Diagnosis and treatment of disorders of intracranial pressure: consensus statement of the Spanish Society of Neurology's Headache Study Group.

Primary intracranial pressure disorders include idiopathic intracranial hypertension and spontaneous intracranial hypotension. Remarkable advances have been made in the diagnosis and treatment of these 2entities in recent years. Therefore, the Spanish Society of Neurology's Headache Study Group (GECSEN) deemed it necessary to prepare this consensus statement, including diagnostic and therapeutic algorithms to facilitate and improve the management of these disorders in clinical practice. This document was created by a committee of experts belonging to GECSEN, and is based on a systematic review of the literature, incorporating the experience of the participants, and establishes practical recommendations with levels of evidence and grades of recommendation.

Aplicación de la telemedicina en la asistencia a pacientes con cefaleas: situación actual y recomendaciones del Grupo de Estudio de Cefaleas de la Sociedad Española de / NeurologíaTelemedicine in the management of patients with headache: current situation and recommendations of the Spanish Society of Neurology's Headache Study Group

Introducción: La pandemia COVID-19 ha provocado un inusitado impulso a la telemedicina(TM). Analizamos el impacto de la pandemia en la TM aplicada en las consultas de cefaleasespañolas, revisamos la literatura y lanzamos unas recomendaciones para implantar la TM enlas consultas. Método: Tres fases: 1) Revisión de la base Medline desde el año 1958 (primera experienciade TM); 2) Formulario Google Forms enviado a todos los neurólogos del Grupo de Estudio de Cefaleas de la Sociedad Espa˜nola de Neurología (GECSEN), y 3) Consenso on-line de expertosGECSEN para emitir recomendaciones para implantar la TM en España. Resultados: La pandemia por COVID-19 ha empeorado los tiempos de espera presenciales,incrementando el uso de todas las modalidades de TM antes y después de abril de 2020: teléfonofijo (del 75% al 97%), teléfono móvil (del 9% al 27%), correo electrónico (del 30% al 36%) yvideoconsulta (del 3% al 21%). Los neurólogos son conscientes de la necesidad de ampliar laoferta con videoconsultas, claramente in crescendo, y otras herramientas de e-health y m-health. Conclusiones: Desde el GECSEN recomendamos y animamos a todos los neurólogos que asis-ten a pacientes con cefaleas a implantar recursos de TM, teniendo como objetivo óptimo lavideoconsulta en menores de 60-65 a˜nos y la llamada telefónica en mayores, si bien cada casodebe individualizarse. Se deberá contar previamente con la aprobación y asesoramiento de losservicios jurídicos e informáticos y de la dirección del centro. La mayoría de los pacientes concefalea y/o neuralgia estable son candidatos a seguimiento mediante TM, tras una primeravisita que tiene que ser siempre presencial.(AU)

Introduction: The COVID-19 pandemic has caused an unexpected boost to telemedicine. Weanalyse the impact of the pandemic on telemedicine applied in Spanish headache consultations,review the literature, and issue recommendations for the implementation of telemedicine inconsultations. Method: The study comprised 3 phases: 1) review of the MEDLINE database since 1958 (firstreported experience with telemedicine); 2) Google Forms survey sent to all members of theSpanish Society of Neurology’s Headache Study Group (GECSEN); and 3) online consensus ofGECSEN experts to issue recommendations for the implementation of telemedicine in Spain.Results: COVID-19 has increased waiting times for face-to-face consultations, increasing theuse of all telemedicine modalities: landline telephone (from 75% before April 2020 to 97% after),mobile telephone (from 9% to 27%), e-mail (from 30% to 36%), and video consultation (from 3%to 21%). Neurologists are aware of the need to expand the availability of video consultations,which are clearly growing, and other e-health and m-health tools. Conclusions: The GECSEN recommends and encourages all neurologists who assist patients withheadaches to implement telemedicine resources, with the optimal objective of offering videoconsultation to patients under 60-65 years of age and telephone calls to older patients, althougheach case must be considered on an individual basis. Prior approval and advice must be soughtfrom legal and IT services and the centre’s management. Most patients with stable headacheand/or neuralgia are eligible for telemedicine follow-up, after a first consultation that mustalways be held in person.(AU)

Telemedicine in the management of patients with headache: current situation and recommendations of the Spanish Society of Neurology's Headache Study Group.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic has caused an unexpected boost to telemedicine. We analyse the impact of the pandemic on telemedicine applied in Spanish headache consultations, review the literature, and issue recommendations for the implementation of telemedicine in consultations. METHOD: The study comprised 3 phases: 1) review of the MEDLINE database since 1958 (first reported experience with telemedicine); 2) Google Forms survey sent to all members of the Spanish Society of Neurology's Headache Study Group (GECSEN); and 3) online consensus of GECSEN experts to issue recommendations for the implementation of telemedicine in Spain. RESULTS: COVID-19 has increased waiting times for face-to-face consultations, increasing the use of all telemedicine modalities: landline telephone (from 75% before April 2020 to 97% after), mobile telephone (from 9% to 27%), e-mail (from 30% to 36%), and video consultation (from 3% to 21%). Neurologists are aware of the need to expand the availability of video consultations, which are clearly growing, and other e-health and m-health tools. CONCLUSIONS: The GECSEN recommends and encourages all neurologists who assist patients with headaches to implement telemedicine resources, with the optimal objective of offering video consultation to patients under 60-65 years of age and telephone calls to older patients, although each case must be considered on an individual basis. Prior approval and advice must be sought from legal and IT services and the centre's management. Most patients with stable headache and/or neuralgia are eligible for telemedicine follow-up, after a first consultation that must always be held in person.

