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)

Cefalea: embarazo y lactancia. Recomendaciones del Grupo de Estudio de Cefaleas de la Sociedad Española de Neurología (GECSEN) / Headache: pregnancy and breastfeeding Recommendations of the Spanish Society of Neurology's Headache Study Group

Introducción: La cefalea es uno de los motivos de consulta más comunes en neurología, siendo más frecuente durante la edad reproductiva. Por ello, es habitual encontrar en nuestras consultas pacientes embarazadas o en periodo de lactancia con dicha queja. Es importante conocer las opciones farmacológicas más seguras, cuáles no se deben emplear, así como cuándo sospechar cefaleas secundarias. Por este motivo, el Grupo de Estudio de Cefaleas de la Sociedad Española de Neurología ha elaborado una guía con las recomendaciones consensuadas acerca de los algoritmos diagnósticos y terapéuticos que se deben emplear durante el embarazo y la lactancia. Desarrollo: Esta guía ha sido redactada por un grupo de jóvenes neurólogos con especial interés y experiencia en cefaleas en colaboración con la Junta Directiva del Grupo de Estudio de Cefaleas de la Sociedad Española de Neurología. Las recomendaciones se centran en los fármacos aconsejados en las cefaleas primarias más frecuentes, tanto en su fase aguda como preventiva. En una segunda parte se aborda cuándo sospechar y qué pruebas realizar ante una posible cefalea secundaria durante el embarazo y la lactancia. Conclusiones: Esperamos que esta guía resulte de utilidad y permita su aplicación práctica en la consulta diaria. Asimismo, que sirva para actualizar y mejorar el conocimiento del manejo de las cefaleas durante estas etapas, para actuar con mayor confianza ante estas pacientes. (AU)

Introduction: Headache is one of the most common neurological complaints, and is most frequent during reproductive age. As a result, we are routinely faced with pregnant or breastfeeding women with this symptom in clinical practice. It is important to know which pharmacological choices are the safest, which should not be used, and when we should suspect secondary headache. To this end, the Spanish Society of Neurology's Headache Study Grouphas prepared a series of consensus recommendations on the diagnostic and therapeutic algorithms that should be followed during pregnancy and breastfeeding. Development: This guide was prepared by a group of young neurologists with special interest and experience in headache, in collaboration with the Group's Executive Committee. Recommendations focus on which drugs should be used for the most frequent primary headaches, both during the acute phase and for prevention. The second part addresses when secondary headache should be suspected and which diagnostic tests should be performed in the event of possible secondary headache during pregnancy and breastfeeding. Conclusions: We hope this guide will be practical and useful in daily clinical practice and that it will help update and improve understanding of headache management during pregnancy and breastfeeding, enabling physicians to more confidently treat these patients. (AU)

Headache: pregnancy and breastfeeding. Recommendations of the Spanish Society of Neurology's Headache Study Group.

INTRODUCTION: Headache is one of the most common neurological complaints, and is most frequent during reproductive age. As a result, we are routinely faced with pregnant or breastfeeding women with this symptom in clinical practice. It is important to know which pharmacological choices are the safest, which should not be used, and when we should suspect secondary headache. To this end, the Spanish Society of Neurology's Headache Study Group has prepared a series of consensus recommendations on the diagnostic and therapeutic algorithms that should be followed during pregnancy and breastfeeding. DEVELOPMENT: This guide was prepared by a group of young neurologists with special interest and experience in headache, in collaboration with the Group's Executive Committee. Recommendations focus on which drugs should be used for the most frequent primary headaches, both during the acute phase and for prevention. The second part addresses when secondary headache should be suspected and which diagnostic tests should be performed in the event of possible secondary headache during pregnancy and breastfeeding. CONCLUSIONS: We hope this guide will be practical and useful in daily clinical practice and that it will help update and improve understanding of headache management during pregnancy and breastfeeding, enabling physicians to more confidently treat these patients.

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)

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.

