Responder rates with eptinezumab over 24 weeks in patients with prior preventive migraine treatment failures: post hoc analysis of the DELIVER randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Eptinezumab reduced monthly migraine days more than placebo in the DELIVER study, a clinical trial with patients with difficult-to-treat migraine and prior preventive treatment failures. This post hoc analysis assesses the sustained response to eptinezumab at the population and patient level and evaluates the potential for response in initial non-responders. METHODS: Adults with chronic or episodic migraine and two to four prior preventive treatment failures were randomized to eptinezumab 100 mg, 300 mg or placebo every 12 weeks. Primary outcomes in this post hoc analysis are the proportion of patients with ≥30%, ≥50% or ≥75% reduction in monthly migraine days (i.e., migraine responder rates [MRRs]) during weeks 1-12 and weeks 13-24 and across 4-week intervals. Secondary outcomes are maintenance and shifts in MRRs from weeks 1-12 to weeks 13-24. RESULTS: Between weeks 1-12 and 13-24, ≥30% MRRs increased from 65.9% to 70.4% (100 mg) and from 71.0% to 74.5% (300 mg), versus 36.9% to 43.1% (placebo). The ≥50% and ≥75% MRRs were sustained or increased over the 24-week period. The largest increase in ≥30% MRRs occurred after the second infusion with eptinezumab. The percentage of initial non-responders (<30% MRRs during weeks 1-12) who experienced response (≥30% MRRs during weeks 13-24) to the second dose was 34.7% (100 mg) and 30.4% (300 mg) with eptinezumab versus 21.1% with placebo. CONCLUSION: Across MRR thresholds, most patients who responded to eptinezumab during weeks 1-12 maintained or improved response during weeks 13-24. More than one-third of initial non-responders became responders after their second infusion.

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.

The World Health Organization Intersectoral Global Action Plan on Epilepsy and Other Neurological Disorders and the headache revolution: from headache burden to a global action plan for headache disorders.

The World Health Organization (WHO) Intersectoral Global Action Plan on Epilepsy and Other Neurological Disorders was developed by WHO to address the worldwide challenges and gaps in provision of care and services for people with epilepsy and other neurological disorders and to ensure a comprehensive, coordinated response across sectors to the burden of neurologic diseases and to promote brain health across life-course. Headache disorders constitute the second most burdensome of all neurological diseases after stroke, but the first if young and midlife adults are taken into account. Despite the availability of a range of treatments, disability associated with headache disorders, and with migraine, remains very high. In addition, there are inequalities between high-income and low and middle income countries in access to medical care. In line with several brain health initiatives following the WHOiGAP resolution, herein we tailor the main pillars of the action plan to headache disorders: (1) raising policy prioritization and strengthen governance; (2) providing effective, timely and responsive diagnosis, treatment and care; (3) implementing strategies for promotion and prevention; (4) fostering research and innovation and strengthen information systems. Specific targets for future policy actions are proposed. The Global Action Plan triggered a revolution in neurology, not only by increasing public awareness of brain disorders and brain health but also by boosting the number of neurologists in training, raising research funding and making neurology a public health priority for policy makers. Reducing the burden of headache disorders will not only improve the quality of life and wellbeing of people with headache but also reduce the burden of neurological disorders increasing global brain health and, thus, global population health.

Meta-analysis of placebo-arm dropouts in osteoporosis randomized-controlled trials and implications for nocebo-associated discontinuation of anti-osteoporotic drugs in clinical practice.

