Efficacy of cranial electrotherapy stimulation in patients with burning mouth syndrome: a randomized, controlled, double-blind pilot study.

Background: The Burning mouth syndrome (BMS) is a chronic pain syndrome characterized by a burning sensation in the oral mucous membranes. The etiology and pathophysiology of BMS is largely unexplained. To date, there is no evidence-based treatment strategy for BMS. Cranial electrical stimulation (CES) represents a non-invasive treatment option with a low side effect profile that is approved for the treatment of pain, depression, anxiety disorder and insomnia. It has shown efficacy in studies for chronic pain such as fibromyalgia and neuropathic pain after spinal cord injury. This study aimed to investigate the therapeutic effectiveness of CES in combination with local transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) as an adjunct therapy in patients with BMS compared to sham stimulation. Methods: This randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled pilot study enrolled 22 patients, aged 18 years and over, with the diagnosis of BMS meeting the ICHD-3 criteria from August 2020 to June 2021. The study duration was 4 weeks (28 days) per participant. After randomization, the active group participants (n = 11) received a 100 µA CES treatment for 60 min a day whereas the devices in the Sham group did not emit electricity. Simple linear regression was used to determine whether the interventions promoted significant differences in pain intensity. Results: The linear regression showed that the period of stimulation significantly predicted decrease in the intensity of pain in the active group [ß = -0.036; t(26) = -7.219; p < 0.001] as in the sham group [ß = -0.026; t(26) = -2.56; p < 0.017]. With the applied cutoff of 30% pain reduction within the stimulation period, both the active and sham groups had 36% responders (n = 4) (Fisher's exact test, p = 1.00). In both groups (active stimulation and sham group), a significant decrease in the intensity of pain, somatic symptoms and an improvement in sleep quality over the study period was observed. Subjects reported no adverse events during the study. Conclusion: Although CES is an easily applicable and safe therapeutic option for chronic facial pain, active stimulation was not superior to sham stimulation. Among other reasons, this could be due to the short double-blinded treatment period, duration of the daily stimulation session or the small sample size.

Perception of typical migraine images on the internet: Comparison between a metropolis and a smaller rural city in Germany.

The medial portrayal of migraine is often stereotypical and inaccurate but reflects how society perceives migraine. The discrepancy between others' views and the reality of affected individuals may negatively affect access to treatment and the disease course of patients with migraine. This study aimed to investigate whether images presented in the media as typical migraine attacks are perceived as realistic and representative by migraine patients in Rostock, a smaller town in rural Germany, and compare the results to those from Berlin, a large metropolis. We performed an online survey in Rostock. Migraine patients were shown ten images of migraine attacks, which were among the most downloaded stock pictures on the internet under the search term "migraine". They rated on a scale of 0-100 to what extent the pictures were realistic for migraine attacks (realism score), representative of their own migraine (representation score), or the society's view of migraine (society score). In addition, we compared our results with a recently published study from the metropolitan region of Berlin. A total of 174 migraine patients completed our survey. Mean (SD) realism, representation, and society scores were 59.9 (17.5), 56.7 (18.3), and 58.4 (17.1) respectively. Images of older patients were perceived as significantly more realistic and representative than those of younger patients (P < .001). Patients in Rostock (rural region) rated the images as significantly more realistic and representative than survey participants in Berlin (metropolis). Migraine patients in a rural region found typical migraine images only moderately realistic and representative but to a higher degree than their counterparts from a metropolis.

Is prednisone still a reasonable option in the treatment of withdrawal headache in patients with chronic migraine and medication overuse headache in the age of CGRP antibodies? A narrative review.

