A systematic review of neurological manifestations of SARS-CoV-2 infection: the devil is hidden in the details.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: We systematically reviewed available evidence for reports of neurological signs and symptoms in patients with COVID-19 to identify cases with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV)-2 infection or immune-mediated reaction in the nervous system. METHODS: We followed PRISMA guidelines and used the MEDLINE, EMBASE, Google Scholar, MedRxiv and ChinaXiv databases to search for articles on COVID-19 and nervous system involvement that were published from 1 January to 24 April 2020. Data on design, sample size, neurological assessment and related work-up were extracted. Biases were assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. RESULTS: We analysed 27 publications on potential neuroinvasive or parainfectious neurological complications of COVID-19. The reports focused on smell and taste (n = 5) and evaluation of neurological symptoms and signs in cohorts (n = 5). There were cases of Guillain-Barré syndrome/Miller-Fisher syndrome/cranial neuropathy (seven cases), meningitis/encephalitis (nine cases) and various other conditions (five cases). The number of patients with examination of cerebrospinal fluid and, in particular, SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction was negligible. Two had a positive SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction examination of cerebrospinal fluid specimen. Study of potential parenchymal involvement with magnetic resonance imaging was rare. Only four reports received a rating of the highest quality standards. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review failed to establish comprehensive insights into nervous system manifestations of COVID-19 beyond immune-mediated complications in the aftermath of respiratory symptoms. The authors therefore provide guidance for more careful clinical, diagnostic and epidemiological studies to characterize the manifestations and burden of neurological disease caused by SARS-CoV-2 on behalf of the Infectious Disease Panel of the European Academy of Neurology.

Real world preventative drug management of migraine among Spanish neurologists.

BACKGROUND: Many different preventatives have showed efficacy in the treatment of migraine. National guidelines differ in their recommendations and patients' characteristics are usually taken into account in their selection. In Spain, real life use of preventive therapies seems to be heterogeneous. We aimed to evaluate differences in clinical practice and adherence to national guidelines among Spanish neurologists. METHODS: Observational descriptive study. A survey was conducted among neurologists ascribed to the Spanish Society of Neurology. Participants were differentiated in accordance with their dedication to headache disorders. We analysed socio-demographic parameters and evaluated 43 questions considering migraine management as well as therapeutic choices regarding migraine sub-types and finally, neurologists' personal perception. RESULTS: One hundred fifty-five neurologists participated from 17 different regions, 43.4% of them female and 53.3% under 40 years of age. 34.9% confirmed headache disorders as their main interest. The first choice for preventive therapy in chronic migraine among participants was topiramate (57%) followed by amytriptiline (17.9%) and beta-blockers (14.6%). However in episodic migraine, the preferred options were beta-blockers (47.7%), topiramate (21.5%) and amytriptiline (13.4%). Regarding perceived efficacy, topiramate was considered the best option in chronic migraine (42.7%) followed by onabotulinumtoxinA (25.5%) and amitryptiline (22.4%). Where episodic migraine was concerned, surveyed neurologists perceived topiramate (43.7%) and beta-blockers (30.3%) as the best options. When we evaluated the duration of treatment use with a view to adequate therapeutic response, 43.5% of neurologists preferred 3 months duration and 39.5% were in favour of 6 months duration in episodic migraine. However, considering the preferred duration of treatment use in chronic migraine, 20.4% recommended 3 months, 42.1% preferred 6 months and 12.5% and 22.4% opted for 9 and 12 months respectively. When considering onabotulinumtoxinA therapy, the number of prior therapeutic failures was zero in 7.2% of neurologists, one in 5.9%, two in 44.1%, three in 30.9% and four or more in 11.9%. Following an initial treatment failure with onabotulinumtoxinA, 49% of subjects decided against a second treatment. The number of OnabotA procedures before considering it as ineffective was two in 18.9% of neurologists, three in 70.8% and four in 10.4%. CONCLUSIONS: The initial management of migraine among Spanish Neurologists is in line with most guidelines, where first choice preventative drugs are concerned. The Management of episodic migraine differed from chronic migraine, both in terms of neurologist preference and in their perceived efficacy.