The MIGREX study: Prevalence and risk factors of sexual dysfunction among migraine patients.

BACKGROUND: Migraine attacks have a high impact on daily activities. There is limited research on the burden of migraine on sexual functioning. OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence of sexual dysfunction in patients with migraine and its relationship with migraine features and comorbidities. METHOD: This is a cross-sectional study. We included migraine patients between 18 and 60 years-old from 8 Headache Clinics in Spain. We recorded demographic data and migraine features. Patients fulfilled a survey including comorbidities, Arizona Sexual Experiences Scale, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and a questionnaire about migraine impact on sexual activity. A K-nearest neighbor supervised learning algorithm was used to identify differences between migraine patients with and without sexual dysfunction. RESULTS: We included 306 patients (85.6% women, mean age 42.3±11.1 years). A 41.8% of participants had sexual dysfunction. Sexual dysfunction was associated with being female (OR [95% CI]: 2.42 [1.17-5.00]; p<0.001), being older than 46.5 years (4.04 [2.48-6.59]; p<0.001), having chronic migraine (2.31 [1.41-3.77]; p=0.001), using preventive medication (2.45 [1.35-4.45]; p=0.004), analgesic overusing (3.51 [2.03-6.07]; p<0.001), menopause (4.18 [2.43-7.17]; p<0.001) and anxiety (2.90 [1.80-4.67]; p<0.001) and depression (6.14 [3.18-11.83]; p<0.001). However, only female gender, age, menopause and depression were the statistically significant variables selected in the model to classify migraine patients with or without sexual dysfunction (Accuracy [95% CI]: 0.75 (0.62-0.85), Kappa: 0.48, p=0.005). CONCLUSIONS: Sexual dysfunction is frequent in migraine patients visited in a headache clinic. However, migraine characteristics or use of preventive medication are not directly associated with sexual dysfunction. Instead, risk factors for sexual dysfunction were female gender, higher age, menopause and depression.

The MIGREX study: Prevalence and risk factors of sexual dysfunction among migraine patients / Estudio MIGREX: Prevalencia y factores de riesgo de disfunción sexual en pacientes con migraña

Background: Migraine attacks have a high impact on daily activities. There is limited research on the burden of migraine on sexual functioning. Objective: To determine the prevalence of sexual dysfunction in patients with migraine and its relationship with migraine features and comorbidities. Method: This is a cross-sectional study. We included migraine patients between 18 and 60 years-old from 8 Headache Clinics in Spain. We recorded demographic data and migraine features. Patients fulfilled a survey including comorbidities, Arizona Sexual Experiences Scale, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and a questionnaire about migraine impact on sexual activity. A K-nearest neighbor supervised learning algorithm was used to identify differences between migraine patients with and without sexual dysfunction. Results: We included 306 patients (85.6% women, mean age 42.3 ±11.1 years). A 41.8% of participants had sexual dysfunction. Sexual dysfunction was associated with being female (OR [95% CI]: 2.42 [1.17–5.00]; p < 0.001), being older than 46.5 years (4.04 [2.48–6.59]; p < 0.001), having chronic migraine (2.31 [1.41–3.77]; p = 0.001), using preventive medication (2.45 [1.35–4.45]; p = 0.004), analgesic overusing (3.51 [2.03–6.07]; p < 0.001), menopause (4.18 [2.43–7.17]; p < 0.001) and anxiety (2.90 [1.80–4.67]; p < 0.001) and depression (6.14 [3.18–11.83]; p < 0.001). However, only female gender, age, menopause and depression were the statistically significant variables selected in the model to classify migraine patients with or without sexual dysfunction (Accuracy [95% CI]: 0.75 (0.62–0.85), Kappa: 0.48, p = 0.005). Conclusions: Sexual dysfunction is frequent in migraine patients visited in a headache clinic. However, migraine characteristics or use of preventive medication are not directly associated with sexual dysfunction. Instead, risk factors for sexual dysfunction were female gender, higher age, menopause and depression.(AU)