Dropout from placebo arms in randomized-controlled trials is a surrogate for nocebo responses, resulting from patients' negative expectations to treatment. Among 16,460 placebo-treated patients in oral anti-osteoporotic drug trials, nocebo dropouts were 8% on average, being higher in older patients. This implies that nocebo may contribute to the osteoporosis treatment gap in clinical practice. PURPOSE: Osteoporosis is a common disease requiring long-term treatment. Despite the availability of effective anti-osteoporotic drugs, adherence to treatment is low. Nocebo, a behavior mostly related to the negative expectations to a certain treatment, decreases adherence and negatively affects treatment outcomes and health-related care costs in chronic diseases. Since in double-blind placebo-controlled randomized trials any unfavorable outcome leading to discontinuation in placebo arms is considered as nocebo, we aimed to investigate the size of nocebo response in patients participating in osteoporosis trials. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, SCOPUS, and Cochrane databases for dropouts due to reported adverse events in the placebo arms (nocebo dropouts) in all double-blind trials investigating anti-osteoporotic drugs published between January 1993 and March 2022. Only data on bisphosphonates and selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERMs) were analyzed (Prospero registration number CRD42020212843). RESULTS: Data from 44 trials were extracted. In 16,460 placebo-treated patients, the pooled nocebo-dropout was 8% both for bisphosphonates (average: 0.08; range 0.01-0.27; 95%CI 0.06-0.10) and SERMs (average: 0.08; range 0.03-0.15; 95%CI 0.05-0.13). Nocebo-dropouts were higher in bisphosphonate trials enrolling individuals ≥ 65 years (11%) (n = 18) compared to trials enrolling younger individuals (6%) (n = 18) (average: 0.11; 95%CI 0.08-0.13 vs. average: 0.06; 95%CI 0.05-0.08, respectively, p = 0.001). Participants' sex, dosing-intervals, publication year, or severity of osteoporosis had no impact on the nocebo-dropouts. CONCLUSION: Almost 1 in 10 osteoporosis patients receiving placebo in trials of bisphosphonates and SERMs experiences AEs leading to dropout, implying that nocebo contributes to treatment-discontinuation in clinical practice. Efforts to identify and minimize nocebo, especially in older patients, are warranted.

The prevalence and burden of medication overuse headache in Greece.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the prevalence and burden of medication overuse headache in a representative sample of the Greek population, aged 18-70 years old. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional descriptive observational study performed by quantitative computer-assisted telephone interviews, using a standardized 37-item questionnaire for headaches. The prevalence of medication overuse headache was estimated in the general population and compared within the groups formed by factors such as age, gender, diagnosis of headache type, prophylactic treatment used, geographical regions, social class, workdays lost and loss of productivity. RESULTS: 1197 (12.0%) participants reported headaches affecting performance out of 10,008 interviewees. The estimated prevalence of medication overuse headache in the general population was 0.7% (95% CI: 0.5-0.9). The female to male ratio was 3.6:1. The proportion of medication overuse headache was largest in the 35-54 age group, followed by the over 55 group. The Aegean islands and Crete were the regions with the highest proportion of medication overuse headache. Among participants with headaches, the proportion of medication overuse headache was 5.8% (95% CI: 4.4%-7.1%); 6.3% (95% CI: 4.7%-7.9%) among females and 4.4% (95% CI: 2.2%-6.6%) among males. In the same headache group, the proportion of medication overuse headache by prophylactic treatment for headache was 19.0% (95% CI: 9.5%-29.1%) for recipients and 5.0% (95% CI: 3.8-6.3) for non-recipients. The mean absenteeism in people with medication overuse headache was 1.0 days/month (95% CI: 0.4-1.6) and the mean presenteeism 6.3 days/month (95% CI: 3.9-8.7). The social class stratification showed a significant effect between the medication overuse headache in the sample of the general population and the C2 class, corresponding to skilled manual labour (OR: 0.7, CI: 0.5-0.9). In people with chronic migraine, and chronic tension type headache, as differentiated by the 37-item questionnaire, the proportion of medication overuse headache in the headache group estimated to be 50.5% (95% CI: 40.8%-60.1%) and 45.9%, (95% CI: 29.9%-62.0%) respectively. The group of people with acute headache medication overuse fulfilling the rest of the diagnostic criteria for medication overuse headache, except from the number of headache days per month (≥15 days/month), had a prevalence of 2.0% (95% CI: 1.75-2.30) and a proportion of 17.0% (95% CI: 14.8%-19.1%) among people with headache. In the episodic types of headache, the proportion of acute headache medication overuse was higher in the subgroup of people with high frequency episodic migraine, 24.9% (95% CI: 18.8%-31.0%), while it was 10.8% (95% CI: 8.2%-13.5%), for the low frequency episodic migraine and 8.5% (95% CI: 5.5%-10.4%), for the episodic tension type headache. CONCLUSION: The prevalence of medication overuse headache in the general population in Greece and its proportion among the people with headache belongs to the lower part of the range of the reported literature, while the 3.6:1 female to male ratio is in agreement with it. In the same line, the impact of absenteeism and presenteeism on the workplace renders the condition alarming socio-economic health problem demanding immediate health policy planning.