Correction to: A PRISMA-compliant systematic review of the endpoints employed to evaluate symptomatic treatments for primary headaches.

Following publication of the original article [1], we have been notified that the name of author five was spelled incorrectly as M. Ferrili, when the correct spelling is MAN Ferilli.

CALCA and TRPV1 genes polymorphisms are related to a good outcome in female chronic migraine patients treated with OnabotulinumtoxinA.

BACKGROUND: Some variables have been proposed as predictors of efficacy of OnabotulinumtoxinA in chronic migraine patients, but data available are inconclusive. We aimed to analyse the influence of single nucleotide polymorphisms in the response to OnabotulinumtoxinA. METHODS: We included 156 female patients treated with OnabotulinumtoxinA accordingly to PREEMPT paradigm in three headache units. OnabotulinumtoxinA was offered to patients that had not responded to topiramate and at least one other preventative. Age at first procedure was 43.7 ± 11.8 years (16-74). Patients with a reduction of at least 50% in the number of migraine days after two OnabotulinumtoxinA procedures were considered as responders. We analysed 25 polymorphisms selected for their relevance regarding migraine pathophysiology and their association with migraine according to previously published genome-wide association studies. Genotyping was performed using KASP probes and a LightCycler-480 (Roche-Diagnostics). Allelic, genotypic frequencies and dominance/recesivity hypothesis of the allelic variants were compared between responders and non-responders by Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: Response to treatment with OnabotulinumtoxinA was achieved in 120 patients (76,9%). Two polymorphisms showed differences: CALCA rs3781719, where allele C represents 26.9% in responders and 40.9% in non-responders (p = 0.007, OR = 3.11 (1.33-7.26)); and TRPV1 rs222749, where allele A represents 4.17% in responders and 12.5% in non-responders (p = 0.013, OR = 3.29 (1.28-8.43)). No significant differences in rest of polymorphisms or clinical or demographic variables were found. CONCLUSIONS: Polymorphic variations of CALCA and TRPV1 genes might play a role as prognostic markers of efficacy of OnabotulinumtoxinA in chronic migraine female patients in our population.

A PRISMA-compliant systematic review of the endpoints employed to evaluate symptomatic treatments for primary headaches.

BACKGROUND: Primary headache are prevalent and debilitating disorders. Acute pain cessation is one of the key points in their treatment. Many drugs have been studied but the design of the trials is not usually homogeneous. Efficacy of the trial is determined depending on the selected primary endpoint and usually other different outcomes are measured. We aim to critically appraise which were the employed outcomes through a systematic review. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of literature focusing on studies on primary headache evaluating acute relief of pain, following the PRISMA guideline. The study population included patients participating in a controlled study about symptomatic treatment. The comparator could be placebo or the standard of care. The collected information was the primary outcome of the study and all secondary outcomes. We evaluated the studied drug, the year of publication and the type of journal. We performed a search and we screened all the potential papers and reviewed them considering inclusion/exclusion criteria. RESULTS: The search showed 4288 clinical trials that were screened and 794 full articles were assessed for eligibility for a final inclusion of 495 papers. The studies were published in headache specific journals (58%), general journals (21.6%) and neuroscience journals (20.4%). Migraine was the most studied headache, in 87.8% studies, followed by tension type headache in 4.7%. Regarding the most evaluated drug, triptans represented 68.6% of all studies, followed by non-steroidal anti-inflammatories (25.1%). Only 4.6% of the papers evaluated ergots and 1.6% analyzed opioids. The most frequent primary endpoint was the relief of the headache at a determinate moment, in 54.1%. Primary endpoint was evaluated at 2-h in 69.9% of the studies. Concerning other endpoints, tolerance was the most frequently addressed (83%), followed by headache relief (71.1%), improvement of other symptoms (62.5%) and presence of relapse (54%). The number of secondary endpoints increased from 4.2 (SD = 2.0) before 1991 to 6.39 after 2013 (p = 0.001). CONCLUSION: Headache relief has been the most employed primary endpoint but headache disappearance starts to be firmly considered. The number of secondary endpoints increases over time and other outcomes such as disability, quality of life and patients' preference are receiving attention.

