Headaches and facial pain attributed to SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The aim was to provide insights to the characteristics of headache in the context of COVID-19 on behalf of the Headache Scientific Panel and the Neuro-COVID-19 Task Force of the European Academy of Neurology (EAN) and the European Headache Federation (EHF). METHODS: Following the Delphi method the Task Force identified six relevant questions and then conducted a systematic literature review to provide evidence-based answers and suggest specific diagnostic criteria. RESULTS: No data for facial pain were identified in the literature search. (1) Headache incidence during acute COVID-19 varies considerably, with higher prevalence rates in prospective compared to retrospective studies (28.9%-74.6% vs. 6.5%-34.0%). (2) Acute COVID-19 headache is usually bilateral or holocranial and often moderate to severe with throbbing pain quality lasting 2-14 days after first signs of COVID-19; photo-phonophobia, nausea, anosmia and ageusia are common associated features; persistent headache shares similar clinical characteristics. (3) Acute COVID-19 headache is presumably caused by immune-mediated mechanisms that activate the trigeminovascular system. (4) Headache occurs in 13.3%-76.9% following SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and occurs more often amongst women with a pre-existing primary headache; the risk of developing headache is higher with the adenoviral-vector-type vaccines than with other preparations. (5) Headache related to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination is mostly bilateral, and throbbing, pressing, jolting or stabbing. (6) No studies have been conducted investigating the underlying mechanism of headache attributed to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. CONCLUSION: The results of this joint EAN/EHF initiative provide a framework for a better understanding of headache in the context of SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination.

Second messenger signalling bypasses CGRP receptor blockade to provoke migraine attacks in humans.

There are several endogenous molecules that can trigger migraine attacks when administered to humans. Notably, calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) has been identified as a key player in a signalling cascade involved in migraine attacks, acting through the second messenger cyclic adenosine monophosphate (cAMP) in various cells, including intracranial vascular smooth muscle cells. However, it remains unclear whether intracellular cAMP signalling requires CGRP receptor activation during a migraine attack in humans. To address this question, we conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel trial using a human provocation model involving the administration of CGRP and cilostazol in individuals with migraine pretreated with erenumab or placebo. Our study revealed that migraine attacks can be provoked in patients by cAMP-mediated mechanisms using cilostazol, even when the CGRP receptor is blocked by erenumab. Furthermore, the dilation of cranial arteries induced by cilostazol was not influenced by the CGRP receptor blockade. These findings provide clinical evidence that cAMP-evoked migraine attacks do not require CGRP receptor activation. This discovery opens up new possibilities for the development of mechanism-based drugs for the treatment of migraine.

European Headache Federation (EHF) critical re-appraisal and meta-analysis of oral drugs in migraine prevention - part 4: propranolol.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this paper is to critically re-appraise the published trials assessing propranolol for migraine prophylaxis. METHODS: We report methods and results following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews (PRISMA), by searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, and ClinicalTrials.gov for randomized trials of pharmacologic treatments for migraine prophylaxis. We included randomized trials that compared propranolol with placebo for migraine prophylaxis in adults. The outcomes of interest were informed by the Core outcome set for preventive intervention trials in chronic and episodic migraine (COSMIG) and include the proportion of patients who experience a 50% or more reduction in monthly migraine days, the reduction of monthly migraine days, and the number of adverse events leading to discontinuation. We assessed risk of bias by using a modified Cochrane RoB (risk of bias) 2.0 tool and the certainty of evidence by using the GRADE approach. RESULTS: Our search yielded twenty trials (n = 1291 patients) eligible for data synthesis and analysis. The analysis revealed a moderate certainty evidence that propranolol leads to a reduction in monthly migraine days versus placebo (-1.27; 95% CI: -2.25 to -0.3). We found moderate certainty evidence that propranolol increases the proportion of patients who experience a 50% or more reduction in monthly migraine days, compared to placebo with a relative risk of 1.65 (95% CI 1.41 to 1.93); absolute risk difference: 179 more per 1,000 (95% CI 113 to 256). We found high certainty evidence that propranolol increases the proportion of patients who discontinue due to adverse events compared to placebo with a risk difference of 0.02 (95% CI 0.00 to 0.03); absolute risk difference: 20 more per 1,000 (95% CI 0 to 30). CONCLUSIONS: The present meta-analysis shows that propranolol has a prophylactic role in migraine, with an overall acceptable tolerability profile. Combining these results with its long-standing use and its global availability at a low cost confirms its role as a first line agent in the prophylaxis of migraine.

