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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Nueva era terapéutica para el ataque de migraña con los recientemente aprobados anticuerpos monoclonales, ditanes y gepantes / New therapeutic era for migraine attacks with recently approved monoclonal antibodies, ditans and gepants

El tratamiento de los ataques de migraña se aconseja en todos los pacientes, utilizando antiinflamatorios no esteroideos cuando el dolor es leve y triptanes cuando la intensidad del dolor es moderada-grave. Sin embargo, la efectividad de estos fármacos es modesta, un porcentaje elevado de pacientes presenta efectos secundarios y los triptanes están contraindicados en las personas con antecedentes de ictus, cardiopatía isquémica o hipertensión mal controlada. Por tanto, es imprescindible disponer de nuevas alternativas terapéuticas. En los últimos años han ido apareciendo nuevos fármacos para los ataques de migraña, entre los que destacan los ditanes (lasmiditán) y los gepantes (ubrogepant y rimegepant). Por otro lado, el eptinezumab, que ha sido aprobado para el tratamiento preventivo de la migraña en adultos, se ha utilizado también para los ataques de migraña. En este manuscrito se revisan los resultados de eficacia y seguridad de los nuevos fármacos para los ataques de migraña que se comercializarán próximamente. (AU)

Treatment of migraine attacks is advised in all patients, using non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs when the pain is mild and triptans when the pain intensity is moderate-severe. However, the effectiveness of these drugs is moderate, a high percentage of patients have side effects, and triptans are contraindicated in people with a history of stroke, ischaemic heart disease or poorly controlled hypertension. Hence, there is an urgent need for new therapeutic alternatives. In recent years, new drugs for migraine attacks have become available, most notably ditans (lasmiditan) and gepants (ubrogepant and rimegepant). Furthermore, eptinezumab, which has been approved for the preventive treatment of migraine in adults, has also been used for migraine attacks. This manuscript reviews the efficacy and safety results of the new drugs for migraines that will soon be on the market. (AU)

Unidades especializadas de cefalea, una alternativa viable en España / Specialised headache units, a feasible alternative in Spain

INTRODUCCIÓN: Las consultas por cefalea son el motivo más frecuente de demanda de atención de causa neurológica en la atención primaria y en los servicios de neurología. Las unidades de cefalea mejoran la calidad asistencial, reducen las listas de espera, facilitan el acceso a nuevos tratamientos de eficacia contrastada y optimizan el gasto sanitario. No obstante, la implantación de estas unidades no está extendida en España debido a la relativa importancia atribuida a la patología y a la suposición de que su coste es elevado. OBJETIVO: Definir la estructura y los requerimientos mínimos de una unidad de cefalea con la intención de contribuir a su extensión en los hospitales de España. SUJETOS Y MÉTODOS: Estudio de consenso entre profesionales tras la revisión de la bibliografía sobre la estructura, las funciones y los recursos de una unidad de cefalea para un área de 350.000 habitantes. RESULTADOS: Se tomaron como referencia ocho publicaciones para la identificación de recursos mínimos necesarios de una unidad de cefalea. El panel de expertos estuvo integrado por 12 profesionales de diferentes especialidades. El principal recurso para la implementación de estas unidades son profesionales (superiores y técnicos), lo que puede suponer un coste adicional para el primer año de alrededor de 107.287,19 euros. CONCLUSIONES: Si consideramos los costes directos e indirectos debidos a las pérdidas por productividad laboral por paciente y los comparamos con los costes estimados de implantación de estas unidades y su expectativa de resultados, todo apunta a que es necesaria la generalización de unidades de cefalea en España

INTRODUCTION: Visits due to headaches are the most frequent cause of demand for neurological treatment in primary care and neurology services. Headache units improve the quality of care, reduce waiting lists, facilitate access to new treatments of proven efficacy and optimise healthcare expenditure. However, these units have not been implemented on a widespread basis in Spain due to the relatively low importance attributed to the condition and also the assumption that such units have a high cost. AIM: To define the structure and minimum requirements of a headache unit with the intention of contributing to their expansion in hospitals in Spain. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: We conducted a consensus study among professionals after reviewing the literature on the structure, functions and resources required by a headache unit designed to serve an area with 350,000 inhabitants. RESULTS: Eight publications were taken as a reference for identifying the minimum resources needed for a headache unit. The panel of experts was made up of 12 professionals from different specialties. The main resource required to be able to implement these units is the professional staff (both supervisory and technical), which can mean an additional cost for the first year of around 107,287.19 euros. CONCLUSIONS: If we bear in mind the direct and indirect costs due to losses in labour productivity per patient and compare them with the estimated costs involved in implementing these units and their expected results, everything points to the need for headache units to become generalised in Spain