Study of outpatient neurological care in the Region of Madrid: The impact of implementing free choice of hospital.

INTRODUCTION: A new model permitting free choice of hospital has been introduced in the Region of Madrid. This may result in changes in how outpatient neurological care is provided and managed. The purpose of this study is to analyse initial visits to a general neurology department in the Region of Madrid and record the health district corresponding to each patient's residence. METHODS: Observational and prospective study of a cohort of patients making initial outpatient visits to a neurology department between 16 September 2013 and 16 January 2014. RESULTS: The study included 1109 patients (63.8% women, mean age 55.2±20.5). The most frequent diagnostic groups were periodic headache, cognitive disorders, and neuromuscular diseases. Non-neurological diseases were diagnosed in 1.1% of the cases. The mean time of delay was 7.2±5.1 days. Residents within the hospital's health district made up 73.8% of the total, while 26.2% chose a hospital outside of the health district corresponding to their residences. In the latter group, 59.5% made the choice based on the level of care offered, while 39.7% changed hospitals due to shorter times to consultation. The patients who came from another health district were younger (50.7 vs 57.3, P<.0001) and had a lower rate of discharges on the first visit (16.4% vs 30.1%, P<.0001). CONCLUSION: The model of free choice of hospital delivers significant changes in healthcare management and organisation. Reasons given for choosing another hospital are more ample experience and shorter delays with respect to the home district hospital. Management of patients from outside the health district is associated with greater complexity.

Diagnosis and treatment of disorders of intracranial pressure: consensus statement of the Spanish Society of Neurology's Headache Study Group.

Primary intracranial pressure disorders include idiopathic intracranial hypertension and spontaneous intracranial hypotension. Remarkable advances have been made in the diagnosis and treatment of these 2entities in recent years. Therefore, the Spanish Society of Neurology's Headache Study Group (GECSEN) deemed it necessary to prepare this consensus statement, including diagnostic and therapeutic algorithms to facilitate and improve the management of these disorders in clinical practice. This document was created by a committee of experts belonging to GECSEN, and is based on a systematic review of the literature, incorporating the experience of the participants, and establishes practical recommendations with levels of evidence and grades of recommendation.

Hallucinations and aberrant perceptions are prevalent among the young healthy adult population.

INTRODUCTION: Hallucinations are frequent in clinical practice, with an incidence of up to 38.7% in the general population. We aim to determine the prevalence of hallucinations among healthy young adults in our environment. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: We designed an observational study, using as subjects 3rd to 6th year medical students at the Universidad Complutense de Madrid who complete clinical rotations in the Hospital Clínico San Carlos. After a screening questionnaire, an individual interview was conducted via telephone or e-mail to those students who reported hallucinations. We obtained clinical and epidemiological data through a semi-structured clinical interview performed by a third year neurology resident. RESULTS: N=134 (average age was 22.1 years; 77.6% were women). 74 respondents answered affirmatively to one or more screening questions, and 54 completed the follow-up interview. 22.2% described visual phenomena and 64.8%, auditory. The majority reported sleep-related experiences and auditory perceptions related to hyper vigilance, such as hearing the telephone or the doorbell ring when in fact it had not (38.8%). All subjects had good insight into their experiences and none had psychotic symptoms. Two cases were associated with substance abuse. CONCLUSIONS: Hallucinations are frequent among the general population. Traditionally, auditory phenomena have been associated with psychotic pathology, and other studies show a low population incidence (0.6%). However, in our sample, short auditory perceptions with immediate analysis were frequent and not pathological.