European Headache Federation (EHF) critical re-appraisal and meta-analysis of oral drugs in migraine prevention-part 2: flunarizine.

OBJECTIVE: Novel disease-specific and mechanism-based treatments sharing good evidence of efficacy for migraine have been recently marketed. However, reimbursement by insurers depends on treatment failure with classic anti-migraine drugs. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we aimed to identify and rate the evidence for efficacy of flunarizine, a repurposed, first- or second-line treatment for migraine prophylaxis. METHODS: A systematic search in MEDLINE, Cochrane CENTRAL, and ClinicalTrials.gov was performed for trials of pharmacological treatment in migraine prophylaxis, following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews (PRISMA). Eligible trials for meta-analysis were randomized, placebo-controlled studies comparing flunarizine with placebo. Outcomes of interest according to the Outcome Set for preventive intervention trials in chronic and episodic migraine (COSMIG) were the proportion of patients reaching a 50% or more reduction in monthly migraine days, the change in monthly migraine days (MMDs), and Adverse Events (AEs) leading to discontinuation. RESULTS: Five trials were eligible for narrative description and three for data synthesis and analysis. No studies reported the predefined outcomes, but one study assessed the 50% reduction in monthly migraine attacks with flunarizine as compared to placebo showing a benefit from flunarizine with a low or probably low risk of bias. We found that flunarizine may increase the proportion of patients who discontinue due to adverse events compared to placebo (risk difference: 0.02; 95% CI -0.03 to 0.06). CONCLUSIONS: Published flunarizine trials predate the recommended endpoints for evaluating migraine prophylaxis drugs, hence the lack of an adequate assessment for these endpoints. Further, modern-day, large-scale studies would be valuable in re-evaluating the efficacy of flunarizine for the treatment of migraines, offering additional insights into its potential benefits.

The effect of Lu AG09222 on PACAP38- and VIP-induced vasodilation, heart rate increase, and headache in healthy subjects: an interventional, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled study.

BACKGROUND: Pituitary adenylate cyclase-activating polypeptide (PACAP), structurally related to vasoactive intestinal peptide (VIP), is one of the important mediators in the pathogenesis of migraine and is known to dilate cranial arteries and induce headache and migraine. Our objective was to determine whether Lu AG09222-an investigational humanized monoclonal antibody directed against PACAP ligand-would inhibit the PACAP-signaling cascade by abolishing its vasodilatory and headache-inducing abilities. METHODS: In a randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, single-dose, placebo-controlled study of Lu AG09222, healthy volunteers aged 18-45 years without history of headache disorders were randomly allocated to three treatment sequences (1:2:2) on two experimental infusion visits with 9 ± 3 days' interval: placebo + saline + saline (n = 5), placebo + PACAP38 + VIP (n = 10), and Lu AG09222 + PACAP38 + VIP (n = 10). The primary outcome measure was area under the curve (AUC) of the change in superficial temporal artery (STA) diameter from 0 to 120 min after start of infusion of PACAP38. The study was conducted at the Danish Headache Center in Copenhagen, Denmark. RESULTS: In participants who received Lu AG09222 + PACAP38 infusion, there was a significantly lower STA diameter (mean (SE) [95% CI] AUC ‒35.4 (4.32) [‒44.6, ‒26.3] mm × min; P < 0.0001) compared to participants who received placebo + PACAP38 infusion. Secondary and explorative analysis revealed that PACAP38 infusion induced an increase in facial blood flow, heart rate and mild headache, and indicated that these PACAP38-induced responses were inhibited by Lu AG09222. CONCLUSIONS: This proof-of-mechanism study demonstrated that Lu AG09222 inhibited PACAP38-induced cephalic vasodilation and increases in heart rate, and reduced concomitant headache. Lu AG09222 may be a potential therapy against migraine and other PACAP-mediated diseases. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04976309. Registration date: July 19, 2021.