Placebo and nocebo in the treatment of migraine: How much does real world effectiveness depend on contextual effects?

PURPOSE: Treatments in medicine impact individuals beyond their intended effects, due to phenomena such as the placebo and nocebo effects. The placebo effect arises from the positive expectation of a treatment being beneficial, while the nocebo effect stems from the negative expectation of a treatment causing harm. Both in real-world practice and clinical trials, treatments can lead to outcomes unrelated to their intended mechanism of action, which we categorize as placebo and nocebo responses. These responses, combined with the inherent fluctuation in a condition's natural progression, regression to the mean, and random comorbidities, make up a significant part of the therapeutic experience. Particularly in pain management, placebo and nocebo effects play a substantial role. By addressing modifiable contextual factors such as patient expectations, lifestyle choices, and the therapeutic relationship, healthcare providers can enhance the effectiveness of migraine treatments, paving the way for a more comprehensive, individualized approach to patient care. We must also consider non-modifiable factors like personal experiences, beliefs, and information from social media and the internet. CONCLUSION: This review offers a summary of our current understanding of the placebo and nocebo effects in migraine management.

Real-world effectiveness of fremanezumab for the preventive treatment of migraine: Interim analysis of the pan-European, prospective, observational, phase 4 PEARL study.

BACKGROUND: The ongoing Pan-European Real Life (PEARL) phase 4 study is evaluating fremanezumab effectiveness and safety for the prevention of episodic and chronic migraine. This interim analysis reports primary, secondary and exploratory endpoints from when 500 participants completed at least six months of treatment. METHODS: Adults with episodic migraine or chronic migraine maintaining daily headache diaries were enrolled upon initiation of fremanezumab. Primary endpoint: proportion of participants with ≥50% reduction in monthly migraine days during the six-month period after fremanezumab initiation. Secondary endpoints: mean change from baseline across months 1-12 in monthly migraine days, acute migraine medication use, and headache-related disability. Exploratory endpoint: mean change in headache severity from baseline across months 1-12. Safety was assessed through adverse events reported. RESULTS: Overall, 897 participants were enrolled and 574 included in the effectiveness analyses (episodic migraine, 25.8%; chronic migraine, 74.2%). Of participants with data available, 175/313 (55.9%) achieved ≥50% monthly migraine days reduction during the six-month period post-initiation. Across months 1-12, there were sustained reductions in mean monthly migraine days, acute medication use, disability scores, and headache severity. Few adverse events were reported. CONCLUSION: PEARL interim results support the effectiveness and safety of fremanezumab for migraine prevention in a real-world population across several European countries.Trial registration: encepp.eu: EUPAS35111.