Antecedentes: La migraña tiene un alto impacto en las actividades diarias, pero los datos sobre el impacto de la migraña en el funcionamiento sexual son limitados. Objetivo: Determinar la prevalencia de disfunción sexual en pacientes con migraña y su relación con las características y comorbilidades de la migraña. Métodos: Este es un estudio transversal. Se incluyeron pacientes con migraña de entre 18 y 60 años de ocho consultas de cefalea en España. Registramos datos demográficos y características de migraña. Los pacientes completaron una encuesta que incluía comorbilidades, la Escala de Experiencias Sexuales de Arizona, la Escala de Ansiedad y Depresión Hospitalaria y un cuestionario sobre el impacto de la migraña en la actividad sexual. Se usó un algoritmo de aprendizaje supervisado (k-nearest neighbors) para identificar diferencias entre pacientes con migraña, con y sin disfunción sexual. Resultados: Se incluyeron 306 pacientes (85,6% mujeres, edad media 42,3 ± 11,1 años). El 41,8% de los participantes tenía disfunción sexual. La disfunción sexual se asoció con ser mujer (OR [95%]: 2,42 [1,17-5,00]; p < 0,001), tener más de 46,5 años (4,04 [2,48-6,59]; p < 0,001), tener migraña crónica (2,31 [1,41-3,77]; p = 0,001), uso de medicación preventiva (2,45 [1,35-4.45]; p = 0,004), uso excesivo de analgésicos (3,51 [2,03-6,07]; p < 0,001), menopausia (4,18 [2,43-7,17]; p < 0,001), ansiedad (2,90 [1,80-4,67]; p < 0,001) y depresión (6,14 [3,18-11,83]; p < 0,001). Sin embargo, solo el sexo femenino, la edad, la menopausia y la depresión fueron las variables estadísticamente significativas seleccionadas en el modelo para clasificar a los pacientes con migraña, con o sin disfunción sexual (precisión [IC 95%]: 0,75 (0,62-0,85), kappa: 0,48, p = 0,005). Conclusiones: La disfunción sexual es frecuente en pacientes con migraña que son visitados en una consulta de cefalea.(AU)

A study of differential microRNA expression profile in migraine: the microMIG exploratory study.

BACKGROUND: Several studies have described potential microRNA (miRNA) biomarkers associated with migraine, but studies are scarcely reproducible primarily due to the heterogeneous variability of participants. Increasing evidence shows that disease-related intrinsic factors together with lifestyle (environmental factors), influence epigenetic mechanisms and in turn, diseases. Hence, the main objective of this exploratory study was to find differentially expressed miRNAs (DE miRNA) in peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC) of patients with migraine compared to healthy controls in a well-controlled homogeneous cohort of non-menopausal women. METHODS: Patients diagnosed with migraine according to the International Classification of Headache Disorders (ICHD-3) and healthy controls without familial history of headache disorders were recruited. All participants completed a very thorough questionnaire and structured-interview in order to control for environmental factors. RNA was extracted from PBMC and a microarray system (GeneChip miRNA 4.1 Array chip, Affymetrix) was used to determine the miRNA profiles between study groups. Principal components analysis and hierarchical clustering analysis were performed to study samples distribution and random forest (RF) algorithms were computed for the classification task. To evaluate the stability of the results and the prediction error rate, a bootstrap (.632 + rule) was run through all the procedure. Finally, a functional enrichment analysis of selected targets was computed through protein-protein interaction networks. RESULTS: After RF classification, three DE miRNA distinguished study groups in a very homogeneous female cohort, controlled by factors such as demographics (age and BMI), life-habits (physical activity, caffeine and alcohol consumptions), comorbidities and clinical features associated to the disease: miR-342-3p, miR-532-3p and miR-758-5p. Sixty-eight target genes were predicted which were linked mainly to enriched ion channels and signaling pathways, neurotransmitter and hormone homeostasis, infectious diseases and circadian entrainment. CONCLUSIONS: A 3-miRNA (miR-342-3p, miR-532-3p and miR-758-5p) novel signature has been found differentially expressed between controls and patients with migraine. Enrichment analysis showed that these pathways are closely associated with known migraine pathophysiology, which could lead to the first reliable epigenetic biomarker set. Further studies should be performed to validate these findings in a larger and more heterogeneous sample.

Headache: what to ask, how to examine, and what scales to use. Recommendations of the Spanish society of neurology's headache study group.

INTRODUCCIóN: La cefalea es el motivo de consulta neurológico más prevalente en los distintos niveles asistenciales, donde la anamnesis y exploración son primordiales para realizar un diagnóstico y tratamiento adecuados. Con la intención de unificar la atención de esta patología, el Grupo de Estudio de Cefalea de la Sociedad Española de Neurología (GECSEN) ha decidido elaborar unas recomendaciones consensuadas para mejorar y garantizar una adecuada asistencia en Atención Primaria, Urgencias y Neurología. METODOLOGíA: El documento es práctico, sigue el orden de la dinámica de actuación durante una consulta: anamnesis, escalas que cuantifican el impacto y la discapacidad y exploración. Además, finaliza con pautas para realizar un seguimiento adecuado y un manejo de las expectativas del paciente con el tratamiento pautado. CONCLUSIONES: Esperamos ofrecer una herramienta que mejore la atención al paciente con cefalea para garantizar una asistencia adecuada y homogénea a nivel nacional.