The comparative effectiveness of migraine preventive drugs: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: While there are several trials that support the efficacy of various drugs for migraine prophylaxis against placebo, there is limited evidence addressing the comparative safety and efficacy of these drugs. We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis to facilitate comparison between drugs for migraine prophylaxis. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and clinicaltrials.gov from inception to August 13, 2022, for randomized trials of pharmacological treatments for migraine prophylaxis in adults. Reviewers worked independently and in duplicate to screen references, extract data, and assess risk of bias. We performed a frequentist random-effects network meta-analysis and rated the certainty (quality) of evidence as either high, moderate, low, or very low using the GRADE approach. RESULTS: We identified 74 eligible trials, reporting on 32,990 patients. We found high certainty evidence that monoclonal antibodies acting on the calcitonin gene related peptide or its receptor (CGRP(r)mAbs), gepants, and topiramate increase the proportion of patients who experience a 50% or more reduction in monthly migraine days, compared to placebo. We found moderate certainty evidence that beta-blockers, valproate, and amitriptyline increase the proportion of patients who experience a 50% or more reduction in monthly migraine days, and low certainty evidence that gabapentin may not be different from placebo. We found high certainty evidence that, compared to placebo, valproate and amitriptyline lead to substantial adverse events leading to discontinuation, moderate certainty evidence that topiramate, beta-blockers, and gabapentin increase adverse events leading to discontinuation, and moderate to high certainty evidence that (CGRP(r)mAbs) and gepants do not increase adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: (CGRP(r)mAbs) have the best safety and efficacy profile of all drugs for migraine prophylaxis, followed closely by gepants.

European Headache Federation (EHF) critical reappraisal and meta-analysis of oral drugs in migraine prevention - part 3: topiramate.

OBJECTIVE: Topiramate is a repurposed first-line treatment for migraine prophylaxis. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to critically re-appraise the existing evidence supporting the efficacy and tolerability of topiramate. METHODS: A systematic search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, and ClinicalTrials.gov was performed for trials of pharmacological treatment in migraine prophylaxis as of August 13, 2022, following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews (PRISMA). Randomized controlled trials in adult patients that used topiramate for the prophylactic treatment of migraine, with placebo as active comparator, were included. Two reviewers independently screened the retrieved studies and extracted all data. Outcomes of interest were the 50% responder rates, the reduction in monthly migraine days, and adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation. Results were pooled and meta-analyzed, with sensitivity analysis based on the risk of bias of the studies, the monthly migraine days at baseline, and the previous use of other prophylactic treatments. Certainty evidence was judged according to the GRADE framework. RESULTS: Eight out of 10,826 studies fulfilled the inclusion/exclusion criteria, accounting for 2,610 randomized patients. Six studies included patients with episodic migraine and two with chronic migraine. Topiramate dose ranged from 50 to 200 mg/day, and all studies included a placebo arm. There was a high certainty that topiramate: 1) increased the proportion of patients who achieved a 50% responder rate in monthly migraine days, compared to placebo [relative risk: 1.61 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.29-2.01); absolute risk difference: 168 more per 1,000 (95% CI: 80 to 278 more)]; 2) was associated with 0.99 (95% CI: 1.41-0.58) fewer migraine days than placebo; 3) and had a higher proportion of patients with adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation [absolute risk difference 80 patients more per 1,000 (95% CI: 20 to 140 more patients)]. CONCLUSIONS: There is high-quality evidence of the efficacy of topiramate in the prophylaxis of migraine, albeit its use poses a risk of adverse events that may lead to treatment discontinuation, with a negative effect on patient satisfaction and adherence to care.