Numbers needed to treat or harm and likelihood of being helped versus harmed for fremanezumab in patients who had prior inadequate response to two to four classes of migraine preventive medications: A post hoc analysis.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine the number needed to treat (NNT), number needed to harm (NNH), and likelihood of being helped or harmed (LHH) in a post hoc analysis of the phase 3b FOCUS trial. BACKGROUND: Fremanezumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody that selectively targets calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP), has demonstrated efficacy, tolerability, and safety in adults with episodic migraine (EM) or chronic migraine (CM), with documented previous inadequate response to two to four classes of migraine preventive medications. METHODS: In the 12-week double-blind period of the FOCUS study, patients were randomized (1:1:1) to quarterly fremanezumab, monthly fremanezumab, or matched monthly placebo. NNT was based on responder analysis, defined as ≥50% reduction in monthly average number of migraine days at 12 weeks. NNH was based on discontinuations due to adverse events (AEs). RESULTS: Among patients with CM (n = 509), response rates and discontinuation rates were 27% (45/169) and 0 for quarterly fremanezumab, 29% (50/173) and 2% (3/173) for monthly fremanezumab, and 8% (13/167) and <1% (1/167) for placebo, respectively. These results translated to NNTs of 5.3 and 4.7, NNHs of 1000 and 88, and LHHs of 188 and 19 for quarterly and monthly fremanezumab, respectively. Among patients with EM (n = 328), response rates were 47% (50/107) for quarterly fremanezumab, 43% (47/110) for monthly fremanezumab, and 10% (11/111) for placebo. Discontinuation rates were <1% (n = 1) in all three groups. These results translated to NNTs of 2.7 and 3.0, NNHs of 1000 and 1000, and LHHs of 368 and 328 for quarterly and monthly fremanezumab, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The NNT, NNH, and LHH for quarterly and monthly fremanezumab compare favorably with those for traditional oral preventive medications, including topiramate, valproate, and propranolol.

COVID-19 vaccination-related headache showed two different clusters in the long-term course: a prospective multicenter follow-up study (COVA-Head Study).

BACKGROUND: Although acute headache following COVID-19 vaccination is widely acknowledged, the long-term progression of these headaches remains poorly understood. Our objective was to identify various phenotypes of prolonged or worsened headaches associated with COVID-19 vaccination and document any changes in these phenotypes over an extended period. Additionally, we aimed to document the diverse headache presentations among patients with pre-existing primary headaches. METHODS: A multinational, prospective observational study was conducted to investigate prolonged or worsened headaches associated with COVID-19 vaccination. Questionnaires assessing COVID-19 vaccination-related headaches at three time points (initial visit, 3rd month follow-up, and 6th month follow-up) were developed for the study. Headache specialists/clinicians evaluated patients using these questionnaires in a prospective manner. Repeated K-means cluster analysis was performed to identify patient profiles with prolonged or worsened headaches related to COVID-19 vaccination. RESULTS: Among the 174 patients included in the study, there was a female-to-male ratio of 128 (73.6%) to 46 (26.4%). The mean age of the patient group was 45.2 ± 13.3 years, and 107 patients (61.5%) had a pre-existing history of primary headaches. Through the analysis, two major clusters were identified based on headache characteristics at each visit. During the first visit (n = 174), Cluster 1 primarily comprised patients with a history of primary headaches, frontal localization of pain, throbbing pain type, more severe headaches accompanied by symptoms such as nausea, phonophobia, photophobia, and osmophobia, and worsened by physical activity. In contrast, Cluster 2 consisted of patients with longer headache durations (over one month) and a stabbing/pressing quality of pain. Patients in Cluster 1 had a higher prevalence of migraine as the pre-existing primary headache disorder compared to Cluster 2 (90.48% vs. 68.18%, respectively; p = 0.005). CONCLUSION: The identification of two distinct phenotypes of prolonged or worsened headaches related to COVID-19 vaccination can provide valuable clinical insights. Having an awareness of the potential worsening of headaches following COVID-19 vaccination, particularly in patients with a primary headache disorder such as migraine, can help clinicians and headache experts anticipate and adjust their treatment strategies accordingly. This knowledge can aid in preplanning treatment modifications and optimize patient care.

Rethinking headache as a global public health case model for reaching the SDG 3 HEALTH by 2030.

