Efficacy and safety of galcanezumab as chronic cluster headache preventive treatment under real world conditions: Observational prospective study.

BACKGROUND: Calcitonin gene-related peptide has shown to play a central role in cluster headache (CH) pathophysiology. A clinical trial with galcanezumab was carried out in chronic cluster headache (CCH) but did not meet its primay endpoint. However, its off-label use in patients with CCH refractory to other therapies could be considered. We aimed to asses the efficacy and safety of galcanezumab as CCH preventive treatment in a real-life setting. METHODS: An observational study was conducted. Patients with CCH who received at least one dose of 240 mg of galcanezumab. RESULTS: Twenty-one patients who tried a mean of 6.3 ± 1.9 preventive therapies, including onabotulinumtoxinA in 90.5%. At baseline, the median of frequency was 60 (37.5-105) monthly attacks with 10 (8.3-10) points in pain intensity (Numerical Rating Scale). After one month, the frequency decreased to 31 (10.5-45) (p = 0.003) with 8.5 (8-9.5) intensity (p = 0.007); 10 (47.6%) patients were 50% responders of whom four (19%) were 75% responders. Of the 15 patients with 3 months of follow-up, seven (46.6%) reduced their frequency by 50% and four (26.6%) by 75%, with 40 (10-60) monthly attacks (p = 0.07) and pain intensity of 8 (5-10) (p = 0.026). Some 52% patients experienced adverse events, mostly mild. CONCLUSIONS: In our cohort of refractory CCH, galcanezumab was effective in almost 50% of patients. This finding supports individual off-label treatment attempts.

RE-START: Exploring the effectiveness of anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide resumption after discontinuation in migraine.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: According to the latest European guidelines, discontinuation of monoclonal antibodies against calcitonin gene-related peptide (anti-CGRP MAb) may be considered after 12-18 months of treatment. However, some patients may worsen after discontinuation. In this study, we assessed the response following treatment resumption. METHODS: This was a prospective study conducted in 14 Headache Units in Spain. We included patients with response to anti-CGRP MAb with clinical worsening after withdrawal and resumption of treatment. Numbers of monthly migraine days (MMD) and monthly headache days (MHD) were obtained at four time points: before starting anti-CGRP MAb (T-baseline); last month of first treatment period (T-suspension); month of restart due to worsening (T-worsening); and 3 months after resumption (T-reintroduction). The response rate to resumption was calculated. Possible differences among periods were analysed according to MMD and MHD. RESULTS: A total of 360 patients, 82% women, with a median (interquartile range [IQR]) age at migraine onset of 18 (12) years. The median (IQR) MHD at T-baseline was 20 (13) and MMD was 5 (6); at T-suspension, the median (IQR) MHD was 5 (6) and MMD was 4 (5); at T-worsening, the median (IQR) MHD was 16 (13) and MMD was 12 (6); and at T-reintroduction, the median (IQR) MHD was 8 (8) and MHD was 5 (5). In the second period of treatment, a 50% response rate was achieved by 57.4% of patients in MHD and 65.8% in MMD. Multivariate models showed significant differences in MHD between the third month after reintroduction and last month before suspension of first treatment period (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The results suggest that anti-CGRP MAb therapy is effective after reintroduction. However, 3 months after resumption, one third of the sample reached the same improvement as after the first treatment period.

MAB-MIG: registry of the spanish neurological society of erenumab for migraine prevention.