Study about the Manchester Triage System subtriage in patients that visited the Emergency Department due to headache.

INTRODUCTION: Headache is a frequent cause of consultation; it is important to detect patients with secondary headache, particularly high-risk secondary headache. Such systems as the Manchester Triage System (MTS) are used for this purpose. This study aims to evaluate the frequency of undertriage in patients attending the emergency department due to headache. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We studied a series of consecutive patients who came to the emergency department with headache and presenting some warning sign, defined as the presence of signs leading the physician to request an emergency neuroimaging study and/or assessment by the on-call neurologist. The reference diagnosis was established by neurologists. We evaluated the MTS triage level assigned and the presence of warning signs that may imply a higher level than that assigned. RESULTS: We registered a total of 1120 emergency department visits due to headache, and 248 patients (22.8%) were eligible for study inclusion. Secondary headache was diagnosed in 126 cases (50.8% of the sample; 11.2% of the total), with 60 cases presenting high-risk secondary headache (24.2%; 5.4%). According to the MTS, 2 patients were classified as immediate (0.8%), 26 as very urgent (10.5%), 147 as urgent (59.3%), 68 as normal (27.4%), and 5 as not urgent (2%). The percentage of patients undertriaged was 85.1% in the very urgent classification level and 23.3% in the urgent level. CONCLUSION: During the study period, at least one in 10 patients attending the emergency department due to headache had secondary headache; one in 20 had high-risk secondary headache. The MTS undertriaged most patients with warning signs suggesting a potential emergency.

Evaluation of the burden of migraine on the partner's lifestyle.

BACKGROUND: Despite the number of research studies regarding the individual burden of migraine, few studies have examined its impact on the patients' partners. We aim to assess migraine effects on the patients' partners on sentimental relationship, children relationship, friendship, and work, as well as the caregiver burden, anxiety and/or depression. METHODS: A cross-sectional observational study was conducted through an online survey of partners of patients with migraine followed-up in 5 Headache Units. Questions about the 4 areas of interest and 2 scales (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and Zarit scale) were included. Scores were compared against the population prevalence. RESULTS: One hundred and fifty-five answers were analysed. Among the patient's partners 135/155 (87.1%) were men, with a mean age of 45.6 ± 10.1 years. Migraine's main effects on partners were observed in the sentimental relationship and items concerning children and friendships, with a minor impact at work. Partners showed a moderate burden (12/155 = 7.7% [4.1%-13.1%]), and a higher moderate-severe anxiety rate (23/155 = 14.8% [9.6%-21.4%]), and similar depression rate (5/155 = 3.2% [1.1%-7.3%]) compared to the National Health Survey. CONCLUSIONS: The burden of migraine impacts the partners' personal relationship, childcare, friendship and work. Moreover, certain migraine partners showed a moderate burden according to Zarit scale and higher anxiety levels than the Spanish population.

Telemedicine in the management of patients with headache: current situation and recommendations of the Spanish Society of Neurology's Headache Study Group.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic has caused an unexpected boost to telemedicine. We analyse the impact of the pandemic on telemedicine applied in Spanish headache consultations, review the literature, and issue recommendations for the implementation of telemedicine in consultations. METHOD: The study comprised 3 phases: 1) review of the MEDLINE database since 1958 (first reported experience with telemedicine); 2) Google Forms survey sent to all members of the Spanish Society of Neurology's Headache Study Group (GECSEN); and 3) online consensus of GECSEN experts to issue recommendations for the implementation of telemedicine in Spain. RESULTS: COVID-19 has increased waiting times for face-to-face consultations, increasing the use of all telemedicine modalities: landline telephone (from 75% before April 2020 to 97% after), mobile telephone (from 9% to 27%), e-mail (from 30% to 36%), and video consultation (from 3% to 21%). Neurologists are aware of the need to expand the availability of video consultations, which are clearly growing, and other e-health and m-health tools. CONCLUSIONS: The GECSEN recommends and encourages all neurologists who assist patients with headaches to implement telemedicine resources, with the optimal objective of offering video consultation to patients under 60-65 years of age and telephone calls to older patients, although each case must be considered on an individual basis. Prior approval and advice must be sought from legal and IT services and the centre's management. Most patients with stable headache and/or neuralgia are eligible for telemedicine follow-up, after a first consultation that must always be held in person.