Evidencia y experiencia del uso de onabotulinumtoxinA en neuralgia del trigémino y cefaleas primarias distintas de la migraña crónica / Evidence of and experience with the use of onabotulinumtoxinA in trigeminal neuralgia and primary headaches other than chronic migraine

INTRODUCCIÓN: En el campo de las cefaleas, onabotulinumtoxinA (onabotA) tiene indicación bien establecida en la migraña crónica (MC). Además, en los últimos años su uso se está extendiendo a otras cefaleas primarias (migraña episódica de alta frecuencia, cefaleas trigémino-autonómicas, cefalea numular) y a la neuralgia del trigémino. Al ser una opción terapéutica que se va a ir incorporando de forma progresiva en el manejo de estas entidades, creemos que es necesario reflejar con un carácter eminentemente práctico cuáles son las posibles indicaciones de onabotA, más allá de la MC, así como su protocolo de administración, que diferirá en función del tipo de cefalea y/o neuralgia. DESARROLLO: A partir de una revisión de la bibliografía existente y de nuestra propia experiencia clínica, se ha elaborado este documento de consenso cuyo objetivo es servir de guía a aquellos profesionales que quieran aplicar estas técnicas en su actividad asistencial. En la primera parte se abordará el mecanismo de acción de onabotA y la razón de su utilización en diversas cefaleas distintas de la MC desde un punto de vista fisiopatológico y clínico. En la segunda parte se hará una revisión de la evidencia disponible y los estudios publicados en los últimos años. Para cada una de estas entidades, se añadirá una «recomendación de experto», basada en la propia experiencia clínica, que refleje el perfil de paciente que puede ser candidato a este tratamiento, las dosis y el protocolo de administración de onabotA. CONCLUSIÓN: El tratamiento con onabotA en entidades distintas a la MC debe ser siempre individualizado y se planteará en pacientes seleccionados que no hayan respondido a la terapia convencional

INTRODUCTION: In the field of headaches, onabotulinumtoxinA (onabotA) is well established as a treatment for chronic migraine (CM). In recent years, it has been used increasingly to treat other primary headaches (high-frequency episodic migraine, trigeminal-autonomic cephalalgias, nummular headache) and trigeminal neuralgia. As this treatment will progressively be incorporated in the management of these patients, we consider it necessary to reflect, with a fundamentally practical approach, on the possible indications of onabotA, beyond CM, as well as its administration protocol, which will differ according to the type of headache and/or neuralgia. DEVELOPMENT: This consensus document was drafted based on a thorough review and analysis of the existing literature and our own clinical experience. The aim of the document is to serve as guidelines for professionals administering onabotA treatment. The first part will address onabotA's mechanism of action, and reasons for its use in other types of headache, from a physiopathological and clinical perspective. In the second part, we will review the available evidence and studies published in recent years. We will add an "expert recommendation" based on our own clinical experience, showing the best patient profile for this treatment and the most adequate dose and administration protocol. CONCLUSION: Treatment with onabotA should always be individualised and considered in selected patients who have not responded to conventional therapy

Cómo y cuándo derivar un paciente con cefalea secundaria y otros tipos de dolores craneofaciales desde Urgencias y Atención Primaria: recomendaciones del Grupo de Estudio de Cefaleas de la Sociedad Española de Neurología / How and when to refer patients diagnosed with secondary headache and other craniofacial pain in the Emergency Department and Primary Care: Recommendations of the Spanish Society of Neurology's Headache Study Group

INTRODUCCIÓN: Cuando se sospecha que estamos ante una cefalea secundaria y se deriva un paciente a Urgencias o a la consulta de Neurología es importante saber qué exploraciones complementarias son oportunas hacer en cada caso, además de saber posteriormente cuál es el circuito adecuado que ha de seguir el paciente. Por este motivo, el Grupo de Estudio de Cefaleas de la Sociedad Española de Neurología (GECSEN) 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 GECSEN han desarrollado este documento que, por razones prácticas, se ha dividido en 2 artículos. El primero centrado en las cefaleas primarias y neuralgias craneofaciales, y este centrado en las cefaleas secundarias y otros dolores craneofaciales. 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 que circuitos seguir para así evitarla duplicación de consultas y retrasos en el diagnóstico y en el tratamiento