OBJECTIVE: Along with the development of novel migraine therapies as the monoclonal antibodies against calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) and its receptor, the question arises if the treatment of chronic migraine (CM) and medication overuse headache (MOH) must be reconsidered. Have previous therapeutic approaches, including glucocorticoids, lost their role in the management of this debilitating disorder? In this narrative review, we present an overview of the available treatment options in CM and MOH in light of CGRP antibodies as well as an evaluation of the role of glucocorticoids in withdrawal therapy. BACKGROUND: Chronic migraine and medication overuse continues to be a difficult to treat condition. To date, potent treatment options are scarce and algorithms for advising patients with MOH are often still based on expert consensus rather than evidence-based medicine. For years and probably due to lack of effective alternatives, glucocorticoids have been used in MOH, especially to alleviate withdrawal symptoms caused by detoxification. Small case series report positive effects of steroids in this respective patient group; however, randomized controlled trials did not show a consistent benefit, although this may be due to methodological limitations. Because of these discrepancies, their role in MOH has been under debate ever since. METHODS: We searched the electronic database PubMed for articles up to June 1, 2022 on the use of glucocorticoids in CM and MOH. CONCLUSION: Despite popular use in clinical practice, there is currently still no scientific evidence for the efficacy of glucocorticoids in patients with CM and MOH. Treatment with monoclonal antibodies achieved high transition rates from medication overuse to non-overuse. However, further research is needed to evaluate the additional benefit of these new agents.

Relatives Experience More Psychological Distress Due to COVID-19 Pandemic-Related Visitation Restrictions Than In-Patients.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic led to visiting restrictions (VRs) of patients in hospitals. Social contacts between patients' relatives play an important role in convalescence. Isolation may cause new psychological comorbidity. The present study investigated the psychological distress of VR in in-patients and their relatives. Methods: From April 1, 2020 to May 20, 2020, 313 in-patients (≥14 years) of the University Medical Center Rostock were interviewed by questionnaires and 51 relatives by phone. Subjective psychological distress was assessed by a distress thermometer [0 (not at all)-100 (extreme)]. The study also investigated stressors due to VR, psychological distress in dependence on demographic or disease-related data, currently used communication channels and desired alternatives and support. Results: Relatives were more psychologically distressed by VR than in-patients (59 ± 34 vs. 38 ± 30, p = 0.002). Loss of direct physical contact and facial expressions/gestures resulted in the most distress. Psychological distress due to VR was independent of demographics and indicates small positive correlations with the severity of physical restriction and the general psychological distress of in-patients. The most frequent ways of communication were via phone and social media. Frequently requested alternatives for patients were other interlocutors and free phone/tablet use, for relatives visiting rooms with partitions. Conclusion: VRs are a stressor for patients and their relatives. The establishment of visiting rooms with partitions and the free use of phones/tablets could reduce the additional distress.

[CGRP antibodies in migraine prophylaxis : The new standard in migraine treatment?] / CGRP-Antikörper in der Migräneprophylaxe : Der neue Standard in der Migränetherapie?

Migraine is associated with a high individual level of suffering. Therefore, an effective preventive treatment is highly important. The spectrum of classical prophylactic drugs has now been expanded to include monoclonal antibodies against calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) and its receptor. These antibodies have shown reliable efficacy compared to placebo and a rapid onset of action with a low rate of side effects and negligible interactions in pivotal studies. Recently, the efficacy of the antibody was shown in many studies even on drug-refractory migraine and migraine associated with medication overuse. Comprehensive head to head comparisons with previously established drugs and among the antibodies are not yet available; however, initial studies suggest better tolerability and efficacy compared to conventional drugs and other antibodies. The role of antibodies in established treatment cascades still needs to be clarified.

Headache Characteristics in the Neurological Emergency Department: A Retrospective Study.

Background: The care of patients with headache in the emergency department (ED) represents a diagnostic and clinical challenge. Data on the prevalence and characteristics of headache patients in purely neurological EDs are sparse. The aim of the present study is to examine patient profiles with the cardinal symptom of headache in an academic neurological ED, to analyze correlations between headache characteristics and search for differences compared to the interdisciplinary ED. Methods: This retrospective cross-sectional study assessed all patients who presented to the ED of the Department of Neurology at Rostock University Medical Center between November 2013 and November 2016 with the main symptom of headache. Epidemiological, clinical, diagnostic data as well as key data regarding the care structure were recorded. Correlations between headache characteristics and diagnosis at discharge were analyzed and risk profiles were identified using binary logistic regression analysis. Conclusion: This study comprehensively characterized a large collective of patients with the cardinal symptom of headache presenting to a purely neurology emergency department.

Optimizing telemedical care in neurological outpatients by characterizing the patients' needs in the physician-patient relationship-content analysis of guideline-based interviews.