BACKGROUND: Erenumab was approved in Europe for migraine prevention in patients with ≥ 4 monthly migraine days (MMDs). In Spain, Novartis started a personalized managed access program, which allowed free access to erenumab before official reimbursement. The Spanish Neurological Society started a prospective registry to evaluate real-world effectiveness and tolerability, and all Spanish headache experts were invited to participate. We present their first results. METHODS: Patients fulfilled the ICHD-3 criteria for migraine and had ≥ 4 MMDs. Sociodemographic and clinical data were registered as well as MMDs, monthly headache days, MHDs, prior and concomitant preventive treatment, medication overuse headache (MOH), migraine evolution, adverse events, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs): headache impact test (HIT-6), migraine disability assessment questionnaire (MIDAS), and patient global improvement change (PGIC). A > 50% reduction of MMDs after 12 weeks was considered as a response. RESULTS: We included 210 patients (female 86.7%, mean age 46.4 years old) from 22 Spanish hospitals from February 2019 to June 2020. Most patients (89.5%) suffered from chronic migraine with a mean evolution of 8.6 years. MOH was present in 70% of patients, and 17.1% had migraine with aura. Patients had failed a mean of 7.8 preventive treatments at baseline (botulinum toxin type A-BoNT/A-had been used by 95.2% of patients). Most patients (67.6%) started with erenumab 70 mg. Sixty-one percent of patients were also simultaneously taking oral preventive drugs and 27.6% were getting simultaneous BoNT/A. Responder rate was 37.1% and the mean reduction of MMDs and MHDs was -6.28 and -8.6, respectively. Changes in PROs were: MIDAS: -35 points, HIT-6: -11.6 points, PIGC: 4.7 points. Predictors of good response were prior HIT-6 score < 80 points (p = 0.01), ≤ 5 prior preventive treatment failures (p = 0.026), absence of MOH (p = 0.039), and simultaneous BoNT/A treatment (p < 0.001). Twenty percent of patients had an adverse event, but only two of them were severe (0.9%), which led to treatment discontinuation. Mild constipation was the most frequent adverse event (8.1%). CONCLUSIONS: In real-life, in a personalized managed access program, erenumab shows a good effectiveness profile and an excellent tolerability in migraine prevention in our cohort of refractory patients.

Impacto de la pandemia COVID-19 en la atención al paciente con cefalea en España: análisis de situación con una mirada al futuro / Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on headache management in Spain: an analysis of the current situation and future perspectives

INTRODUCCIÓN: La infección por SARS-CoV-2 ha tenido un enorme impacto en los sistemas sanitarios. España, donde la cefalea constituye el motivo principal de consulta ambulatoria en Neurología, es uno de los países con más casos notificados. OBJETIVO: Conocer el impacto de la pandemia COVID-19 en las Unidades de Cefaleas en España y evaluar cómo imaginan el futuro de estas estructuras los neurólogos responsables. MÉTODOS: estudio transversal mediante encuesta online distribuida a los responsables de las Unidades, realizada durante la sexta semana del Estado de Alarma. RESULTADOS: La tasa de respuesta fue del 74%, con participación de centros de diferentes características y de todas las Comunidades Autónomas. El 95,8% describió limitaciones en la actividad presencial, un 60,4% mantuvo la consulta presencial preferente y el 45,8% los procedimientos urgentes. En el 91,7% de los centros la actividad presencial cancelada se sustituyó por consulta telefónica. El 95,8% de los encuestados afirmó que empleará material de protección personal en el futuro y el 86% pretende incorporar en mayor medida la telemedicina. La mayoría prevé un incremento en las listas de espera (93,8% en primeras visitas, 89,6% en revisiones y 89,4% en procedimientos) y una peor situación clínica de los pacientes, pero sólo un 15% cree que su estructura asistencial se verá debilitada. CONCLUSIONES: Como consecuencia de la pandemia, la actividad asistencial e investigadora en cefaleas se ha reducido de manera notable. Esto pone de manifiesto la necesidad de un incremento de la oferta de telemedicina en nuestros centros en un futuro cercano

INTRODUCTION:The COVID-19 pandemic has had a great impact on healthcare systems. Spain, where headache is the main reason for outpatient neurology consultation, is one of the countries with the most reported cases of the disease.Objectives.This study aimed to analyse the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on headache units in Spain and to evaluate how neurologists see the future of these units. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional online survey of headache units during the sixth week of the state of alarm declared in Spain in response to the pandemic. RESULTS:The response rate was 74%, with the participation of centres with different characteristics and from all Autonomous Communities of Spain. Limitations in face-to-face activity were reported by 95.8% of centres, with preferential face-to-face consultation being maintained in 60.4%, and urgent procedures in 45.8%. In 91.7% of centres, the cancelled face-to-face activity was replaced by telephone consultation 95.8% of respondents stated that they woulduse personal protection equipment in the future, and 86% intendedto increase the use of telemedicine. The majority foresaw an increase in waiting lists (93.8% for initial consultations, 89.6% for follow-up, and 89.4% for procedures) and a worse clinical situation for patients, but only 15% believed that their healthcare structures would be negatively affected in the future.Conclusions.As a consequence of the pandemic, headache care and research activity has reduced considerably. This demonstrates the need for an increase in the availability of telemedicine in our centres in the near future

Self-reported periodontitis and migraine: results from a multicenter, cross-sectional survey in Spain.

