[New developments in headache management in 2022]. / Nouveautés dans la prise en charge des céphalées.

Headaches are one of the most common causes of consultation in primary care. Due to their polymorphic character and sometimes severe etiologies, it is very important to properly classify these symptoms and to look for possible associated signs of severity. It is with this objective that the international classification of headache delivered its 3rd version in 2018 with the ICHD-3. In addition, revised and validated severity criteria were also published in 2018 under the name SNNOOP10. At the same time, the concept of green flags which could allow to diagnose a primary headache without further investigations has emerged. In terms of treatment, the development of CGRP neuropeptide antagonists has allowed a major advance in the treatment of the severe forms of migraine. Finally, integrative medicine is taking on a central role.

Les céphalées sont l'un des motifs de consultation les plus courants en médecine de premier recours. En raison de leur caractère polymorphe et des étiologies potentiellement graves, il est essentiel de bien les classifier et de rechercher les signes de sévérité associés. C'est dans cet objectif que la classification internationale des céphalées a livré sa troisième version en 2018 (ICHD-3). Des critères de sévérité révisés et validés ont également été publiés en 2018 sous le nom de SNNOOP10. En parallèle, le concept de drapeaux verts, qui permettrait de retenir un diagnostic de céphalées primaires sans autres examens, a émergé. En termes de traitement, le développement d'antagonistes du neuropeptide CGRP (Calcitonin Gene-Related Peptide) a permis une avancée majeure dans le traitement des formes de migraine sévères. La médecine intégrative y prend par ailleurs une place centrale.

[Smarter Medicine in Headache Care - presentation and discussion of 5 recommendations]. / Smarter Medicine in Diagnose und Behandlung von Kopfschmerzen.

Smarter Medicine in Headache Care - presentation and discussion of 5 recommendations Abstract. An unequivocal headache diagnosis cannot always be made. The lack of diagnostic tests able to prove primary headaches often prompts physicians to perform unnecessary examinations to reduce their uncertainty. When setting out the therapeutic strategy, again, insecurity often leads to mendable choices. In this Delphi study, members of the therapy commission of the Swiss Headache Society collected, rated, and re-rated doubtful and questionable procedures. Five recommendations that resulted from this survey are presented and reviewed in this article. The recommendations are: (A) no repeated cerebral imaging in headaches with unchanged phenotype; (B) no computed tomography in the work-up of non-acute headaches; (C) no tooth extraction to treat persistent idiopathic facial pain, (D) no migraine surgery; (E) no removal of amalgam fillings to treat headache disorders.

The rough sound of salience enhances aversion through neural synchronisation.

Being able to produce sounds that capture attention and elicit rapid reactions is the prime goal of communication. One strategy, exploited by alarm signals, consists in emitting fast but perceptible amplitude modulations in the roughness range (30-150 Hz). Here, we investigate the perceptual and neural mechanisms underlying aversion to such temporally salient sounds. By measuring subjective aversion to repetitive acoustic transients, we identify a nonlinear pattern of aversion restricted to the roughness range. Using human intracranial recordings, we show that rough sounds do not merely affect local auditory processes but instead synchronise large-scale, supramodal, salience-related networks in a steady-state, sustained manner. Rough sounds synchronise activity throughout superior temporal regions, subcortical and cortical limbic areas, and the frontal cortex, a network classically involved in aversion processing. This pattern correlates with subjective aversion in all these regions, consistent with the hypothesis that roughness enhances auditory aversion through spreading of neural synchronisation.

An exploratory cohort study of sensory extinction in acute stroke: prevalence, risk factors, and time course.

Most studies on sensory extinction have focused on selected patients with subacute and chronic right hemisphere lesions. In studies conducted on acute stroke patients, risk factors and time course were not evaluated. Our aim was to determine the prevalence, risk factors, and time course of sensory extinction in the acute stroke setting. Consecutive patients with acute stroke were tested for tactile, visual, auditory, and auditory-tactile cross-modal extinction, as well as for peripersonal visuospatial neglect (PVN). Tests were repeated at 2, 7, 15, 30, and 90 days after initial examination. A multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to test the association between sensory extinction and demographic and clinical risk factors. Seventy-three patients (38.4% women) were recruited: 64 with ischemic stroke and nine with haemorrhagic stroke. Mean age was 62.3 years (95% CI 58.8-65.7), mean NIHSS score was 1.6 (95% CI 1.2-2.1), and mean time to first examination was 4.1 days (95% CI 3.5-4.8). The overall prevalence of all subtypes of sensory extinction was 13.7% (95% CI 6.8-23.8). Tactile extinction was the most frequent subtype with a prevalence of 8.2% (95% CI 3.1-17.0). No extinction was found beyond 15 days after the first examination. After adjustment for age, sex, lesion side, type of stroke, time to first examination and stroke severity, a lesion volume ≥2 mL (adjusted OR = 38.88, p = 0.04), and presence of PVN (adjusted OR = 24.27, p = 0.04) were independent predictors of sensory extinction. The insula, the putamen, and the pallidum were the brain regions most frequently involved in patients with sensory extinction. Extinction is a rare and transient phenomenon in patients with minor stroke. The presence of PVN and lesion volume ≥2 mL are independent predictors of sensory extinction in acute stroke.

Putative pathophysiological mechanisms in recurrent hemicrania from aortic dissection: a case report.

BACKGROUND: Transient or permanent neurological symptoms occur in 17-40% of patients with aortic dissection. They can distract from or even mask the underlying life-threatening condition. CASE PRESENTATION: We present the case of a young Caucasian man who consulted for recurrent episodes of stereotyped right-sided sudden-onset severe headache. Upon questioning, he also reported a dull chest pain. Clinical examination and brain magnetic resonance imaging were unremarkable. The concomitant presence of chest pain made us consider aortic dissection. Contrast-enhanced cervico-thoraco-abdominal computerized tomography revealed type A aortic dissection. The patient underwent surgical replacement of the ascending aorta and reported no further episode of headache thereafter. Differential diagnosis of headache in this case includes paroxysmal hemicrania, cluster headache, migraine, trigeminal neuralgia and short lasting unilateral neuralgiform headache with conjunctival injection and tearing. Failure to match diagnostic criteria for any of these primary headache disorders and the resolution of pain episodes following surgery led us to postulate that these new-onset hemicrania episodes were symptomatic of aortic dissection. We hypothesize that aortic wall ischemia could have activated the trigeminovascular system and thereby caused hemicranial pain. Such an effect might be mediated by two different pathways that can be referred to as anatomical and humoral. The humoral hypothesis would posit that ischemia results in synthesis of pro-inflammatory mediators released from the aortic wall into the blood stream, such that they reach the central nervous system and directly stimulate specific receptors. The anatomical hypothesis would imply that pain signals generated by nociceptors in the aortic wall are transferred to the trigeminal ganglion via the cardiac plexus, the first cervical ganglion and the internal carotid nerve such that pain perception is referred to related cranio-cervical dermatomes. CONCLUSION: In cases of isolated headache that does not match key diagnostic criteria for a primary headache entity; a thorough review of systems should be performed to look for symptoms that may indicate symptomatic headache from potentially life-threatening conditions. Neurologists should consider aortic dissection in patients presenting with acute headache and chest pain. Further clinical or experimental studies are required to refute or validate the pathophysiological hypothesis discussed here.