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

INTRODUCTION: Headache is a frequent symptom at the acute phase of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and also one of the most frequent adverse effects following vaccination. In both cases, headache pathophysiology seems linked to the host immune response and could have similarities. We aimed to compare the clinical phenotype and the frequency and associated onset symptoms in patients with COVID-19 related-headache and COVID-19 vaccine related-headache. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: A case-control study was conducted. Patients with confirmed COVID-19 infection and COVID-19-vaccine recipients who experienced new-onset headache were included. A standardised questionnaire was administered, including demographic variables, prior history of headaches, associated symptoms and headache-related variables. Both groups were matched for age, sex, and prior history of headache. A multivariate regression analysis was performed. RESULTS: A total of 238 patients fulfilled eligibility criteria (143 patients with COVID-19 related-headache and 95 subjects experiencing COVID-19 vaccine related-headache). Patients with COVID-19 related-headache exhibited a higher frequency of arthralgia, diarrhoea, dyspnoea, chest pain, expectoration, anosmia, myalgia, odynophagia, rhinorrhoea, cough, and dysgeusia. Further, patients with COVID-19 related-headache had a more prolonged daily duration of headache and described the headache as the worst headache ever experienced. Patients with COVID-19 vaccine-related headache, experienced more frequently pain in the parietal region, phonophobia, and worsening of the headache by head movements or eye movements. CONCLUSION: Headache caused by SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 vaccination related-headache have more similarities than differences, supporting a shared pathophysiology, and the activation of the innate immune response. The main differences were related to associated symptoms.

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

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

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

INTRODUCTION Headache is a frequent symptom at the acute phase of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and also one of the most frequent adverse effects following vaccination. In both cases, headache pathophysiology seems linked to the host immune response and could have similarities. We aimed to compare the clinical phenotype and the frequency and associated onset symptoms in patients with COVID-19 related-headache and COVID-19 vaccine related-headache. SUBJECTS AND METHODS A case-control study was conducted. Patients with confirmed COVID-19 infection and COVID-19-vaccine recipients who experienced new-onset headache were included. A standardised questionnaire was administered, including demographic variables, prior history of headaches, associated symptoms and headache-related variables. Both groups were matched for age, sex, and prior history of headache. A multivariate regression analysis was performed. RESULTS A total of 238 patients fulfilled eligibility criteria (143 patients with COVID-19 related-headache and 95 subjects experiencing COVID-19 vaccine related-headache). Patients with COVID-19 related-headache exhibited a higher frequency of arthralgia, diarrhoea, dyspnoea, chest pain, expectoration, anosmia, myalgia, odynophagia, rhinorrhoea, cough, and dysgeusia. Further, patients with COVID-19 related-headache had a more prolonged daily duration of headache and described the headache as the worst headache ever experienced. Patients with COVID-19 vaccine-related headache, experienced more frequently pain in the parietal region, phonophobia, and worsening of the headache by head movements or eye movements. CONCLUSION. Headache caused by SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 vaccination related-headache have more similarities than differences, supporting a shared pathophysiology, and the activation of the innate immune response. The main differences were related to associated symptoms. (AU)

Epidemiology of ataxia and hereditary spastic paraplegia in Spain: A cross-sectional study.

INTRODUCTION: Ataxia and hereditary spastic paraplegia are rare neurodegenerative syndromes. We aimed to determine the prevalence of these disorders in Spain in 2019. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional, multicentre, retrospective, descriptive study of patients with ataxia and hereditary spastic paraplegia in Spain between March 2018 and December 2019. RESULTS: We gathered data from a total of 1933 patients from 11 autonomous communities, provided by 47 neurologists or geneticists. Mean (SD) age in our sample was 53.64 (20.51) years; 938 patients were men (48.5%) and 995 were women (51.5%). The genetic defect was unidentified in 920 patients (47.6%). A total of 1371 patients (70.9%) had ataxia and 562 (29.1%) had hereditary spastic paraplegia. Prevalence rates for ataxia and hereditary spastic paraplegia were estimated at 5.48 and 2.24 cases per 100 000 population, respectively. The most frequent type of dominant ataxia in our sample was SCA3, and the most frequent recessive ataxia was Friedreich ataxia. The most frequent type of dominant hereditary spastic paraplegia in our sample was SPG4, and the most frequent recessive type was SPG7. CONCLUSIONS: In our sample, the estimated prevalence of ataxia and hereditary spastic paraplegia was 7.73 cases per 100 000 population. This rate is similar to those reported for other countries. Genetic diagnosis was not available in 47.6% of cases. Despite these limitations, our study provides useful data for estimating the necessary healthcare resources for these patients, raising awareness of these diseases, determining the most frequent causal mutations for local screening programmes, and promoting the development of clinical trials.