Global uncertainty in the diagnosis of neurological complications of SARS-CoV-2 infection by both neurologists and non-neurologists: An international inter-observer variability study.

INTRODUCTION: Uniform case definitions are required to ensure harmonised reporting of neurological syndromes associated with SARS-CoV-2. Moreover, it is unclear how clinicians perceive the relative importance of SARS-CoV-2 in neurological syndromes, which risks under- or over-reporting. METHODS: We invited clinicians through global networks, including the World Federation of Neurology, to assess ten anonymised vignettes of SARS-CoV-2 neurological syndromes. Using standardised case definitions, clinicians assigned a diagnosis and ranked association with SARS-CoV-2. We compared diagnostic accuracy and assigned association ranks between different settings and specialties and calculated inter-rater agreement for case definitions as "poor" (κ ≤ 0.4), "moderate" or "good" (κ > 0.6). RESULTS: 1265 diagnoses were assigned by 146 participants from 45 countries on six continents. The highest correct proportion were cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST, 95.8%), Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS, 92.4%) and headache (91.6%) and the lowest encephalitis (72.8%), psychosis (53.8%) and encephalopathy (43.2%). Diagnostic accuracy was similar between neurologists and non-neurologists (median score 8 vs. 7/10, p = 0.1). Good inter-rater agreement was observed for five diagnoses: cranial neuropathy, headache, myelitis, CVST, and GBS and poor agreement for encephalopathy. In 13% of vignettes, clinicians incorrectly assigned lowest association ranks, regardless of setting and specialty. CONCLUSION: The case definitions can help with reporting of neurological complications of SARS-CoV-2, also in settings with few neurologists. However, encephalopathy, encephalitis, and psychosis were often misdiagnosed, and clinicians underestimated the association with SARS-CoV-2. Future work should refine the case definitions and provide training if global reporting of neurological syndromes associated with SARS-CoV-2 is to be robust.

Differences and similarities between COVID-19 related-headache and COVID-19 vaccine related-headache. A case-control study. / Diferencias y similitudes entre la cefalea relacionada con la COVID-19 y la cefalea relacionada con la vacuna de la COVID-19. Un estudio de casos y controles.

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.