The aim of this study was to evaluate self-reported periodontitis (PD) prevalence in migraineurs as well as to investigate the association between both diseases. A cross-sectional survey was carried out including patients diagnosed with migraine attending 12 Spanish Headache Units. We determined diagnosis of PD administering a validated self-reported questionnaire. Socio-demographic, clinical and medical information, comorbidities, daily habits, migraine characteristics and medication were collected using a questionnaire. Of the 651 consecutive migraineurs included in the study, 393 suffered from chronic migraine (CM). Self-reported PD was detected in 327 patients with migraine (50.2%). Migraineurs with self-reported PD were significantly older and had a previous history of fibromyalgia, stress, anxiety, depression, and allodynia (all P < 0.001). Additionally, this group of patients consumed more topiramate (P = 0.008) and simple analgesics (P < 0.001) than patients with migraine and without self-reported PD. Also, they were less active physically and belonged to a low education level (both P < 0.001). Prevalence of self-reported PD was significantly higher in chronic migraineurs compared to those diagnosed with episodic migraine (EM) (53.9% vs. 44.6%, P = 0.019). Logistic regression analyses showed that self-reported PD was associated with CM (OR 1.456; 95% CI 1.062-1.997, P = 0.020). However, after adjusting for significant confounders, the association was attenuated (OR 1.100; 95% CI 0.784-1.543, P = 0.581). We concluded that self-reported PD was significantly more frequent in CM compared to EM. Self-reported PD was associated with the presence of CM, although some comorbidities shared by both diseases could have an effect on this association.

[Hemicrania continua and paroxysmal hemicrania: clinical and therapeutic characteristics in a series of 23 patients]. / Hemicránea continua y paroxística: características clínicas y terapéuticas en una serie de 23 pacientes.

INTRODUCTION: Hemicranias are an uncommon type of headache characterised by strictly unilateral pain, either as a continuous, although fluctuating, headache in hemicrania continua (HC) or in the form of recurring attacks in paroxysmal hemicrania (PH). In both types of headache, an absolute response to indomethacin is reported. AIMS. To analyse the fulfilment of current diagnostic criteria for HC and PH and the recent introduction of HC within the group of trigeminal-autonomic cephalgias. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The clinical and therapeutic characteristics of patients diagnosed with HC or PH were evaluated retrospectively. Demographic and symptomatological information as well as data regarding the analogical pain scale and response to indomethacin were included. RESULTS: A sample of 12 HC (four males and eight females) was evaluated from a total of 520 cases (2.3%). Mean age at onset: 47.1 ± 16.4 years. Baseline pain intensity: 3.3 ± 1,9. Exacerbations: 9.2 ± 1.1. Eight cases (66.7%) presented autonomic symptoms, four (33.3%) followed a time pattern, and two (16.7%) did not respond to indomethacin. We evaluated a sample of 11 PH (100% females) from 520 cases (2.1%). Mean age at onset: 37.0 ± 13.9 years. Pain intensity: 8.7 ± 2.7. Nine cases (81.8%) presented autonomic symptoms, three (27.3%) followed a time pattern and one (9.1%) did not respond to indomethacin. CONCLUSIONS: Hemicranias are not frequently diagnosed in day-to-day clinical practice. Their diagnosis requires the fulfilment of certain criteria that are sometimes not fully satisfied. We believe that the criteria need revising and we also support the recent inclusion of HC within the group of trigeminal-autonomic cephalgias.

TITLE: Hemicranea continua y paroxistica: caracteristicas clinicas y terapeuticas en una serie de 23 pacientes.Introduccion. Las hemicraneas son cefaleas raras caracterizadas por dolor estrictamente unilateral, bien como una cefalea continua, aunque fluctuante, en la hemicranea continua (HC), o en forma de ataques recurrentes en la hemicranea paroxistica (HP). En ambos tipos de cefalea se describe una respuesta absoluta a la indometacina. Objetivo. Analizar el cumplimiento de los criterios diagnosticos actuales para HC y HP, y la reciente introduccion de la HC en el grupo de las cefaleas trigeminoautonomicas. Pacientes y metodos. Evaluamos retrospectivamente las caracteristicas clinicas y terapeuticas de pacientes diagnosticados de HC o HP. Incluimos informacion demografica, sintomatologia, escala analogica de dolor y respuesta a la indometacina. Resultados. Evaluamos una muestra de 12 pacientes con HC (cuatro hombres y ocho mujeres) de un total de 520 casos (2,3%). Edad media de inicio: 47,1 ± 16,4 años. Intensidad de dolor basal: 3,3 ± 1,9. Exacerbaciones: 9,2 ± 1,1. Ocho casos (66,7%) presentaban sintomas autonomicos, cuatro (33,3%) tenian patron horario y dos (16,7%) no respondieron a la indometacina. Evaluamos una muestra de 11 pacientes con HP (100% mujeres) de 520 casos (2,1%). Edad media de inicio: 37,0 ± 13,9 años. Intensidad de dolor: 8,7 ± 2,7. Nueve casos (81,8%) presentaban sintomas autonomicos, tres (27,3%) tenian patron horario y uno (9,1%) no respondio a la indometacina. Conclusiones. Las hemicraneas son diagnosticos infrecuentes en consultas de cefalea. Su diagnostico requiere el cumplimiento de unos criterios que a veces no se cumplen en su totalidad. Pensamos que se precisa una revision de los criterios y apoyamos que la HC se haya introducido recientemente en el grupo de las cefaleas trigeminoautonomicas.