[Cancer-associated stroke: a study of prevalence and predictors among ischaemic stroke patients]. / Ictus asociado a cáncer: estudio de prevalencia y factores predictores entre pacientes con ictus isquémico.

INTRODUCTION: The association between cancer and stroke is well documented and entails a worse prognosis for both pathologies. However, the prevalence of active and occult cancer among stroke patients is not sufficiently established, and neither are the predictors of cancer-associated stroke. Their knowledge is important for better identification and optimisation of the treatment of these patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The aim of this retrospective study is to analyse the characteristics of ischaemic stroke in patients with and without active cancer in a sample of patients admitted to a stroke unit for two years. An overall descriptive and case-control analysis is performed to assess the differences between the two groups. RESULTS: In a sample of 616 patients with ischaemic stroke, a prevalence of cancer was found to be 19.2%, which was active (prior or diagnosed after the stroke) in 7.5% of them. Active cancer was associated with the finding of lesions in several vascular territories, lower haemoglobin and haematocrit values, and higher fibrinogen and C-reactive protein values, a tendency to worse functional status and higher mortality at three months. CONCLUSIONS: A high prevalence of systemic cancer, of any type, as well as active and occult, was found among patients with ischaemic stroke. The presence of ischaemic lesions in several vascular territories and some laboratory markers could be factors to consider in attributing the stroke to cancer or looking for an occult neoplasm in some patients.

TITLE: Ictus asociado a cáncer: estudio de prevalencia y factores predictores entre pacientes con ictus isquémico.Introducción. La asociación entre cáncer e ictus está bien documentada y conlleva un peor pronóstico de ambas patologías. Sin embargo, la prevalencia de cáncer activo y cáncer oculto entre pacientes con ictus no está suficientemente establecida, ni tampoco los factores predictores al ictus asociado al cáncer. Su conocimiento es importante para una mejor identificación y optimización del tratamiento de estos pacientes. Pacientes y métodos. El objetivo de este estudio retrospectivo es analizar las características del ictus isquémico, en pacientes con y sin cáncer activo, en una muestra de pacientes ingresados durante dos años en una unidad de ictus. Se realiza un análisis descriptivo general y de casos y controles, para evaluar las diferencias entre ambos grupos. Resultados. En una muestra de 616 pacientes con ictus isquémico se encontró una prevalencia de cáncer del 19,2%, que era activo (previo o diagnosticado tras el ictus) en un 7,5%. El cáncer activo se asoció con el hallazgo de lesiones en varios territorios vasculares, valores más bajos de hemoglobina y hematocrito, y más altos de fibrinógeno y proteína C reactiva, tendencia a peor situación funcional y mayor mortalidad a los tres meses. Conclusiones. Se encontró una alta prevalencia de cáncer sistémico, de cualquier tipo, y también activo y oculto, entre pacientes con ictus isquémico. La presencia de lesiones isquémicas en varios territorios vasculares y algunos marcadores de laboratorio podrían ser factores que habría que considerar para atribuir el ictus al cáncer o buscar una neoplasia oculta en algunos pacientes.