European Headache Federation (EHF) critical re-appraisal and meta-analysis of oral drugs in migraine prevention-part 1: amitriptyline.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this paper is to critically re-appraise the published trials assessing amitriptyline for migraine prophylaxis. METHODS: We report our methods and results following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews (PRISMA), by searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, and ClinicalTrials.gov for randomized trials of pharmacologic treatments for migraine prophylaxis. We included randomized trials that compared amitriptyline with placebo for migraine prophylaxis in adults. Our outcomes of interest were informed by the Outcome Set for preventive intervention trials in chronic and episodic migraine (COSMIG) and include the proportion of patients who experience a 50% or more reduction in migraine days per month, migraine days per month, and adverse events leading to discontinuation. We assessed risk of bias by using a modified Cochrane RoB 2.0 tool and the certainty of evidence by using the GRADE approach. RESULTS: Our search yielded 10.826 unique records, of which three trials (n = 622) were eligible for data synthesis and analysis. We found moderate certainty evidence that amitriptyline increases the proportion of patients who experience a 50% or more reduction in monthly migraine days, compared to placebo (relative risk: 1.60 (95% CI 1.17 to 2.19); absolute risk difference: 165 more per 1,000 (95% CI 47 more to 327 more). We found moderate certainty evidence that amitriptyline increases the proportion of patients who discontinue due to adverse events compared to placebo (risk difference: 0.05 (95% CI 0.01 to 0.10); absolute risk difference: 50 more per 1,000 (95% CI 10 more to 100 more). CONCLUSIONS: Our meta-analysis showed that amitriptyline may have a prophylactic role in migraine patients, however these results are far from robust. This warrants further large-scale research to evaluate the role of amitriptyline in migraine prevention.

Visual snow: A systematic review and a case series.

BACKGROUND: Visual Snow Syndrome is a recently recognized neurological condition presenting, continuous, tiny dots across the entire visual field, accompanied by nyctalopia, photophobia and palinopsia that persist for months. It may be part of migraine aura spectrum, yet its definition is still questionable. Diagnostic criteria for Visual Snow Syndrome are included in the supplemental material of ICHD-3. We aimed to summarize recent data to improve the understanding of Visual Snow Syndrome. METHODS: After presenting four new cases, we conducted a PRISMA systematic search in PubMed/MEDLINE and Embase databases using the keyword "visual snow" with specific inclusion and exclusion criteria. RESULTS: From the 855 articles identified 30 were included for the qualitative analysis. These reports covered five aspects related to Visual Snow Syndrome: epidemiology, clinical features, comorbidities, pathophysiology, and treatment. We found limited data concerning Visual Snow Syndrome's epidemiology (one study). Clinical presentation (22 articles) and the comorbidities (migraine with aura and tinnitus most often, five reports) are described in detail. The pathophysiology of Visual Snow Syndrome is only approached with hypotheses, but several neuroimaging studies have been identified (seven articles). Treatment is based on single case reports only. CONCLUSION: Data for Visual Snow Syndrome are few and not strong enough to support Visual Snow Syndrome as a medical identity. Further investigation is needed.

European Headache Federation guideline on the use of monoclonal antibodies targeting the calcitonin gene related peptide pathway for migraine prevention - 2022 update.

