Hemicrania continua in a headache clinic: referral source and diagnostic delay in a series of 22 patients.

Hemicrania continua (HC) is a unilateral and continuous primary headache with superimposed exacerbations frequently associated with autonomic features. Diagnostic criteria of HC, according to II Edition of International Classification of Headache Disorders require complete response to indomethacin. HC is probably misdiagnosed more often than other primary headaches. We aim to analyze characteristics of a series of 22 consecutive cases of HC. We recruited patients from a headache outpatient clinic in a tertiary hospital over a 3-year period (January 2008 to January 2011). We prospectively gathered demographic and nosological characteristics and considered referral source and delay between onset of headache and diagnosis of HC. Twenty-two patients (14 females, 8 males) out of 1,150, who attended the mentioned clinic during the inclusion period (1.9 %) were diagnosed with HC. All cases responded to indomethacin. No patient received a diagnosis of HC before attending our headache office. Mean latency of diagnosis was 86.1 ± 106.5 months (range 3-360). 11 patients (50 %) were referred from primary care, with 9 (40.9 %) from other neurology clinics and 2 (9.1 %) from other specialities offices. According to our series, HC is not an infrequent diagnosis in a headache outpatient clinic. Diagnostic delay is comparable to data collected in previous studies. As HC is frequently misdiagnosed, we thing there is a need for increasing the understanding of this entity, potentially responsive to indomethacin.

Peripheral nerve blocks: a therapeutic alternative for hemicrania continua.

OBJECTIVES: A complete response to indomethacin is required for the diagnosis of hemicrania continua (HC). Nevertheless, patients may develop side effects leading to withdrawal of this drug. Several alternatives have been proposed with no consistent effectiveness. Both anaesthetic blocks of peripheral nerves and trochlear corticosteroid injections have been effective in some case reports. METHODS: Twenty-two patients with HC were assessed in a headache outpatient office. Physical examination included palpation of the supraorbital nerve (SON) and greater occipital nerve (GON) as well as of the trochlear area. RESULTS: In 14 patients, at least one tender point was detected. Due to indomethacin intolerance, at least one anaesthetic block of the GON or SON, or an injection of corticosteroids in the trochlear area, were performed in nine patients. Four of them were treated with a combination procedure. All these patients experienced total or partial improvement lasting from 2 to 10 months. CONCLUSION: Anaesthetic blocks or corticosteroid injections may be effective in HC patients showing tenderness of the SON, GON or trochlear area.

Epicrania fugax with backward radiation: clinical characteristics of nine new cases.

Epicrania fugax (EF) is a novel syndrome, described as a paroxysmal and brief head pain, starting in posterior cranial regions and rapidly spreading forward ipsilateral eye, nose or forehead. Two patients with comparable clinical features stemming from frontal scalp to ipsilateral posterior regions have been recently described and proposed as backward radiation epicrania fugax (BREF). We report a new series of nine BREF and compare their clinical characteristics with 18 forward radiation EF (FREF). Since first description of BREF in February 2010 we have assessed nine patients (four males, five females) with this clinical picture at an outpatient headache office in a Tertiary Hospital. Comparison is established with 18 FREF patients (6 males, 12 females), attended since the publication of first series of EF in March 2008. We found no differences between BREF and FREF, respectively, in age at onset (43.4 ± 13.1 vs. 42.5 ± 17.7 years), female/male ratio (5/4 vs. 12/6), pain intensity (6.9 ± 2.1 vs. 6.8 ± 2.1 in a 0-10 visual analogical scale), duration (7.1 ± 4.9 vs. 5.7 ± 4.3 s) and frequency of episodes per day (7 ± 8.4 vs. 9.9 ± 15.4). Patients in BREF group presented less frequently interictal pain in stemming point (22.2 vs. 55.5%) and accompanying autonomic signs (33.3 vs. 55.5%), but without statistical significance in both the cases. This series reinforces the proposal of EF as a new headache variant or a new headache syndrome. Clinical picture of brief pain paroxysms starting in the anterior scalp and radiating backwards does not fit known headaches or neuralgias and might correspond to a reverse variant of EF, clinical characteristics of which are comparable to FREF.