TITLE: Diferencias y similitudes entre la cefalea relacionada con la COVID-19 y la cefalea relacionada con la vacuna de la COVID-19. Un estudio de casos y controles.Introducción. La cefalea es un síntoma frecuente en la fase aguda de la enfermedad por coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) y también uno de los efectos adversos más comunes tras la vacunación. En ambos casos, la fisiopatología de la cefalea parece estar relacionada con la respuesta inmunitaria del huésped y podría presentar similitudes. Nuestro objetivo fue comparar el fenotipo clínico y la frecuencia de los síntomas asociados y los síntomas de inicio en pacientes con cefalea relacionada con la COVID-19 y cefalea relacionada con la vacuna de la COVID-19. Sujetos y métodos. Se realizó un estudio de casos y controles. Se incluyó a pacientes con infección confirmada por COVID-19 y receptores de la vacuna de la COVID-19 que experimentaron un nuevo inicio de cefalea. Se administró un cuestionario estandarizado que incluyó variables demográficas, antecedentes previos de cefaleas, síntomas asociados y variables relacionadas con la cefalea. Ambos grupos se emparejaron por edad, sexo y antecedentes previos de cefaleas. Se realizó un análisis de regresión multivariante. Resultados. Un total de 238 pacientes cumplieron con los criterios de elegibilidad (143 pacientes con cefalea relacionada con la COVID-19 y 95 sujetos con cefalea relacionada con la vacuna de la COVID-19). Los pacientes con cefalea relacionada con la COVID-19 presentaron una mayor frecuencia de artralgia, diarrea, disnea, dolor torácico, expectoración, anosmia, mialgia, odinofagia, rinorrea, tos y disgeusia. Además, los pacientes con cefalea relacionada con la COVID-19 experimentaron una duración diaria más prolongada de la cefalea y describieron la cefalea como la peor que habían experimentado. Los pacientes con cefalea relacionada con la vacuna de la COVID-19 experimentaron con más frecuencia dolor en la región parietal, fonofobia y empeoramiento de la cefalea por movimientos de la cabeza o de los ojos. Conclusión. La cefalea causada por la infección por el SARS-CoV-2 y la cefalea relacionada con la vacunación de la COVID-19 presentan más similitudes que diferencias, lo que respalda una fisiopatología compartida y la activación de la respuesta inmunitaria innata. Las principales diferencias estuvieron relacionadas con los síntomas asociados.

Headache: what to ask, how to examine, and what scales to use. Recommendations of the Spanish society of neurology's headache study group.

INTRODUCCIóN: La cefalea es el motivo de consulta neurológico más prevalente en los distintos niveles asistenciales, donde la anamnesis y exploración son primordiales para realizar un diagnóstico y tratamiento adecuados. Con la intención de unificar la atención de esta patología, el Grupo de Estudio de Cefalea de la Sociedad Española de Neurología (GECSEN) ha decidido elaborar unas recomendaciones consensuadas para mejorar y garantizar una adecuada asistencia en Atención Primaria, Urgencias y Neurología. METODOLOGíA: El documento es práctico, sigue el orden de la dinámica de actuación durante una consulta: anamnesis, escalas que cuantifican el impacto y la discapacidad y exploración. Además, finaliza con pautas para realizar un seguimiento adecuado y un manejo de las expectativas del paciente con el tratamiento pautado. CONCLUSIONES: Esperamos ofrecer una herramienta que mejore la atención al paciente con cefalea para garantizar una asistencia adecuada y homogénea a nivel nacional.

Eagle syndrome: toward a clinical delimitation.

INTRODUCTION: Orofacial and cervical pain are a frequent reason for neurology consultations and may be due to multiple pathological processes. These include Eagle syndrome (ES), a very rare entity whose origin is attributed to calcification of the stylohyoid ligament or elongation of the temporal styloid process. We present a series of five patients diagnosed with ES. METHODS: We describe the demographic and clinical characteristics and response to treatment of 5 patients who attended the headache units of 2 tertiary hospitals for symptoms compatible with Eagle syndrome. RESULTS: The patients were 3 men and 2 women aged between 24 and 51, presenting dull, intense pain, predominantly in the inner ear and the ipsilateral tonsillar fossa. All patients had chronic, continuous pain in the temporal region, with exacerbations triggered by swallowing. Four patients had previously consulted several specialists at otorhinolaryngology departments; one had been prescribed antibiotics for suspected Eustachian tube inflammation. In all cases, the palpation of the tonsillar fossa was painful. Computed tomography scans revealed an elongation of the styloid process and/or calcification of the stylohyoid ligament in 3 patients. Four patients improved with neuromodulatory therapy (duloxetine, gabapentin, pregabalin) and only one required surgical excision of the styloid process. CONCLUSIONS: Eagle syndrome is a rare and possibly underdiagnosed cause of craniofacial pain. We present 5 new cases that exemplify both the symptoms and the potential treatments of this entity.

[Chronic migraine with daily headache. Literature review]. / Migraña crónica con cefalea diaria. Revisión de la bibliografía.