Hemicránea continua y paroxística: características clínicas y terapéuticas en una serie de 23 pacientes / Hemicrania continua and paroxysmal hemicrania: clinical and therapeutic characteristics in a series of 23 patients

Introducción. Las hemicráneas son cefaleas raras caracterizadas por dolor estrictamente unilateral, bien como una cefalea continua, aunque fluctuante, en la hemicránea continua (HC), o en forma de ataques recurrentes en la hemicránea paroxística (HP). En ambos tipos de cefalea se describe una respuesta absoluta a la indometacina. Objetivo. Analizar el cumplimiento de los criterios diagnósticos actuales para HC y HP, y la reciente introducción de la HC en el grupo de las cefaleas trigeminoautonómicas. Pacientes y métodos. Evaluamos retrospectivamente las características clínicas y terapéuticas de pacientes diagnosticados de HC o HP. Incluimos información demográfica, sintomatología, escala analógica de dolor y respuesta a la indometacina. Resultados. Evaluamos una muestra de 12 pacientes con HC (cuatro hombres y ocho mujeres) de un total de 520 casos (2,3%). Edad media de inicio: 47,1 ± 16,4 años. Intensidad de dolor basal: 3,3 ± 1,9. Exacerbaciones: 9,2 ± 1,1. Ocho casos (66,7%) presentaban síntomas autonómicos, cuatro (33,3%) tenían patrón horario y dos (16,7%) no respondieron a la indometacina. Evaluamos una muestra de 11 pacientes con HP (100% mujeres) de 520 casos (2,1%). Edad media de inicio: 37,0 ± 13,9 años. Intensidad de dolor: 8,7 ± 2,7. Nueve casos (81,8%) presentaban síntomas autonómicos, tres (27,3%) tenían patrón horario y uno (9,1%) no respondió a la indometacina. Conclusiones. Las hemicráneas son diagnósticos infrecuentes en consultas de cefalea. Su diagnóstico requiere el cumplimiento de unos criterios que a veces no se cumplen en su totalidad. Pensamos que se precisa una revisión de los criterios y apoyamos que la HC se haya introducido recientemente en el grupo de las cefaleas trigeminoautonómicas (AU)

Introduction. Hemicranias are an uncommon type of headache characterised by strictly unilateral pain, either as a continuous, although fluctuating, headache in hemicrania continua (HC) or in the form of recurring attacks in paroxysmal hemicrania (PH). In both types of headache, an absolute response to indomethacin is reported. Aims. To analyse the fulfilment of current diagnostic criteria for HC and PH and the recent introduction of HC within the group of trigeminal-autonomic cephalgias. Patients and methods. The clinical and therapeutic characteristics of patients diagnosed with HC or PH were evaluated retrospectively. Demographic and symptomatological information as well as data regarding the analogical pain scale and response to indomethacin were included. Results. A sample of 12 HC (four males and eight females) was evaluated from a total of 520 cases (2.3%). Mean age autonomic symptoms, four (33.3%) followed a time pattern, and two (16.7%) did not respond to indomethacin. We evaluated a sample of 11 PH (100% females) from 520 cases (2.1%). Mean age at onset: 37.0 ± 13.9 years. Pain intensity: 8.7 ± 2.7. Nine cases (81.8%) presented autonomic symptoms, three (27.3%) followed a time pattern and one (9.1%) did not respond to indomethacin. Conclusions. Hemicranias are not frequently diagnosed in day-to-day clinical practice. Their diagnosis requires the fulfilment of certain criteria that are sometimes not fully satisfied. We believe that the criteria need revising and we also support the recent inclusion of HC within the group of trigeminal-autonomic cephalgias (AU)