INTRODUCTION: When secondary headache is suspected and the patient is referred to the emergency department or to the outpatient neurology clinic, it is important to know which are the appropriate complementary examinations to perform and the suitable referral pathway for patients to follow. In order to establish recommendations on this matter, the Spanish Society of Neurology's Headache Study Group (GECSEN) has decided to issue a series of agreed recommendations constituting a referral protocol for patients with headache and/or craniofacial neuralgias. DEVELOPMENT: Young neurologists with an interest and experience in headache were invited to draft a series of practical guidelines in collaboration with GECSEN's Executive Committee. For practical reasons, the document was divided into 2 articles: the first focuses on primary headaches and craniofacial neuralgias and this second article on secondary headaches and other craniofacial pain. 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

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 secondary headache and other craniofacial pain in the Emergency Department and Primary Care: Recommendations of the Spanish Society of Neurology's Headache Study Group. / Cómo y cuándo derivar un paciente con cefalea secundaria y otros tipos de dolores craneofaciales desde Urgencias y Atención Primaria: recomendaciones del Grupo de Estudio de Cefaleas de la Sociedad Española de Neurología.

INTRODUCTION: When secondary headache is suspected and the patient is referred to the emergency department or to the outpatient neurology clinic, it is important to know which are the appropriate complementary examinations to perform and the suitable referral pathway for patients to follow. In order to establish recommendations on this matter, the Spanish Society of Neurology's Headache Study Group (GECSEN) has decided to issue a series of agreed recommendations constituting a referral protocol for patients with headache and/or craniofacial neuralgias. DEVELOPMENT: Young neurologists with an interest and experience in headache were invited to draft a series of practical guidelines in collaboration with GECSEN's Executive Committee. For practical reasons, the document was divided into 2 articles: the first focuses on primary headaches and craniofacial neuralgias and this second article on secondary headaches and other craniofacial pain. 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.

Evidence of and experience with the use of onabotulinumtoxinA in trigeminal neuralgia and primary headaches other than chronic migraine. / Evidencia y experiencia del uso de onabotulinumtoxinA en neuralgia del trigémino y cefaleas primarias distintas de la migraña crónica.

INTRODUCTION: In the field of headaches, onabotulinumtoxinA (onabotA) is well established as a treatment for chronic migraine (CM). In recent years, it has been used increasingly to treat other primary headaches (high-frequency episodic migraine, trigeminal-autonomic cephalalgias, nummular headache) and trigeminal neuralgia. As this treatment will progressively be incorporated in the management of these patients, we consider it necessary to reflect, with a fundamentally practical approach, on the possible indications of onabotA, beyond CM, as well as its administration protocol, which will differ according to the type of headache and/or neuralgia. DEVELOPMENT: This consensus document was drafted based on a thorough review and analysis of the existing literature and our own clinical experience. The aim of the document is to serve as guidelines for professionals administering onabotA treatment. The first part will address onabotA's mechanism of action, and reasons for its use in other types of headache, from a physiopathological and clinical perspective. In the second part, we will review the available evidence and studies published in recent years. We will add an "expert recommendation" based on our own clinical experience, showing the best patient profile for this treatment and the most adequate dose and administration protocol. CONCLUSION: Treatment with onabotA should always be individualised and considered in selected patients who have not responded to conventional therapy.

Headache: pregnancy and breastfeeding Recommendations of the Spanish Society of Neurology's Headache Study Group. / Cefalea: embarazo y lactancia. Recomendaciones del Grupo de Estudio de Cefaleas de la Sociedad Española de Neurología (GECSEN).

INTRODUCTION: Headache is one of the most common neurological complaints, and is most frequent during reproductive age. As a result, we are routinely faced with pregnant or breastfeeding women with this symptom in clinical practice. It is important to know which pharmacological choices are the safest, which should not be used, and when we should suspect secondary headache. To this end, the Spanish Society of Neurology's Headache Study Grouphas prepared a series of consensus recommendations on the diagnostic and therapeutic algorithms that should be followed during pregnancy and breastfeeding. DEVELOPMENT: This guide was prepared by a group of young neurologists with special interest and experience in headache, in collaboration with the Group's Executive Committee. Recommendations focus on which drugs should be used for the most frequent primary headaches, both during the acute phase and for prevention. The second part addresses when secondary headache should be suspected and which diagnostic tests should be performed in the event of possible secondary headache during pregnancy and breastfeeding. CONCLUSIONS: We hope this guide will be practical and useful in daily clinical practice and that it will help update and improve understanding of headache management during pregnancy and breastfeeding, enabling physicians to more confidently treat these patients.