BACKGROUND: A previous European Headache Federation (EHF) guideline addressed the use of monoclonal antibodies targeting the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) pathway to prevent migraine. Since then, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and real-world evidence have expanded the evidence and knowledge for those treatments. Therefore, the EHF panel decided to provide an updated guideline on the use of those treatments. METHODS: The guideline was developed following the Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. The working group identified relevant questions, performed a systematic review and an analysis of the literature, assessed the quality of the available evidence, and wrote recommendations. Where the GRADE approach was not applicable, expert opinion was provided. RESULTS: We found moderate to high quality of evidence to recommend eptinezumab, erenumab, fremanezumab, and galcanezumab in individuals with episodic and chronic migraine. For several important clinical questions, we found not enough evidence to provide evidence-based recommendations and guidance relied on experts' opinion. Nevertheless, we provided updated suggestions regarding the long-term management of those treatments and their place with respect to the other migraine preventatives. CONCLUSION: Monoclonal antibodies targeting the CGRP pathway are recommended for migraine prevention as they are effective and safe also in the long-term.

European Headache Federation (EHF) consensus on the definition of effective treatment of a migraine attack and of triptan failure.

BACKGROUND: Triptans are migraine-specific acute treatments. A well-accepted definition of triptan failure is needed in clinical practice and for research. The primary aim of the present Consensus was to provide a definition of triptan failure. To develop this definition, we deemed necessary to develop as first a consensus definition of effective treatment of an acute migraine attack and of triptan-responder. MAIN BODY: The Consensus process included a preliminary literature review, a Delphi round and a subsequent open discussion. According to the Consensus Panel, effective treatment of a migraine attack is to be defined on patient well-being featured by a) improvement of headache, b) relief of non-pain symptoms and c) absence of adverse events. An attack is considered effectively treated if patient's well-being, as defined above, is restored within 2 hours and for at least 24 hours. An individual with migraine is considered as triptan-responder when the given triptan leads to effective acute attack treatment in at least three out of four migraine attacks. On the other hand, an individual with migraine is considered triptan non-responder in the presence of failure of a single triptan (not matching the definition of triptan-responder). The Consensus Panel defined an individual with migraine as triptan-resistant in the presence of failure of at least 2 triptans; triptan refractory, in the presence of failure to at least 3 triptans, including subcutaneous formulation; triptan ineligibile in the presence of an acknowledged contraindication to triptan use, as specified in the summary of product characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: The novel definitions can be useful in clinical practice for the assessment of acute attack treatments patients with migraine. They may be helpful in identifying people not responding to triptans and in need for novel acute migraine treatments. The definitions will also be of help in standardizing research on migraine acute care.

Anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies for migraine prevention: A systematic review and likelihood to help or harm analysis.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Monoclonal antibodies targeting the calcitonin gene-related peptide pathway (anti-CGRP mAbs) have shown promising efficacy in randomised clinical trials for the prevention of episodic and chronic migraine, but no head-to-head comparisons with established treatments are available. We aimed to examine absolute differences in benefit-risk ratios between anti-CGRP mAbs, topiramate and propranolol for the prevention of episodic migraine and between anti-CGRP mAbs, topiramate and onabotulinumtoxinA for the prevention of chronic migraine using a likelihood to help versus harm analysis. METHODS: The number of patients needed to be treated for a patient to achieve ≥ 50% reduction in migraine days (NNTB50%) was used as an effect size metric of efficacy. The number of patients needed to be treated for a patient to experience an adverse event that led to treatment discontinuation (NNTHD-AE) was used as a measure of risk. Likelihood to help versus harm values - which are the ratios of NNTH:NNTB - were calculated using data from phase 3 randomised clinical trials. RESULTS: All agents tested were more likely to be beneficial than harmful (likelihood to help versus harm > 1) with the exception of topiramate at 200 mg per day for the prevention of episodic migraine. Anti-CGRP mAbs in all tested doses had higher LHH values than propranolol or topiramate for episodic migraine and onabotulinumtoxinA or topiramate for chronic migraine prevention. Fremanezumab had the highest LHH ratio in episodic migraine and galcanezumab in chronic migraine. CONCLUSION: This analysis showed that anti-CGRP mAbs exhibit a more favourable benefit-risk ratio than established treatments for episodic and chronic migraine. Head-to-head studies are needed to confirm these results.