¿Qué preguntar, cómo explorar y qué escalas usar en el paciente con cefalea? Recomendaciones del Grupo de Estudio de Cefalea de la Sociedad Española de Neurología / Headache: What to ask, how to examine, and which scales to use. Recommendations of the Spanish Society of Neurology's Headache Study Group

Introducción: La cefalea es el motivo de consulta neurológico más prevalente en los distintos niveles asistenciales, donde la anamnesis y exploración son primordiales para realizar un diagnóstico y tratamiento adecuados. Con la intención de unificar la atención de esta patología, el Grupo de Estudio de Cefalea de la Sociedad Española de Neurología (GECSEN) ha decidido elaborar unas recomendaciones consensuadas para mejorar y garantizar una adecuada asistencia en atención primaria, urgencias y neurología. Metodología: El documento es práctico, sigue el orden de la dinámica de actuación durante una consulta: anamnesis, escalas que cuantifican el impacto y la discapacidad y exploración. Además, finaliza con pautas para realizar un seguimiento adecuado y un manejo de las expectativas del paciente con el tratamiento pautado. Conclusiones: Esperamos ofrecer una herramienta que mejore la atención al paciente con cefalea para garantizar una asistencia adecuada y homogénea a nivel nacional. (AU)

Introduction: Headache is the most common neurological complaint at the different levels of the healthcare system, and clinical history and physical examination are essential in the diagnosis and treatment of these patients. With the objective of unifying the care given to patients with headache, the Spanish Society of Neurology's Headache Study Group (GECSEN) has decided to establish a series of consensus recommendations to improve and guarantee adequate care in primary care, emergency services, and neurology departments. Methods: With the aim of creating a practical document, the recommendations follow the dynamics of a medical consultation: clinical history, physical examination, and scales quantifying headache impact and disability. In addition, we provide recommendations for follow-up and managing patients’ expectations of the treatment. Conclusions: With this tool, we aim to improve the care given to patients with headache in order to guarantee adequate, homogeneous care across Spain. (AU)

Safety of anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies in patients with migraine during the COVID-19 pandemic: Present and future implications.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: CGRP, a neuropeptide involved in migraine pathophysiology, is also known to play a role in the respiratory system and in immunological conditions such as sepsis. We analyzed the impact of the use of CGRP antagonists in patients with migraine during the COVID-19 pandemic, caused by the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus. METHODS: This is a multicentre cross-sectional study. From May to November 2020, through a national survey distributed by the Spanish Society of Neurology, we collected data about the presence of COVID-19 symptoms including headache and their characteristics and severity in patients with migraine treated with anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies (mAb), and compared them with patients with migraine not receiving this treatment. We also conducted a subanalysis of patients with COVID-19 symptoms. RESULTS: We recruited 300 patients with migraine: 51.7% (155/300) were taking anti-CGRP mAbs; 87.3% were women (262/300). Mean age (standard deviation) was 47.1 years (11.6). Forty-one patients (13.7%) met diagnostic criteria for COVID-19, with no statistically significant difference between patients with and without anti-CGRP mAb treatment (16.1% vs 11.0%, respectively; P=.320). Of the patients with COVID-19, 48.8% (20/41) visited the emergency department and 12.2% (5/41) were hospitalised. Likewise, no clinical differences were found between the groups of patients with and without anti-CGRP mAb treatment. CONCLUSION: Anti-CGRP mAbs may be safe in clinical practice, presenting no association with increased risk of COVID-19.

Safety of anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies in patients with migraine during the COVID-19 pandemic: Present and future implications / Seguridad de los anticuerpos monoclonales anti-CGRP en pacientes con migraña durante la pandemia de COVID-19: implicaciones actuales y futuras

Background and objective: CGRP, a neuropeptide involved in migraine pathophysiology, is also known to play a role in the respiratory system and in immunological conditions such as sepsis. We analyzed the impact of the use of CGRP antagonists in patients with migraine during the COVID-19 pandemic, caused by the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus.MethodsThis is a multicentre cross-sectional study. From May to November 2020, through a national survey distributed by the Spanish Society of Neurology, we collected data about the presence of COVID-19 symptoms including headache and their characteristics and severity in patients with migraine treated with anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies (mAb), and compared them with patients with migraine not receiving this treatment. We also conducted a subanalysis of patients with COVID-19 symptoms.ResultsWe recruited 300 patients with migraine: 51.7% (155/300) were taking anti-CGRP mAbs; 87.3% were women (262/300). Mean age (standard deviation) was 47.1 years (11.6). Forty-one patients (13.7%) met diagnostic criteria for COVID-19, with no statistically significant difference between patients with and without anti-CGRP mAb treatment (16.1% vs 11.0%, respectively; P = .320). Of the patients with COVID-19, 48.8% (20/41) visited the emergency department and 12.2% (5/41) were hospitalised. Likewise, no clinical differences were found between the groups of patients with and without anti-CGRP mAb treatment.ConclusionAnti-CGRP mAbs may be safe in clinical practice, presenting no association with increased risk of COVID-19. (AU)