The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development sets out, through 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), a path for the prosperity of people and the planet. SDG 3 in particular aims to ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages and includes several targets to enhance health. This review presents a "headache-tailored" perspective on how to achieve SDG 3 by focusing on six specific actions: targeting chronic headaches; reducing the overuse of acute pain-relieving medications; promoting the education of healthcare professionals; granting access to medication in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC); implementing training and educational opportunities for healthcare professionals in low and middle income countries; building a global alliance against headache disorders. Addressing the burden of headache disorders directly impacts on populations' health, as well as on the possibility to improve the productivity of people aged below 50, women in particular. Our analysis pointed out several elements, and included: moving forward from frequency-based parameters to define headache severity; recognizing and managing comorbid diseases and risk factors; implementing a disease management multi-modal management model that incorporates pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments; early recognizing and managing the overuse of acute pain-relieving medications; promoting undergraduate, postgraduate, and continuing medical education of healthcare professionals with specific training on headache; and promoting a culture that favors the recognition of headaches as diseases with a neurobiological basis, where this is not yet recognized. Making headache care more sustainable is an achievable objective, which will require multi-stakeholder collaborations across all sectors of society, both health-related and not health-related. Robust investments will be needed; however, considering the high prevalence of headache disorders and the associated disability, these investments will surely improve multiple health outcomes and lift development and well-being globally.

Therapies targeting CGRP signaling for medication overuse headache.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Medication overuse headache (MOH) affects more than 60 million individuals worldwide causing enormous personal and social burden. Only repurposed drugs are available for MOH that share limited evidence for efficacy. The preclinical data suggesting that activation of the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) pathway is involved in headache chronification along with clinical evidence that monoclonal antibodies targeting CGRP (anti-CGRP mAbs) have good efficacy in preventing chronic migraine, triggered this review that aims to summarize the current data on the effectiveness and safety of mAbs against CGRP in MOH. RECENT FINDINGS: Post hoc analyses of phase-3 trials of erenumab, fremanezumab, galcanezumab, and eptinezumab for the prevention of chronic migraine revealed that patients with MOH benefit from the treatment over placebo. Several real-world studies confirm the efficacy of erenumab and galcanezumab in patients with MO. However, all published trials evaluated treatments in patients with chronic migraine with MO collectively, not in patients with MOH exclusively. SUMMARY: The available data indicate that anti-CGRP mAbs represent a good mechanism-based and disease-specific therapeutical option with for MOH as long as detoxification and additional nonpharmaceutical interventions are operated. Future research should focus on long-term-controlled trials in MOH populations exclusively.

Migraine: integrated approaches to clinical management and emerging treatments.

Migraine is a highly disabling neurological disorder that directly affects more than 1 billion individuals worldwide. Available treatment options differ between countries and include acute, preventive, and non-pharmacological therapies. Because of major progress in the understanding of migraine pathogenesis, novel mechanism-based medications have emerged and expanded the armamentarium of treatments. We provide a comprehensive overview of the current standard of care that will enable informed clinical management. First, we discuss the efficacy, tolerability, and safety profile of various pharmacological therapies for acute and preventive treatment of migraine. Second, we review the current knowledge on non-pharmacological therapies, such as neuromodulation and biobehavioural approaches, which can be used for a multidisciplinary approach to clinical management. Third, we emphasise that any effective treatment strategy starts with building a therapeutic plan tailored to individual clinical characteristics, preferences, and needs. Finally, we explore the outlook of emerging mechanism-based treatments that could address unmet challenges in clinical management of migraine.

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.

Drug tolerability: How much ambiguity can be tolerated? A systematic review of the assessment of tolerability in clinical studies.

AIMS: Drug tolerability refers to the degree to which drugs' overt adverse effects can be tolerated by patients. The tolerability profile is of comparative importance to its efficacy and safety, as it largely determines adherence to treatment and ultimately treatment success or failure. However, the term is frequently used imprecisely, and it is unclear if tolerability is limited to subjective patient-reported symptoms or also covers certain objective signs and findings. The aim of this systematic review was to assess how clinical studies define, evaluate and present drug tolerability. METHODS: The study consisted of a systematic review of clinical studies in PubMed® reporting the term "tolerability". RESULTS: Eighty clinical studies were screened and 56 studies reporting drug tolerability were retained. None of the retained studies defined events encompassed by the term tolerability by making a distinction between safety and tolerability. Twenty-five studies claimed to evaluate tolerability, but none of them described how to evaluate tolerability from the patient perspective. Most studies (54 out of 56) concluded that the treatment was well tolerated, apparently implying favourable safety. However, none of them actually presented tolerability in terms of a contrast between safety and tolerability. CONCLUSIONS: Tolerability is used frequently, albeit incorrectly, to refer to a drug's favourable safety profile. Focused evaluation of drug tolerability (i.e., the patient perspective of adverse drug reactions) should become routine. Presentation in regulatory documents, such as risk management plan summaries, product information and patient leaflets should be a continuation of the process of patient-centred healthcare.