Lentiform fork sign in a patient with systemic lupus erythematosus.

The "lentiform fork sign" is a rare MRI sign which affects the posterior limb of the internal capsule, the external capsule, and extends posteriorly to form a fork-like appearance. It has been reported exclusively in disorders with metabolic acidosis, such as uremic encephalopathy, mitochondrial disorders, methanol/ethylene glycol intoxication, etc. It is considered to represent vasogenic edema and is often reversible. We describe a 73-year old female with a 2-month history of rapidly deteriorating imbalance, bradykinesia, confusion, and disorientation. At examination, she was encephalopathic. She had a pyramidal and rigid-akinetic parkinsonian syndrome, with signs of polyneuropathy. MRI revealed the "lentiform fork sign". She exhibited a high ANA titer, positive anti-dsDNA, anti-ENA, and anti-ß2GPI-IgM antibodies, as well as positive cerebrospinal fluid IgG and albumin indices. No metabolic acidosis was recorded. A diagnosis of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) was established. She was treated initially with methylprednisolone, followed by hydroxychloroquine, with complete remission of her symptoms and disappearance of the "lentiform fork sign". We present a case of a patient with SLE, harboring the "lentiform fork sign", in the absence of metabolic acidosis. Differential diagnosis of the "lentiform fork sign" should be expanded to include autoimmune disorders, even in the absence of metabolic acidosis.

Refractory burning mouth syndrome: clinical and paraclinical evaluation, comorbiities, treatment and outcome.

BACKGROUND: Burning Mouth Syndrome (BMS) is a chronic pain condition characterized by persistent intraoral burning without related objective findings and unknown etiology that affects elderly females mostly. There is no satisfactory treatment for BMS. We aimed to observe the long-term efficacy of high velanfaxine doses combined with systemic and topical administered clonazepam in a particular subgroup of BMS patients who do not respond to current clinical management. RESULTS: Eight (66.1 ± 6.2 years old females) out of 14 BMS patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were treated with venlafaxine (300 mg/d) and clonazepam (5 mg/d) for 35.4 ± 12.1 (mean ± SD) months. The average duration of the symptoms at baseline was 4.3 ± 1.4 years and the overall mean daily pain intensity score was 8.6 ± 1.3 (VAS); pain was in tongue and within the oral mucosa, accompanying by oral and facial dysesthesia. In five patients tasting was abnormal. All patients had positive history of concomitant primary headache. The average score of Hamilton Rating scale for Anxiety and Depression was 21 ± 4.2, and 26.1 ± 2.9, respectively. Previous ineffective treatments include anticonvulsants and anti-depressants. All patients responded (more than 50% decrease in VAS) after three months treatment (mean VAS 3.2 ± 2.2) with no remarkable adverse events. CONCLUSION: BMS deserves bottomless psychiatric evaluation and management when current available treatments fail. Treatment with venlafaxine combined with topical and systemic clonazepam may be effective in refractory BMS cases but further investigation in a large-scale controlled study is needed to confirm these results.

Patients' preferences for headache acute and preventive treatment.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to explore patients' preferences for headache treatments with a self-administered questionnaire including the Q-No questionnaire for nocebo. METHODS: Questionnaires from 514 outpatients naïve to neurostimulation and monoclonal antibodies were collected. RESULTS: Patients assessed that the efficacy of a treatment is more important than safety or route of administration. They preferred to use an external neurostimulation device for both acute (67.1%) and preventive treatment (62.8%). Most patients preferred to take a pill (86%) than any other drug given parenterally for symptomatic pharmaceutical treatment. For preventive pharmaceutical treatment, most patients preferred to take a pill once per day (52%) compared to an injection either subcutaneously or intravenously each month (9% and 4%), or three months (15% and 11%). 56.6% of all participants scored more than 15 in Q-No questionnaire indicating potential nocebo behaviors that contributed significantly in their choices. CONCLUSION: These patient preferences along with efficacy and safety data may help physicians better choose the right treatment for the right person.