Antecedentes y objetivo: El péptido relacionado con el gen de la calcitonina (CGRP, por sus siglas en inglés), es un neuropéptido involucrado en la fisiopatología de la migraña, que también es conocido por participar en la regulación del sistema respiratorio y en algunas enfermedades inmunológicas como la sepsis. Hemos analizado el impacto del uso de los antagonistas de CGRP en pacientes con migraña durante la pandemia de COVID-19, causada por el coronavirus SARS-CoV-2.MétodosEstudio transversal multicéntrico desarrollado entre mayo y noviembre de 2020, en el que la Sociedad Española de Neurología distribuyó a nivel nacional una encuesta de la que recogimos datos sobre la presencia, las características y la gravedad de síntomas de COVID-19, entre los que se encontraba la cefalea, en pacientes con migraña tratados con anticuerpos monoclonales (AcM) anti-CGRP, y los comparamos con los de pacientes con migraña que no recibían dicho tratamiento. También realizamos un subanálisis de los pacientes con síntomas de COVID-19.ResultadosIdentificamos 300 pacientes con migraña: 51,7% (155/300) recibían AcM anti-CGRP; el 87,3% eran mujeres (262/300) y la edad media (desviación estándar) de la muestra fue de 47,1 (11,6) años. Un total de 41 pacientes (13,7%) cumplían los criterios diagnósticos de COVID-19, sin diferencias estadísticamente significativas entre los pacientes que recibían tratamiento con AcM anti-CGRP y los que no (16,1% y 11,0%, respectivamente; p = 0,320). De los pacientes con COVID-19, el 48,8% (20/41) acudieron a urgencias y el 12,2% (5/41) fueron hospitalizados. Igualmente, no se detectaron diferencias clínicas entre los pacientes que recibían dicho tratamiento y los que no.ConclusiónEl tratamiento con AcM anti-CGRP parece un recurso seguro en la práctica clínica, y no se asocia a un mayor riesgo de COVID-19. (AU)

InterMiG: international differences in the therapeutic approach to migraine patients in specialized headache centers.

BACKGROUND: There is currently a wide therapeutic arsenal for migraine patients, without a single first-line preventive drug and we choose the different available alternatives taking into account comorbidities, national guidelines, previous treatments and personal experiences. Our objective was to evaluate the differences in the use of migraine treatments between neurologists from different countries. METHODS: This is a multi-centre observational study carried out by neurologists from specialized headache units in seven countries, retrospective with consecutive inclusion of all patients presenting with a migraine diagnosis, over a period of three months. RESULTS: A total of 734 patients were recruited but only 600 were considered in the analysis in order to homogenize the patient cohorts from countries: 200 Spain (ES), 100 Italy (IT), 85 Russia (RUS), 80 Germany (DE), 60 Portugal (PT), 45 Poland (PL) and 30 Australia (AU). 85.4 % of patients were women with a mean age of 42.6 ± 11.8 years. Considering previous and current preventive treatment, the order of use was: antidepressants (69.3 %), antiepileptic drugs (54.7 %), beta-blockers and antihypertensive drugs (49.7 %), OnabotulinumtoxinA (44.0 %) and others (36.2 %). Statistically significant differences were found between all pharmacological classes: antidepressants were commonly used in all countries, with the exception of Poland (AU: 76.7 %, IT: 71.0 %, DE: 60.0 %, PL: 31.1 %, PT: 71.7 %, RUS: 70.6 %, ES: 78.5 %; p < 0.0001); antiepileptic drugs were more frequently prescribed in Portugal, Australia and Spain (AU: 73.3 %, IT: 40.0 %, DE: 37.5 %, PL: 48.9 %, PT: 85.0 %, RUS: 29.4 % and ES: 69.0 %; p < 0.0001); beta-blockers and antihypertensive drugs were frequently used in all countries except Italy (AU: 60.0 %, IT: 14.0 %, DE: 53.8 %, PL: 48.9 %, PT: 68.3 %, RUS: 49.4 % and ES: 59.0 %; p < 0.0001); BTX-A were predominately used in Spain, Italy and Australia (AU:56.7 %, IT:58.0 %, DE:20.0 %, PL: 42.2 %, PT: 26.7 %, RUS: 24.7 % and ES: 58.5 %; p < 0.0001) and others were most frequently used in Poland (AU: 0.0 %, IT: 19.0 %, DE: 42.5 %, PL: 95.6 %, PT: 31.7 %, RUS: 3.5 % and ES: 49.5 %; p < 0.0001). If only patients without comorbidities are considered (200/600), statistically differences between countries persist in all preventive treatments. CONCLUSIONS: There is heterogeneity in the choice of preventive treatment between different countries. Prospective comparative studies of the different oral and subcutaneous alternatives would help to create a global therapeutic algorithm that would guarantee the best option for our patients.