INTRODUCTION: Despite representing a significant number of cases, patients with chronic migraine and daily headache are frequently excluded from large therapeutic clinical trials. These individuals have hardly been studied and could have specific properties. Development. A third of patients with chronic migraine may suffer from headaches every day, representing up to 1.7 - 3.3% of patients in a general neurology consultation. These patients are excluded from most studies, so little information is available. They may have a longer lasting migraine and different response to treatment. Patients with chronic migraine and daily headache may have complex pathophysiological mechanisms that favor the daily manifestation of migraine. The management of these patients is a therapeutic challenge, and OnabotulinumtoxinA may be useful. CONCLUSION: Patients with chronic migraine and daily headache may have specific clinical and therapeutic characteristics. New studies could lead to differentiate it from chronic migraine.

TITLE: Migraña crónica con cefalea diaria. Revisión de la bibliografía.Introducción. A pesar de suponer un número no desdeñable de casos, los pacientes con migraña crónica y cefalea diaria son frecuentemente excluidos de los grandes ensayos clínicos terapéuticos. Estos individuos apenas han sido estudiados en la bibliografía y podrían presentar características específicas. Desarrollo. Un tercio de los pacientes con migraña crónica podría sufrir cefalea todos los días del mes, lo que supone hasta un 1,7-3,3% de los pacientes atendidos en una consulta de neurología general. Al ser excluidos de la mayor parte de los estudios, apenas hay información sobre sus características clínicas y respuesta al tratamiento, y pueden tener una historia de migraña más prolongada y una diferente respuesta al tratamiento. Los pacientes con migraña crónica y cefalea diaria podrían presentar mecanismos fisiopatológicos complejos que favorezcan la manifestación diaria de la migraña. El manejo de estos pacientes es un reto terapéutico, y se ha propuesto la utilidad de la onabotulinumtoxinA. Conclusiones. Los pacientes con migraña crónica y cefalea diaria pueden presentar características clínicas y terapéuticas específicas. Nuevos estudios podrían llevar a plantear su consideración diferenciada de la migraña crónica.

[Effect of treatment with benzodiazepines on the hospital prognosis of Coronavirus disease 2019]. / Efecto del tratamiento con benzodiacepinas en el pronóstico hospitalario de la enfermedad por coronavirus 2019.

INTRODUCTION: The consequences of the use of of benzodiazepines in coronavirus disease 2019 have not yet been studied. We compared the hospital prognosis of patients hospitalized for coronavirus disease 2019 in benzodiazepine users and non-users. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Observational study with a retrospective cohort design. All consecutive patients admitted with a confirmed diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 were included. The patients under chronic treatment with benzodiazepines at the time of admission were studied and compared with non-users. The primary objective was to analyze the mortality of patients who used chronic benzodiazepines at the time of admission and compare them with those who did not use them. The secondary objective was to analyze the risk of severe disease due to coronavirus 2019, acute respiratory distress syndrome and admission to the Intensive Care Unit in both groups of patients. RESULTS: We included 576 patients, 138 (24.0%) used benzodiazepines. After adjusting for sex, age, baseline situation and all the different variables between both groups, benzodiazepine users did not show a higher odds of mortality (OR: 1,1, IC 95%: 0,7-1,9, p = 0,682) or higher risk of severe disease due to coronavirus 2019 (OR: 1.2, 95% CI: 0.7-1.8, p = 0.523). They also did not have a higher risk of acute respiratory distress syndrome (OR: 1.2, IC 95%: 0.8-1.9, p = 0.315) or more admission to the Intensive Care Unit (OR: 0.8, 95% CI: 0.4-1.4, p = 0.433). CONCLUSION: In our sample, treatment with benzodiazepines at the time of admission was not associated with a worse hospital prognosis in patients with coronavirus disease 2019.