Incremental predictive value of carotid inflammation in acute ischemic stroke.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Microwave Radiometry (MWR) allows in vivo noninvasive assessment of internal temperature of tissues. The aim of the present study was to evaluate in patients with ischemic stroke and bilateral carotid plaques (1) whether ipsilateral carotid arteries exhibit higher temperature differences (ΔT), as assessed by MWR; (2) the predictive accuracy of MWR in symptomatic carotid artery identification. METHODS: Consecutive patients with recent acute anterior circulation ischemic stroke because of large artery atherosclerosis were included in the study. Carotid arteries of all patients were evaluated by carotid ultrasound and MWR. RESULTS: In total, 50 patients were included in the study. Culprit carotid arteries had higher ΔT compared with nonculprit (0.93±0.58 versus 0.58±0.35°C; P<0.001). The addition of ΔT to a risk prediction model based only on ultrasound plaque characteristics increased its predictive accuracy significantly (c-statistic: 0.691 versus 0.768; Pdif=0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Culprit carotid arteries show higher thermal heterogeneity compared with nonculprit carotid arteries in patients with acute ischemic stroke and bilateral carotid plaques. MWR has incremental value in culprit carotid artery discrimination.

Q-No: a questionnaire to predict nocebo in outpatients seeking neurological consultation.

Nocebo affects significantly adherence and treatment outcome and varies considerably among neurological conditions. We aimed to evaluate a questionnaire to predict nocebo in outpatients seeking neurological consultation. A four-item (rating range 4-20) self-fulfilled questionnaire (Q-No) was given in outpatients seeking neurological consultation at the Athens Naval Hospital. A blind to Q-No scoring neurologist rated outpatients as nocebo or no-nocebo after follow-up of >6 months. 341 (71.5 % females) patients with mean age 46.9 (±13.8) years fulfilled the requested follow-up and Q-No. The mean total score was 13.2 (±3.7). The Crombach's alpha coefficient was 0.627. Neurologist suggested 80 patients (23.7 %) as nocebo and 258 as no-nocebo (mean Q-No score = 12.4 95 % CI [12.0-12.9] and 15.8, 95 % CI [15.1-16.6], respectively). Using a cut-off at score 15 the Q-No predicts nocebo with 71.7 % specificity, 67.5 % sensitivity and 42.5 % positive predictive value. Q-No may serve as a useful tool to predict nocebo in outpatients seeking neurological consultation.

Neck pain in episodic migraine: premonitory symptom or part of the attack?

BACKGROUND: Whether neck pain (NP) is a prodromal migraine symptom or belongs to the migraine attack feature remains controversial. METHODS: In order to prospectively record neck pain (NP) and non-headache symptoms and to evaluate the percentage of patients having NP as clear premonitory, non-headache symptom of their migraine, a specific self fulfilled questionnaire was designed to record NP and premonitory symptoms in a migraine cohort. All patients who reported NP anytime during the migraine phase were allocated to 3 groups: A = NP starts with the onset of headache; B = NP starts < 2 h before the onset of headache; C = NP starts 2-48 h before the onset of headache. RESULTS: Data were evaluated from 487 migraineurs with episodic migraine (73.1 % females; 77 % had migraine without aura). 338 patients (69.4 %) reported NP anytime during the migraine phase. 184 patients (group A; 54.4 %) noticed NP with the start of the headache phase; 118 patients (group B; 24.2 %) reported NP within 2 h before the headache phase; 36 patients (group C; 7.4 %) experienced NP 2-48 h before the headache phase. In group B we found a high proportion of typical migraine associated symptoms and NP progressed into the headache phase in 82.2 %. CONCLUSIONS: These data indicate that NP is a very common feature of migraine attacks and is more likely to be part of the migraine attack than a prodromal migraine symptom.