Telemedicine in the management of patients with headache: current situation and recommendations of the Spanish Society of Neurology's Headache Study Group. / Aplicación de la telemedicina en la asistencia a pacientes con cefaleas: situación actual y recomendaciones del Grupo de Estudio de Cefaleas de la Sociedad Española de Neurología.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic has caused an unexpected boost to telemedicine. We analyse the impact of the pandemic on telemedicine applied in Spanish headache consultations, review the literature, and issue recommendations for the implementation of telemedicine in consultations. METHOD: The study comprised 3 phases: 1) review of the MEDLINE database since 1958 (first reported experience with telemedicine); 2) Google Forms survey sent to all members of the Spanish Society of Neurology's Headache Study Group (GECSEN); and 3) online consensus of GECSEN experts to issue recommendations for the implementation of telemedicine in Spain. RESULTS: COVID-19 has increased waiting times for face-to-face consultations, increasing the use of all telemedicine modalities: landline telephone (from 75% before April 2020 to 97% after), mobile telephone (from 9% to 27%), e-mail (from 30% to 36%), and video consultation (from 3% to 21%). Neurologists are aware of the need to expand the availability of video consultations, which are clearly growing, and other e-health and m-health tools. CONCLUSIONS: The GECSEN recommends and encourages all neurologists who assist patients with headaches to implement telemedicine resources, with the optimal objective of offering video consultation to patients under 60-65 years of age and telephone calls to older patients, although each case must be considered on an individual basis. Prior approval and advice must be sought from legal and IT services and the centre's management. Most patients with stable headache and/or neuralgia are eligible for telemedicine follow-up, after a first consultation that must always be held in person.

Safety of anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies in patients with migraine during the COVID-19 pandemic: Present and future implications.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: CGRP, a neuropeptide involved in migraine pathophysiology, is also known to play a role in the respiratory system and in immunological conditions such as sepsis. We analyzed the impact of the use of CGRP antagonists in patients with migraine during the COVID-19 pandemic, caused by the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus. METHODS: This is a multicentre cross-sectional study. From May to November 2020, through a national survey distributed by the Spanish Society of Neurology, we collected data about the presence of COVID-19 symptoms including headache and their characteristics and severity in patients with migraine treated with anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies (mAb), and compared them with patients with migraine not receiving this treatment. We also conducted a subanalysis of patients with COVID-19 symptoms. RESULTS: We recruited 300 patients with migraine: 51.7% (155/300) were taking anti-CGRP mAbs; 87.3% were women (262/300). Mean age (standard deviation) was 47.1 years (11.6). Forty-one patients (13.7%) met diagnostic criteria for COVID-19, with no statistically significant difference between patients with and without anti-CGRP mAb treatment (16.1% vs 11.0%, respectively; P=.320). Of the patients with COVID-19, 48.8% (20/41) visited the emergency department and 12.2% (5/41) were hospitalised. Likewise, no clinical differences were found between the groups of patients with and without anti-CGRP mAb treatment. CONCLUSION: Anti-CGRP mAbs may be safe in clinical practice, presenting no association with increased risk of COVID-19.

The MIGREX study: Prevalence and risk factors of sexual dysfunction among migraine patients.

BACKGROUND: Migraine attacks have a high impact on daily activities. There is limited research on the burden of migraine on sexual functioning. OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence of sexual dysfunction in patients with migraine and its relationship with migraine features and comorbidities. METHOD: This is a cross-sectional study. We included migraine patients between 18 and 60 years-old from 8 Headache Clinics in Spain. We recorded demographic data and migraine features. Patients fulfilled a survey including comorbidities, Arizona Sexual Experiences Scale, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and a questionnaire about migraine impact on sexual activity. A K-nearest neighbor supervised learning algorithm was used to identify differences between migraine patients with and without sexual dysfunction. RESULTS: We included 306 patients (85.6% women, mean age 42.3±11.1 years). A 41.8% of participants had sexual dysfunction. Sexual dysfunction was associated with being female (OR [95% CI]: 2.42 [1.17-5.00]; p<0.001), being older than 46.5 years (4.04 [2.48-6.59]; p<0.001), having chronic migraine (2.31 [1.41-3.77]; p=0.001), using preventive medication (2.45 [1.35-4.45]; p=0.004), analgesic overusing (3.51 [2.03-6.07]; p<0.001), menopause (4.18 [2.43-7.17]; p<0.001) and anxiety (2.90 [1.80-4.67]; p<0.001) and depression (6.14 [3.18-11.83]; p<0.001). However, only female gender, age, menopause and depression were the statistically significant variables selected in the model to classify migraine patients with or without sexual dysfunction (Accuracy [95% CI]: 0.75 (0.62-0.85), Kappa: 0.48, p=0.005). CONCLUSIONS: Sexual dysfunction is frequent in migraine patients visited in a headache clinic. However, migraine characteristics or use of preventive medication are not directly associated with sexual dysfunction. Instead, risk factors for sexual dysfunction were female gender, higher age, menopause and depression.

