out quality and clinical safety standards that contribute to providing comprehensive, adequate and safe healthcare. METHOD: A qualitative research study based on the consensus conference technique. Eleven professionals from the Spanish National Health System participated, seven of them with clinical experience in headache and four specialists in healthcare management and quality. First, identification of the key subpathways in the care process for headache, barriers/limitations for optimal quality of care, and quality and safety standards applied in each subpathway. Second, two consecutive consensus rounds were carried out to assess the content of the subpathway level descriptors, until the expert agreement was reached. Third, findings were assessed by 17 external healthcare professionals to determine their understanding, adequacy and usefulness. RESULTS: Seven key subpathways were identified: (1) primary care, (2) emergency department, (3) neurology department, (4) specialised headache unit, (5) hospitalisation, (6) outpatients and (7) governance and management. Sixty-seventh barriers were identified, the most frequent being related to diagnostic errors (36,1%), resource deficiency (25%), treatment errors (19,4%), lack of health literacy (13,9%) and inadequate communications with care transitions (5,6%). Fifty-nine quality and 31 safety standards were defined. They were related to evaluation (23.3%), patient safety (21.1%), comprehensive care (12.2%), treatment (12.2%), clinical practice guidelines (7.8%), counselling (6.7%), training (4.4%) and patient satisfaction (3.3%). CONCLUSIONS: This proposal incorporates a set of indicators and standards, which can be used to define a pathway for headache patients and determine the levels of quality.

Influence of the COVID-19 outbreak in people with epilepsy: Analysis of a Spanish population (EPICOVID registry).

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to have a better understanding of the influence of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in people with epilepsy (PWE) and to assess whether there have been changes in seizure control during the current COVID-19 outbreak, exploring the possible causes thereof. METHODS: This is an observational, retrospective study based on prospective data collection of 100 successive patients who attended an epilepsy outpatient clinic either face-to-face or telephonically during the months of the COVID-19 outbreak and national state of emergency. RESULTS: One hundred patients were included, 52% women, mean age 42.4 years. During the COVID-19 period, 27% of the patients presented an increase of >50% of seizure frequency. An increase of stress/anxiety (odds ratios (OR): 5.78; p = 0.008) and a prior higher seizure frequency (OR: 12.4; p = 0.001) were associated with worsening of seizures. Other risk factors were exacerbation of depression, sleep deprivation, less physical activity, and history of epilepsy surgery. Three patients had status epilepticus (SE) and one a cluster of seizures. Likewise, 9% of patients improved their seizure control. Reduction in stress/anxiety (OR: 0.05; p = 0.03) and recent adjustment of antiepileptics (OR: 0.07; p = 0.01) acted as protecting factors. CONCLUSIONS: A high proportion of PWE suffered a significant worsening of their seizure control during the months of the COVID-19 pandemic. Emotional distress due to home confinement was the main factor for the change in seizure control. Promoting physical activity and adequate sleep may minimize the potential impact of the pandemic in PWE. Ensuring correct follow-up can prevent decompensation in those PWE at high risk.

Neurologic manifestations in hospitalized patients with COVID-19: The ALBACOVID registry.

OBJECTIVE: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has spread worldwide since December 2019. Neurologic symptoms have been reported as part of the clinical spectrum of the disease. We aimed to determine whether neurologic manifestations are common in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and to describe their main characteristics. METHODS: We systematically reviewed all patients diagnosed with COVID-19 admitted to the hospital in a Spanish population during March 2020. Demographic characteristics, systemic and neurologic clinical manifestations, and complementary tests were analyzed. RESULTS: Of 841 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 (mean age 66.4 years, 56.2% men), 57.4% developed some form of neurologic symptom. Nonspecific symptoms such as myalgias (17.2%), headache (14.1%), and dizziness (6.1%) were present mostly in the early stages of infection. Anosmia (4.9%) and dysgeusia (6.2%) tended to occur early (60% as the first clinical manifestation) and were more frequent in less severe cases. Disorders of consciousness occurred commonly (19.6%), mostly in older patients and in severe and advanced COVID-19 stages. Myopathy (3.1%), dysautonomia (2.5%), cerebrovascular diseases (1.7%), seizures (0.7%), movement disorders (0.7%), encephalitis (n = 1), Guillain-Barré syndrome (n = 1), and optic neuritis (n = 1) were also reported, but less frequent. Neurologic complications were the main cause of death in 4.1% of all deceased study participants. CONCLUSIONS: Neurologic manifestations are common in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. In our series, more than half of patients presented some form of neurologic symptom. Clinicians need to maintain close neurologic surveillance for prompt recognition of these complications. The mechanisms and consequences of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus type 2 neurologic involvement require further studies.

Low-value care practice in headache: a Spanish mixed methods research study.

BACKGROUND: Headache is one of the most prevalent diseases. The Global Burden of Disease Study ranks it as the seventh most common disease overall and the second largest neurological cause of disability in the world. The "Do Not Do" recommendations are a strategy for increasing the quality of care and reducing the cost of care for headache. This study aimed to identify specific low-value practices in headache care, determine their frequency, and estimate the cost overrun that they represent, in order to establish "Do not Do" recommendations specifically for headache by consensus and according to scientific evidence. METHODS: This was a mixed methods research study that combined qualitative consensus-building techniques, involving a multidisciplinary panel of experts to define the "Do Not Do" recommendations in headache care, and a retrospective observational study with review of a randomized set of patient records from the past 6 months in four hospitals, to quantify the frequency of these "Do Not Do" practices. We calculated the sum of direct costs of medical consultations, medicines, and unnecessary diagnostic tests. RESULTS: Seven "Do Not Do" recommendations were established for headache. In total, 3507 medical records were randomly reviewed. Low-value practices had a highly variable occurrence, depending on the hospital and type of headache. Overall, 34.1% of low-value practices were related to treatment, 21% were related to overuse of imaging in consultation, and 19% were related to emergency care. The estimated cost of low-value practices in the four hospitals was 203,520.47 euros per 1000 patients. CONCLUSIONS: This study identified low-value headache practices that need to be eradicated and provided data on their frequency and cost overruns.

Quality assurance in specialized headache units in Spain: an observational prospective study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the quality of the therapeutic approach in Specialized Headache Units in Spain. METHODS: An observational (prospective) study was conducted. Anonymized data of 313 consecutive patients during a defined period of time were analyzed and a comparison of performance in 13 consensual quality indicators between Specialized Headache Units and neurology consultations was calculated. Specialized Units and neurology consultations represented the type of provision that Spaniards receive in hospitals. RESULTS: The consensus benchmark standard was reached for 8/13 (61%) indicators. Specialized Headache Units performed better in the indicators, specifically in relation to accessibility, equity, safety, and patient satisfaction. Patients attended in Specialized Headache Units had more complex conditions. CONCLUSION: Although there is variability among Specialized Headache Units, the overall quality was generally better than in traditional neurology consultations in Spain.