Characteristics of the first 1000 headaches in an outpatient headache clinic registry.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze the incidence and characteristics of the first 1000 headaches in an outpatient clinic. BACKGROUND: Headache is a common cause of medical consultation, both in primary care and in specialist neurology outpatient clinics. The International Classification of Headache Disorders, 2nd Edition (ICHD-II), enables headaches to be classified in a precise and reproducible manner. METHODS: In January 2008, an outpatient headache clinic was set up in Hospital Clínico Universitario, a tertiary hospital in Valladolid, Spain. Headaches were classified prospectively in accordance with ICHD-II criteria. In each case we recorded age and sex, duration of headache, ancillary tests required, and previous symptomatic or prophylactic therapies. RESULTS: In January 2010, the registry included 1000 headaches in 682 patients. The women/men ratio was 2.46/1 and the mean age of the patients was 43.19 ± 17.1 years (range: 14-94 years). Patients were referred from primary care (53.4%), general neurology clinics (36.6%), and other specialist clinics (9%). The headaches were grouped (ICHD-II classification) as follows: group 1 (Migraine), 51.4%; group 2 (Tension-type headache), 16%; group 3 (Trigeminal autonomic cephalalgias), 2.6%; group 4 (Other primary headaches) and group 13 (Cranial neuralgias), 3.4%. The diagnostic criteria of chronic migraine were satisfied in 8.5% of migraines. Regarding secondary headaches, 1.1% of all cases were included in group 5 (Headaches attributed to trauma) and 8.3% in group 8 (Headaches attributed to a substance or its withdrawal). Only 3.4% of headaches were classified in group 14 (Unspecified or not elsewhere classified), and 5.2% were included in the groups listed in the ICHD-II research appendix. CONCLUSION: This registry outlines the characteristics of patients seen in an outpatient headache clinic in a tertiary hospital; our results are similar to those previously reported for this type of outpatient clinic. Migraine was the most common diagnosis. Most headaches can be classified using ICHD-II criteria.

Epicrania fugax: ten new cases and therapeutic results.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to report 10 new cases of epicrania fugax (EF), showing their clinical features and therapeutic responses. BACKGROUND: Epicrania fugax has been recently described as a paroxysmal head pain starting in a focal area located at a posterior cranial region and rapidly spreading forward to the ipsilateral eye or nose along a linear or zigzag trajectory. In some patients the pain is followed by ocular or nasal autonomic features. In the prior series, 1 patient got pain relief with anesthetic blockades, while another patient improved with carbamazepine. METHODS: Since the first description of EF, we have assessed 10 patients with the same clinical picture (8 women and 2 men) at the Neurology outpatient offices of our 2 centers. RESULTS: The mean age at onset was 48.5 years (SD: 19.8, range: 23-83). All the patients complained of strictly unilateral pain paroxysms starting at parietal (n = 5), occipital (n = 4), or parieto-occipital locations (n = 1), and immediately spreading forward through a linear pathway toward the ipsilateral forehead (n = 3) or the ipsilateral eye (n = 7), the complete sequence lasting 1-10 seconds. No trigger was identified in any of our patients, while 5 of them suffered mild pain in the stemming area between the paroxysms. Three patients had ipsilateral lacrimation, and 2 had conjunctival injection at the end of the attacks. The frequency ranged from 1 attack per week to multiple attacks per day. Neuroimaging and laboratory tests were consistently normal. Interictal pain was responsive to acetaminophen. In 3 cases a preventive was considered in order to avoid the paroxysms. Gabapentin led to significant improvement in 2 cases. The third patient did not obtain any benefit from gabapentin or amitriptyline, but improved slightly with lamotrigine. CONCLUSIONS: This description reinforces the proposal of EF as a new headache variant or a new headache syndrome. Anesthetic blockades, carbamazepine, gabapentin, and lamotrigine have been apparently effective in individual patients. Further observations and therapeutic trials are needed.