BACKGROUND: The use of new concepts in patient care, such as video-consultations, reminder systems, and online evaluation portals, is becoming increasingly important in the physician-patient relationship and outpatient care. This study examines the acceptance of these approaches in a neurological setting and determines the patients' preferences. METHODS: We analyzed 16 guideline-based qualitative interviews with neurological patients using qualitative content analysis (inductive category formation). RESULTS: The patients commented on the benefits and challenges of integrating new concepts of medical care. They identified advantages of telemedical care, including time savings (7 of 16; 43,8%) for both the patient and the physician, the prospect of more intensive (4 of 16; 25%) care, and the possibility for a quick response in case of urgent needs (3 of 16; 18.8%). Several challenges were reported, such as the limitations for patients with psychiatric (2 of 16; 12.5%) or complex diseases (4 of 16; 25%) and limited options for diagnostic procedures (such as physical examination (4 of 16; 25%)). For individual neurological patients' needs, telemedical and telecommunication structures could be discussed, which support the patients' specific requirements, such as answering questions while having a recall (2 of 16; 12.5%) and avoiding the journey (8 of 16; 50%). Also, patients are rejecting evaluation portals and are skeptical of telecare in the treatment of neurological diseases. DISCUSSION: The perception of telemedical care and the successful integration of new medical care concepts depend on fulfilling the individual patient's needs. Regardless of the preferred nature of physician-patient interactions, there are specific instruments that can intensify the relationship. These individual needs of the patients must be inquired about and accommodated for. CONCLUSIONS: For the first time, we could characterize the properties of optimal telemedical care for neurological patients. Interviews like the ones we conducted should be repeated during and after the pandemic, referring to our results and compare.

Prevention of migraine with monoclonal antibodies against CGRP or the CGRP receptor: Addition to the S1 guideline: Therapy of migraine attacks and prevention of migraine. Recommendations of the Germany Society of Neurology and the German Migraine and Headache Society.

Monoclonal antibodies against the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor (Erenumab) or against CGRP (Eptinezumab, Fremanezumab, Galcanezumab) are new substances for the preventive treatment of migraine. They represent an extension of the therapeutic options, which already exist in migraine prevention. In randomized, placebo-controlled studies, the efficacy and good tolerability of these specific substances have been demonstrated in patients with episodic and chronic migraine. The following treatment recommendation presents a summary of the pivotal studies. Recommendations are provided for the targeted selection of patients as well as for the evaluation of therapeutic success and the duration of treatment. Finally, possible restrictions on the use of this new substance group are discussed. This guideline is an abridged and translated version of the guideline published by Diener H-C, May A et al., Prevention of migraine with monoclonal antibodies against CGRP or the CGRP receptor, Supplement to S1 Guideline Therapy of Migraine Attack and Prevention of Migraine, 2019, Deutsche Gesellschaft für Neurologie (eds.), Guidelines for Diagnostics and Therapy in Neurology. A complete version of this guideline can be found on the website of the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Neurologie (www.dgn.org/leitlinien) and the AWMF (Arbeitsgemeinschaft wissenschaftlicher Medizinischer Gesellschaften). This guideline has been approved by the German Neurological Society (DGN) and the German Migraine and Headache Society (GMHS) and was reviewed by the two societies.

[Migraine prophylaxis-all just antibodies? : Medical and nonmedical migraine preventive treatment in times of CGRP antibodies]. / Migräneprophylaxe ­ alles nur noch Antikörper? : Medikamentöse und nicht-medikamentöse Migräneprophylaxe in Zeiten der CGRP-Antikörper.

BACKGROUND: Migraine is a frequently underdiagnosed disease that is associated with a high burden on affected patients. There are a variety of prophylactic treatment options available, that have been expanded with the introduction of the CGRP-(receptor-)antibodies. OBJECTIVES: Status of pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic preventive treatment in migraine therapy. METHODS: Analysis and evaluation of internationally published articles concerning preventive treatment of episodic and chronic migraine. RESULTS: There are many approved medications for migraine prophylaxis with different evidence. The possibilities were further expanded with CGRP antibodies. Comparative studies of the new antibodies with previous prophylactic drugs have not yet been published, so it's unclear whether the antibodies are therapeutically superior. What should be emphasized is their rapid onset of action and their good tolerance. Basically, an individual choice of prophylaxis, which is based on affectedness, comorbidities and comedication, makes sense. In addition, a combination with nondrug measures is always mandatory. CONCLUSIONS: A variety of medicinal and non-medicinal measures are available for the treatment of migraine, which should be used multimodally.