Ictus asociado a cáncer: estudio de prevalencia y factores predictores entre pacientes con ictus isquémico / Cancer-associated stroke: a study of prevalence and predictors among ischaemic stroke patients

Introducción: La asociación entre cáncer e ictus está bien documentada y conlleva un peor pronóstico de ambas patologías. Sin embargo, la prevalencia de cáncer activo y cáncer oculto entre pacientes con ictus no está suficientemente establecida, ni tampoco los factores predictores al ictus asociado al cáncer. Su conocimiento es importante para una mejor identificación y optimización del tratamiento de estos pacientes. Pacientes y métodos: El objetivo de este estudio retrospectivo es analizar las características del ictus isquémico, en pacientes con y sin cáncer activo, en una muestra de pacientes ingresados durante dos años en una unidad de ictus. Se realiza un análisis descriptivo general y de casos y controles, para evaluar las diferencias entre ambos grupos. Resultados: En una muestra de 616 pacientes con ictus isquémico se encontró una prevalencia de cáncer del 19,2%, que era activo (previo o diagnosticado tras el ictus) en un 7,5%. El cáncer activo se asoció con el hallazgo de lesiones en varios territorios vasculares, valores más bajos de hemoglobina y hematocrito, y más altos de fibrinógeno y proteína C reactiva, tendencia a peor situación funcional y mayor mortalidad a los tres meses. Conclusiones: Se encontró una alta prevalencia de cáncer sistémico, de cualquier tipo, y también activo y oculto, entre pacientes con ictus isquémico. La presencia de lesiones isquémicas en varios territorios vasculares y algunos marcadores de laboratorio podrían ser factores que habría que considerar para atribuir el ictus al cáncer o buscar una neoplasia oculta en algunos pacientes.(AU)

Introduction: The association between cancer and stroke is well documented and entails a worse prognosis for both pathologies. However, the prevalence of active and occult cancer among stroke patients is not sufficiently established, and neither are the predictors of cancer-associated stroke. Their knowledge is important for better identification and optimisation of the treatment of these patients. Patients and methods: The aim of this retrospective study is to analyse the characteristics of ischaemic stroke in patients with and without active cancer in a sample of patients admitted to a stroke unit for two years. An overall descriptive and case-control analysis is performed to assess the differences between the two groups. Results: In a sample of 616 patients with ischaemic stroke, a prevalence of cancer was found to be 19.2%, which was active (prior or diagnosed after the stroke) in 7.5% of them. Active cancer was associated with the finding of lesions in several vascular territories, lower haemoglobin and haematocrit values, and higher fibrinogen and C-reactive protein values, a tendency to worse functional status and higher mortality at three months. Conclusions: A high prevalence of systemic cancer, of any type, as well as active and occult, was found among patients with ischaemic stroke. The presence of ischaemic lesions in several vascular territories and some laboratory markers could be factors to consider in attributing the stroke to cancer or looking for an occult neoplasm in some patients.(AU)

Impact of COVID-19 outbreak in reperfusion therapies of acute ischaemic stroke in northwest Spain.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Spain has been one of the countries more heavily stricken by SARS-CoV-2, which has had huge implications for stroke care. The aim was to analyse the impact of the COVID-19 epidemic outbreak on reperfusion therapies for acute ischaemic stroke in the northwest of Spain. METHODS: This was a Spanish multicentre retrospective observational study based on data from tertiary hospitals of the NORDICTUS network. All patients receiving reperfusion therapy for ischaemic stroke between 30 December 2019 and 3 May 2020 were recorded, and their baseline, clinical and radiological characteristics, extra- and intra-hospital times of action, Code Stroke activation pathway, COVID-19 status, reperfusion rate, and short-term outcome before and after the setting of the emergency state were analysed. RESULTS: A total of 796 patients received reperfusion therapies for ischaemic stroke. There was a decrease in the number of patients treated per week (46.5 patients per week vs. 39.0 patients per week, P = 0.043) and a delay in out-of-hospital (95.0 vs. 110.0 min, P = 0.001) and door-to-needle times (51.0 vs. 55.0, P = 0.038). Patients receiving endovascular therapy obtained less successful reperfusion rates (92.9% vs. 86.6%, P = 0.016). COVID-19 patients had more in-hospital mortality. CONCLUSION: A decrease in the number of patients benefiting from reperfusion therapies was found, with a delay in out-of-hospital and door-to-needle times and worse reperfusion rates in northwest Spain. COVID-19 patients had more in-hospital mortality.