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.

Real world preventative drug management of migraine among Spanish neurologists.

BACKGROUND: Many different preventatives have showed efficacy in the treatment of migraine. National guidelines differ in their recommendations and patients' characteristics are usually taken into account in their selection. In Spain, real life use of preventive therapies seems to be heterogeneous. We aimed to evaluate differences in clinical practice and adherence to national guidelines among Spanish neurologists. METHODS: Observational descriptive study. A survey was conducted among neurologists ascribed to the Spanish Society of Neurology. Participants were differentiated in accordance with their dedication to headache disorders. We analysed socio-demographic parameters and evaluated 43 questions considering migraine management as well as therapeutic choices regarding migraine sub-types and finally, neurologists' personal perception. RESULTS: One hundred fifty-five neurologists participated from 17 different regions, 43.4% of them female and 53.3% under 40 years of age. 34.9% confirmed headache disorders as their main interest. The first choice for preventive therapy in chronic migraine among participants was topiramate (57%) followed by amytriptiline (17.9%) and beta-blockers (14.6%). However in episodic migraine, the preferred options were beta-blockers (47.7%), topiramate (21.5%) and amytriptiline (13.4%). Regarding perceived efficacy, topiramate was considered the best option in chronic migraine (42.7%) followed by onabotulinumtoxinA (25.5%) and amitryptiline (22.4%). Where episodic migraine was concerned, surveyed neurologists perceived topiramate (43.7%) and beta-blockers (30.3%) as the best options. When we evaluated the duration of treatment use with a view to adequate therapeutic response, 43.5% of neurologists preferred 3 months duration and 39.5% were in favour of 6 months duration in episodic migraine. However, considering the preferred duration of treatment use in chronic migraine, 20.4% recommended 3 months, 42.1% preferred 6 months and 12.5% and 22.4% opted for 9 and 12 months respectively. When considering onabotulinumtoxinA therapy, the number of prior therapeutic failures was zero in 7.2% of neurologists, one in 5.9%, two in 44.1%, three in 30.9% and four or more in 11.9%. Following an initial treatment failure with onabotulinumtoxinA, 49% of subjects decided against a second treatment. The number of OnabotA procedures before considering it as ineffective was two in 18.9% of neurologists, three in 70.8% and four in 10.4%. CONCLUSIONS: The initial management of migraine among Spanish Neurologists is in line with most guidelines, where first choice preventative drugs are concerned. The Management of episodic migraine differed from chronic migraine, both in terms of neurologist preference and in their perceived efficacy.

Patrones de bloqueo anestésico de nervios pericraneales en el paciente con cefalea / Patterns of anaesthetic pericranial nerve block in headache patients

Los bloqueos anestésicos constituyen un recurso terapéutico en muchos pacientes con cefalea, de forma aislada o en combinación con otros tratamientos. Sin embargo existe una importante heterogeneidad en los patrones de uso entre los distintos profesionales. MATERIAL Y MÉTODO: Se diseñó desde el Grupo de Estudio de Cefaleas de la Sociedad Española de Neurología (GECSEN) una encuesta transversal autoadministrada enviada a través de la plataforma del área científica de la SEN en febrero del 2016 a todos los miembros del grupo. El objetivo era conocer los principales aspectos técnicos y formales en relación con este procedimiento y compararlos con los datos obtenidos en una encuesta similar realizada en el año 2012. RESULTADOS: Participaron 39 neurólogos (edad media: 41,74 años; DE: 9,73), 23 varones (43,7 años; DE: 9,92) y 16 mujeres (38,94 años; DE: 9,01). El 76,9% integraba los bloqueos anestésicos en su práctica clínica (el 79,16% en hospital de tercer nivel). Las principales indicaciones fueron: diagnóstico y tratamiento de las neuralgias (100%), prevención de migraña crónica (61,7%) y cefalea en racimos episódica (51,3%) y crónica (66,7%). El 31% de los encuestados bloquea solo el complejo occipital, el 13% infiltra además el nervio supraorbitario y otro 13% también el nervio auriculotemporal. CONCLUSIONES: Las indicaciones del bloqueo anestésico así como los territorios infiltrados son similares en ambos años. Destacamos sin embargo una participación más activa en esta última encuesta y un porcentaje mayor de neurólogos jóvenes (el 35,89% tiene 35 años o menos) que indican una generalización de esta técnica en la práctica asistencial