TITLE: Efecto del tratamiento con benzodiacepinas en el pronóstico hospitalario de la enfermedad por coronavirus 2019.Introducción. Las consecuencias del consumo de benzodiacepinas en el marco de la la enfermedad por coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) no se habían estudiado hasta ahora. En el presente estudio se comparó el pronóstico hospitalario de pacientes ingresados por COVID-19 que tomaban benzodiacepinas con el de otros ingresados por idéntico motivo que no las tomaban. Pacientes y métodos. Estudio observacional de cohortes retrospectivo. En el estudio se admitió a todos los pacientes consecutivos ingresados con un diagnóstico confirmado de COVID-19. Se estudió a los pacientes que en el momento del ingreso estaban en tratamiento crónico con benzodiacepinas en comparación con otros que no las tomaban. El objetivo principal fue analizar la mortalidad de dichos pacientes con uso crónico de benzodiacepinas y compararla con la mortalidad de los que no tomaban. El objetivo secundario fue analizar en ambos grupos de pacientes el riesgo de padecer un cuadro grave por COVID-19, el síndrome de dificultad respiratoria aguda o el ingreso en la unidad de cuidados intensivos. Resultados. Se admitieron 576 pacientes, 138 (24,0%) de los cuales tomaban benzodiacepinas. Después del ajuste por sexo, edad, situación inicial y todas las variables diferentes entre ambos grupos, los pacientes que tomaban benzodiacepinas no mostraron una probabilidad mayor de muerte (odds ratio: 1,1; IC 95%: 0,7-1,9; p = 0,682) ni un riesgo más acusado de COVID-19 grave (odds ratio: 1,2; IC 95%: 0,7-1,8; p = 0,523). Tampoco presentaron un riesgo mayor de síndrome de dificultad respiratoria aguda (odds ratio: 1,2; IC 95%: 0,8-1,9; p = 0,315) ni de ingreso en la unidad de cuidados intensivos (odds ratio: 0,8; IC 95%: 0,4-1,4; p = 0,433). Conclusión. En esta muestra de pacientes con COVID-2019, el tratamiento con benzodiacepinas en el momento del ingreso no apareció asociado con un empeoramiento del pronóstico hospitalario.

Identifying areas for improvement in epilepsy management in developing countries: An experience of neurocooperation in Cameroon. / Identificando puntos de mejoría en el manejo de la epilepsia en países en vías de desarrollo: experiencia de neurocooperación en Camerún.

INTRODUCTION: Epilepsy is especially prevalent in developing countries: incidence and prevalence rates are at least twice as high as in our setting. Epilepsy is also highly stigmatised, and few resources are available for its management. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We performed a descriptive observational study in December 2016, distributing a questionnaire on epilepsy management to healthcare professionals from 3 different hospitals in Cameroon. Data are presented as means or percentages. RESULTS: Thirty-eight healthcare providers participated in the survey; 42.1% were female and mean age was 40.1 years (range, 22-62). Regarding the causes of epilepsy, 68.4% considered it a psychiatric condition, 34.2% a degenerative disease, 28.9% a hereditary condition, and 21.1% secondary to infection. In terms of management, 23.7% considered that thorough clinical history is sufficient to establish a diagnosis. Only 60.5% considered the clinical interview to be important for diagnosis, 52.6% considered EEG to be necessary, and 28.9% considered laboratory analyses to be important. Only 13.2% mentioned neuroimaging. In the treatment of pregnant women, 36.8% recommended folic acid supplementation, 65.8% believed antiepileptic treatment should be maintained, and only 39.5% recommended breastfeeding. Concerning treatment, the participants knew a mean of 2 antiepileptic drugs: phenobarbital was the best known (81.6%), followed by carbamazepine (55.3%) and valproic acid (28.9%). CONCLUSIONS: There is a need among healthcare professionals for education and information on the disease, its diagnosis, and management options, in order to optimise management and consequently improve patients' quality of life.