Understanding frontal lobe function in epilepsy: Juvenile myoclonic epilepsy vs. frontal lobe epilepsy.

AIM: To compare neuropsychological function in juvenile myoclonic epilepsy (JME) and frontal lobe epilepsy (FLE) since frontal circuitry is involved in both conditions. By drawing on previously theory-guided hypotheses and findings, a particular emphasis is placed on the way different cognitive-pathophysiological mechanisms act upon to produce frontal dysfunction in JME (frontal-executive and attention-related problems: vigilance, reaction times, processing speed, and response inhibition) and in FLE (reflecting the coproduct of the functional deficit zone), respectively. METHODS: A total of 16 patients with JME, 34 patients with FLE, and 48 normal controls, all matched for age and education, were administered a comprehensive battery of tests to assess frontal-executive functions, as well as attention, memory, and learning domains. Participants did not take medications other than antiepileptics or have a psychiatric history. RESULTS: Patients with FLE overall showed worse neuropsychological performance compared to both JME and HCs. With respect to JME, patients with FLE did significantly worse in measures of verbal and nonverbal executive function, short-term-, and long-term- auditory-verbal memory and learning, immediate and delayed episodic recall, visual attention and motor function, visuo-motor coordination and psychomotor speed, speed of visual information processing, and vocabulary. Patients with JME performed significantly worse compared to FLE only in associative semantic processing, while the former outperformed all groups in vocabulary, visuomotor coordination, and psychomotor speed. CONCLUSION: We suggest that selective impairments of visual- and mostly auditory-speed of information processing, vigilance, and response inhibition may represent a salient neuropsychological feature in JME. These findings suggest the existence of an aberrantly working executive-attention system, secondary to pathological reticulo-thalamo-cortical dynamics. Contrariwise, cortically (frontal and extra-frontal) and subcortically induced malfunction in FLE is determined by the functional deficit zone i.e., the ensemble of cortical and subcortical areas that are functionally abnormal between seizures.

COVID-19 vaccine safety and nocebo-prone associated hesitancy in patients with systemic rheumatic diseases: a cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the rate and type of adverse effects (AEs) and the frequency of disease flares after COVID-19 vaccination and to assess the reasons for vaccination hesitancy (non-vaccination) in SRD patients. METHODS: Telephone interviews were conducted of SRD patients consecutively enrolled (15/06/2021-1/7/2021). Participants were asked about the type of AEs and disease flare after vaccination. Reasons for vaccination hesitancy were recorded. Univariate and mutivariable analyses examined associations of demographic, clinical and other features, with occurrence of AEs, disease flare and non-vaccination. For the latter, association with negative vaccination behaviour (not influenza vaccinated for the last 2 years) and nocebo-prone behaviour (denoting AEs attributed to negative expectations [Q-No questionnaire]) was also tested. RESULTS: 561 out of 580 contacted patients were included in the study. 441/561 (78.6%) patients were vaccinated [90% (Pfizer, Moderna), 10% (Astra-Zeneca)]. AEs were reported by 148/441 (33.6%), with rates being comparable between the three vaccines. AEs were more common in females and those with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease [OR, 95% CI; females: 2.23 (1.30-3.83); COPD: 3.31 (1.24-8.83)]. Disease flare was reported in 9/441 (2%) patients. For those unvaccinated, fear that the vaccine would be harmful (53.3%), could cause disease flare (24.2%) and/or could cause thrombosis (21.7%) were the main reasons to do so. Multivariable analysis identified as independent variables for non-vaccination: nocebo-prone behaviour (OR; 95% CI, 3.88; 1.76-8.55), negative vaccination behaviour (6.56; 3.21-13.42) and previous COVID-19 infection (2.83; 1.13-7.05). Higher educational status was protective (0.49; 0.26-0.92). CONCLUSION: No new safety signals for COVID-19 vaccination were observed. Vaccination campaign should target SRD patients with nocebo-prone and negative influenza vaccination behaviour.