Anaesthetic blocks, whether used alone or combined with other treatments, are a therapeutic resource for many patients with headaches. However, usage patterns by different professionals show significant heterogeneity. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The Headache Study Group of the Spanish Society of Neurology (GECSEN) designed a self-administered cross-sectional survey and sent it to all group members through the SEN's scientific area web platform in February 2016. The objective was to ascertain the main technical and formal aspects of this procedure and compare them with data obtained in a similar survey conducted in 2012. RESULTS: A total of 39 neurologists (mean age 41.74 years; SD: 9.73), 23 men (43.7 years; SD: 9.92) and 16 women (38.94 years; SD: 9.01) participated in this survey. Of these respondents, 76.9% used anaesthetic block in their clinical practice (79.16% in a tertiary-care hospital). The main indications were diagnosis and treatment of neuralgia (100%), prevention of chronic migraine (61.7%), episodic cluster headache (51.3%), and chronic cluster headache (66.7%). AB was used by 31% of the respondents to block only the lateral occipital complex, 13% also infiltrated the supraorbital nerve, and another 13% infiltrated the auriculotemporal nerve as well. CONCLUSIONS: The indications for anaesthetic blocks and the territories most frequently infiltrated are similar to those cited in the earlier survey. However, we observed increased participation in this latest survey and a higher percentage of young neurologists (35.89% aged 35 or younger), indicating that use of this technique has entered mainstream clinical practice

¿Se interesan los residentes de Neurología en la cefalea? / Are neurology residents interested in headache?

Introducción: Los años de residencia son la base fundamental para el ejercicio posterior de cualquier especialidad médica. El objetivo de nuestro estudio es evaluar la situación actual, grado de implicación y calidad percibida en la formación como neurólogos de los residentes, específicamente en el área de cefaleas. Métodos: Desde el Grupo de Estudio de Cefaleas de la Sociedad Española de Neurología (GECSEN) se diseñó una encuesta autoadministrada que fue enviada vía e-mail a todos socios los residentes de Neurología (mayo de 2015). Resultados: Completaron la encuesta 53 residentes (53/426: 12,4%; R1: 6%; R2: 25,5%; R3: 23,5% y R4: 45% de 13 comunidades autónomas). Las áreas que más les interesan son por orden: vascular, cefalea y epilepsia. El 85% considera que el área de cefalea está infravalorada. Más de la mitad (52,8%) no rotan en consultas específicas de cefaleas y solo el 35,8% terminan su formación con dominio de la técnica de bloqueos anestésicos e infiltración de toxina. El 81,1% considera que la investigación es escasa o nula. El 69,8% nunca ha realizado un póster/comunicación, el 79,3% no ha publicado y solo un 15% colabora en proyectos de investigación en esta área. El 40% considera que no ha recibido una formación adecuada. Conclusiones: La cefalea está entre las enfermedades que más interesan a nuestros residentes, sin embargo, consideramos que hay que mejorar su formación tanto en el ámbito asistencial como investigador, así como la visión que tienen de ella. Aumentar los cursos, crear páginas web formativas, involucrarles en investigación y considerar obligatoria la rotación en una unidad especializada son algunos de los objetivos fundamentales que planteamos desde el GECSEN (AU)