From transformation to chronification of migraine: pathophysiological and clinical aspects.

Chronic migraine is a neurological disorder characterized by 15 or more headache days per month of which at least 8 days show typical migraine features. The process that describes the development from episodic migraine into chronic migraine is commonly referred to as migraine transformation or chronification. Ample studies have attempted to identify factors associated with migraine transformation from different perspectives. Understanding CM as a pathological brain state with trigeminovascular participation where biological changes occur, we have completed a comprehensive review on the clinical, epidemiological, genetic, molecular, structural, functional, physiological and preclinical evidence available.

Evaluation of the concomitant use of oral preventive treatments and onabotulinumtoxinA in chronic migraine: the PREVENBOX study.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: OnabotulinumtoxinA is an effective preventive treatment for chronic migraine (CM). In CM, in addition to a reduction in headache frequency, a decreased reliance on oral prophylactics is also indicative of treatment effectiveness. This study aimed to quantify the change in the use of oral prophylactics after treatment with onabotulinumtoxinA in patients with CM. METHODS: This was a retrospective, multicentric, cross-sectional study. Patients with CM (International Classification of Headache Disorders-3beta) that had been treated with onabotulinumtoxinA were enrolled consecutively. We collected parameters related to each patient's pre-treatment situation, as well as their current situation, focusing on frequency and intensity of migraine, number of oral prophylactics and the respective cycle of onabotulinumtoxinA. Univariate and logistic regression analyses were performed. RESULTS: We included 542 patients, 90.0% of whom were taking oral preventive treatments. During treatment with onabotulinumtoxinA, 47.8% withdrew at least one prophylactic and 41.6% stopped using oral prophylactics altogether. Factors associated with a reduction or cessation of oral prophylactics were >50% improvement in frequency and intensity, remission to episodic migraine, use of topiramate as an initial treatment, increased number of infiltrations and shorter chronification period (P < 0.05). The multivariate analysis showed that a chronification period <20 months, more than five cycles of onabotulinumtoxinA, >50% improvement in pain intensity and topiramate as an initial treatment were predictors of a reduction in oral prophylactics (area under the curve, 70.3%; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrated the efficacy and safety of onabotulinumtoxinA. This treatment reduced the use of oral prophylactics. Withdrawal of oral prophylactics was most likely to occur after five cycles of treatment.

Cómo y cuándo derivar un paciente con cefalea primaria y neuralgia craneofacial desde Urgencias y Atención Primaria: recomendaciones del Grupo de Estudio de Cefalea de la Sociedad Española de Neurología / How and when to refer patients diagnosed with primary headache and craniofacial neuralgia in the Emergency department or Primary Care: Recommendations of the Spanish Society of Neurology's Headache Study Group

INTRODUCCIÓN: Cuando tras una correcta anamnesis y exploración neurológica se diagnostica a un paciente con una cefalea primaria o una neuralgia craneofacial en urgencias o atención primaria y se decide derivar a neurología por complejidad es útil conocer si además se deberían solicitar exploraciones complementarias y la preferencia (urgente, preferente o normal) con la que se debería derivar para que el paciente llegue a la consulta del neurólogo sin demoras innecesarias en pacientes con dolores incapacitantes o con sospecha de organicidad. Por este motivo, el Grupo de Estudio de Cefalea de la Sociedad Española de Neurología, ha decidido crear unas recomendaciones consensuadas que establezcan un protocolo de derivación de pacientes con cefalea y/o neuralgias craneofaciales. DESARROLLO: Se ha contactado con neurólogos jóvenes con interés y experiencia en cefalea y con la Junta Directiva del Grupo de Estudio de Cefalea de la Sociedad Española de Neurología que han desarrollado este documento que, por razones prácticas, se ha dividido en 2 artículos. Esta primera centrada en las cefaleas o neuralgias craneofaciales primarias y una segunda que se focaliza en las cefaleas secundarias. El enfoque es práctico con tablas que resumen los criterios de derivación con exploraciones complementarias y otros especialistas a los que derivar, para que sea útil y facilite su uso en nuestra práctica asistencial diaria. CONCLUSIONES: Esperamos ofrecer una guía y herramientas para mejorar la toma de decisiones ante un paciente con cefalea, valorando exploraciones a priorizar y qué circuitos seguir para así evitar la duplicación de consultas y retrasos en el diagnóstico y en el tratamiento

INTRODUCTION: When a patient is diagnosed with primary headache or craniofacial neuralgia in the emergency department or in primary care, and is referred to a neurologist due to the complexity of the case, it is useful to know whether additional examination should be sought and the priority (urgent, preferential or normal) with which the patient should be seen. This will avoid unnecessary delays in patients with disabling headache and where organic causes are suspected. In order to issue recommendations on this matter, the Spanish Society of Neurology's Headache Study Group has decided to create a series of agreed recommendations constituting a referral protocol for patients with headache and/or craniofacial neuralgia. DEVELOPMENT: Young neurologists with an interest and experience in headache were invited to draft a series of practical guidelines in collaboration with Spanish Society of Neurology's Headache Study Group Executive Committee. For practical reasons, the document was divided into 2 articles: this first article focuses on primary headaches and craniofacial neuralgias and the second on secondary headaches. In order for the recommendations to be helpful for daily practice they follow a practical approach, with tables summarising referral criteria, examinations to be performed, and referral to other specialists. CONCLUSIONS: We hope to offer a guide and tools to improve decision-making regarding patients with headache, identifying complementary tests to prioritise and referral pathways to be followed, in order to avoid duplicated consultations and delayed diagnosis and treatment