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.

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.

A population-based survey for disabling headaches in Greece: Prevalence, burden and treatment preferences.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the prevalence, burden and current treatment of disabling primary headaches in a large sample of the Greek population aged 18-70 years old. METHODS: This is an observational descriptive study, with cross-sectional design performed by quantitative computer-assisted telephone interviews, using a validated 37-item questionnaire for headaches. The prevalence, burden, and current treatment of primary headaches (ICHD-3) were recorded along with participants' treatment preferences. RESULTS: Out of 10,008 interviewed participants, 1197 (12.0%) reported headaches affecting performance. The annual prevalence of migraine was 8.1% (95% confidence interval, 7.6-8.7, corresponding to 0.6 million Greeks), of chronic migraine 1.0% (95% confidence interval, 0.8-1.2, corresponding to 0.1 million), and of tension-type headache 3.8% (95% confidence interval, 3.4-4.2, corresponding to 0.3 million). The participants with headaches reported 0.5 headache-induced lost workdays per month (corresponding to 5.8 million lost workdays annually) and reductions in performance on 2.8 workdays per month (corresponding to 30.9 million workdays annually). In all, 43.4% of headache participants felt bad/ashamed because of headaches and 21.9% sought professional treatment, most often from a private neurologist. 83.8% of headache participants had never taken pharmacological prophylaxis, and only 5.5% were currently under preventative treatment. For both prophylactic and acute treatment, headache participants prefer oral medication to injection or stimulation devices. CONCLUSION: More than 10% of the Greek adult population up to 70 years old experience disabling headaches, causing a dramatic work loss. More than 80% of these have never taken pharmacological prophylaxis. Thus, enriching the quality of life of people with headaches relies crucially on expanding awareness about headaches and their treatment.

Validity and reliability of the Greek version of the neurogenic bladder symptom score (NBSS) questionnaire in a sample of Greek patients with multiple sclerosis.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: There is no data regarding validity and reliability of the Greek version of Neurogenic Bladder Symptom Score (NBSS) questionnaire. In this study we investigated these parameters using a sample of Greek patients with multiple sclerosis (MS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with different types and severity of multiple sclerosis were recruited from a single center in Greece prospectively. All patients completed the MusiQoL and NBSS questionnaires at baseline and 20 days later, without receiving any new treatment. Construct validity, internal consistency and test-retest reliability were tested. Internal consistency was investigated using Cronbach's alpha coefficient, while test-retest reliability using Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC). Construct validity was assessed by comparing NBSS quality of life question 24 with MusiQoL questionnaire. RESULTS: A total of 91 patients were evaluated. The dimensions of NBSS exhibited high internal consistency, both for overall questionnaire score (Cronbach's alpha coefficient of 0.91) and for every subdomain separately (Cronbach's alpha coefficient of 0.95 for incontinence, 0.88 for storage symptoms and 0.74 for consequences). Test-retest reliability was satisfactory both for overall score [ICC of 0.85, (0.35-0.94), p < 0.001] and for every subdomain separately (ICC of 0.90 for incontinence, 0.83 for storage symptoms and 0.90 for consequences). Pearson's correlation coefficient of question number 24 of the NBSS questionnaire regarding quality of life with the MusiQoL questionnaire revealed a moderate correlation [r = 0.64, (0.48-0.80), p < 0.0001]. CONCLUSIONS: The Greek version of NBSS appears to be a valid and reliable instrument for assessing neurogenic bladder symptoms in Greek population suffering from multiple sclerosis.