Introduction: The years of residency are the pillars of the subsequent practice in every medical specialty. The aim of our study is to evaluate the current situation, degree of involvement, main interests, and perceived quality of the training received by Spanish residents of neurology, specifically in the area of headache. Methods: A self-administered survey was designed by the Headache Study Group of the Spanish Society of Neurology (GECSEN) and was sent via e-mail to all residents who were members of the Society as of May 2015. Results: Fifty-three residents completed the survey (N = 426, 12.4%): 6% were first year residents, 25.5% second year, 23.5% third year, and 45% fourth year residents, all from 13 different Spanish autonomous communities. The areas of greatest interest are, in this order: Vascular neurology, headache, and epilepsy. Of them, 85% believe that the area of headache is undervalued. More than half of residents (52.8%) do not rotate in specific Headache Units and only 35.8% complete their training dominating anaesthetic block and toxin infiltration techniques. Of them, 81.1% believe that research is scarce or absent; 69.8% have never made a poster/presentation, 79.3% have not published and only 15% collaborate on research projects in this area. Lastly, 40% believe that they have not received adequate training. Conclusions: Headache is among the areas that interest our residents the most; however, we believe that we must improve their training both at a patient healthcare level and as researchers. Thus, increasing the number of available courses, creating educational web pages, involving residents in research, and making a rotation in a specialised unit mandatory are among the fundamental objectives of the GECSEN (AU)

Are neurology residents interested in headache? / ¿Se interesan los residentes de Neurología en la cefalea?

INTRODUCTION: The years of residency are the pillars of the subsequent practice in every medical specialty. The aim of our study is to evaluate the current situation, degree of involvement, main interests, and perceived quality of the training received by Spanish residents of neurology, specifically in the area of headache. METHODS: A self-administered survey was designed by the Headache Study Group of the Spanish Society of Neurology (GECSEN) and was sent via e-mail to all residents who were members of the Society as of May 2015. RESULTS: Fifty-three residents completed the survey (N = 426, 12.4%): 6% were first year residents, 25.5% second year, 23.5% third year, and 45% fourth year residents, all from 13 different Spanish autonomous communities. The areas of greatest interest are, in this order: Vascular neurology, headache, and epilepsy. Of them, 85% believe that the area of headache is undervalued. More than half of residents (52.8%) do not rotate in specific Headache Units and only 35.8% complete their training dominating anaesthetic block and toxin infiltration techniques. Of them, 81.1% believe that research is scarce or absent; 69.8% have never made a poster/presentation, 79.3% have not published and only 15% collaborate on research projects in this area. Lastly, 40% believe that they have not received adequate training. CONCLUSIONS: Headache is among the areas that interest our residents the most; however, we believe that we must improve their training both at a patient healthcare level and as researchers. Thus, increasing the number of available courses, creating educational web pages, involving residents in research, and making a rotation in a specialised unit mandatory are among the fundamental objectives of the GECSEN.

Patterns of anaesthetic pericranial nerve block in headache patients. / Patrones de bloqueo anestésico de nervios pericraneales en el paciente con cefalea.

Anaesthetic blocks, whether used alone or combined with other treatments, are a therapeutic resource for many patients with headaches. However, usage patterns by different professionals show significant heterogeneity. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The Headache Study Group of the Spanish Society of Neurology (GECSEN) designed a self-administered cross-sectional survey and sent it to all group members through the SEN's scientific area web platform in February 2016. The objective was to ascertain the main technical and formal aspects of this procedure and compare them with data obtained in a similar survey conducted in 2012. RESULTS: A total of 39 neurologists (mean age 41.74 years; SD: 9.73), 23 men (43.7 years; SD: 9.92) and 16 women (38.94 years; SD: 9.01) participated in this survey. Of these respondents, 76.9% used anaesthetic block in their clinical practice (79.16% in a tertiary-care hospital). The main indications were diagnosis and treatment of neuralgia (100%), prevention of chronic migraine (61.7%), episodic cluster headache (51.3%), and chronic cluster headache (66.7%). AB was used by 31% of the respondents to block only the lateral occipital complex, 13% also infiltrated the supraorbital nerve, and another 13% infiltrated the auriculotemporal nerve as well. CONCLUSIONS: The indications for anaesthetic blocks and the territories most frequently infiltrated are similar to those cited in the earlier survey. However, we observed increased participation in this latest survey and a higher percentage of young neurologists (35.89% aged 35 or younger), indicating that use of this technique has entered mainstream clinical practice.