How and when to refer patients diagnosed with primary headache and craniofacial neuralgia in the Emergency department or Primary Care: Recommendations of the Spanish Society of Neurology's Headache Study Group. / Cómo y cuándo derivar un paciente con cefalea primaria y neuralgia craneofacial desde Urgencias y Atención Primaria: recomendaciones del Grupo de Estudio de Cefalea de la Sociedad Española de Neurología.

INTRODUCTION: When a patient is diagnosed with primary headache or craniofacial neuralgia in the emergency department or in primary care, and is referred to a neurologist due to the complexity of the case, it is useful to know whether additional examination should be sought and the priority (urgent, preferential or normal) with which the patient should be seen. This will avoid unnecessary delays in patients with disabling headache and where organic causes are suspected. In order to issue recommendations on this matter, the Spanish Society of Neurology's Headache Study Group has decided to create a series of agreed recommendations constituting a referral protocol for patients with headache and/or craniofacial neuralgia. DEVELOPMENT: Young neurologists with an interest and experience in headache were invited to draft a series of practical guidelines in collaboration with Spanish Society of Neurology's Headache Study Group Executive Committee. For practical reasons, the document was divided into 2 articles: this first article focuses on primary headaches and craniofacial neuralgias and the second on secondary headaches. In order for the recommendations to be helpful for daily practice they follow a practical approach, with tables summarising referral criteria, examinations to be performed, and referral to other specialists. CONCLUSIONS: We hope to offer a guide and tools to improve decision-making regarding patients with headache, identifying complementary tests to prioritise and referral pathways to be followed, in order to avoid duplicated consultations and delayed diagnosis and treatment.

Early efficacy and late gain in chronic and high-frequency episodic migraine with onabotulinumtoxinA.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The aim was to analyse the clinical characteristics of a long-term follow-up of patients with chronic and high-frequency episodic migraine in treatment with onabotulinumtoxinA. METHODS: Patients diagnosed with high-frequency episodic migraine (HFEM) or chronic migraine (CM) according to the International Classification of Headache Disorders 3 beta were included. A comparative analysis was carried out at each study time point identifying outcome measures according to initial diagnosis and treatment duration. RESULTS: In all, 578 patients were recruited and after 24 months outcome data were collected from 100 patients: 84.0% CM and 16.0% HFEM. After 24 months, headache frequency was significantly reduced by 10.5 days from baseline, 64.0% reported a ≥50% reduction in pain intensity and 70.0% of patients had ≥50% reduction in analgesic use. Comparing baseline diagnoses, at month 6 CM patients presented higher mean reduction in frequency (CM 44.3% ± 32.6% vs. HFEM 34.6% ± 24.8%) and analgesic use (CM 53.6% ± 35.4% vs. HFEM 39.3% ± 33.2%). At month 12, the mean reduction in frequency was similar in CM and HFEM patients (CM 44.7% ± 33.4% vs. HFEM 41.2% ± 28.2%). Improvement in pain intensity, analgesic use and Migraine Disability Assessment were proportional in both diagnoses. CONCLUSIONS: OnabotulinumtoxinA efficacy is significant at 6 months in frequency and analgesic intake and remains stable during follow-up, whilst the intensity of pain decreases in a stepwise manner at each time point of the analysis. The improvement in CM and HFEM patients is proportional and significant after 1 year of treatment.

Headache: What to ask, how to examine, and which scales to use. Recommendations of the Spanish Society of Neurology's Headache Study Group. / ¿Qué preguntar, cómo explorar y qué escalas usar en el paciente con cefalea? Recomendaciones del Grupo de Estudio de Cefalea de la Sociedad Española de Neurología.

INTRODUCTION: Headache is the most common neurological complaint at the different levels of the healthcare system, and clinical history and physical examination are essential in the diagnosis and treatment of these patients. With the objective of unifying the care given to patients with headache, the Spanish Society of Neurology's Headache Study Group (GECSEN) has decided to establish a series of consensus recommendations to improve and guarantee adequate care in primary care, emergency services, and neurology departments. METHODS: With the aim of creating a practical document, the recommendations follow the dynamics of a medical consultation: clinical history, physical examination, and scales quantifying headache impact and disability. In addition, we provide recommendations for follow-up and managing patients' expectations of the treatment. CONCLUSIONS: With this tool, we aim to improve the care given to patients with headache in order to guarantee adequate, homogeneous care across Spain.