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)

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

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

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

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.

Evaluation of the burden of migraine on the partner's lifestyle.

BACKGROUND: Despite the number of research studies regarding the individual burden of migraine, few studies have examined its impact on the patients' partners. We aim to assess migraine effects on the patients' partners on sentimental relationship, children relationship, friendship, and work, as well as the caregiver burden, anxiety and/or depression. METHODS: A cross-sectional observational study was conducted through an online survey of partners of patients with migraine followed-up in 5 Headache Units. Questions about the 4 areas of interest and 2 scales (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and Zarit scale) were included. Scores were compared against the population prevalence. RESULTS: One hundred and fifty-five answers were analysed. Among the patient's partners 135/155 (87.1%) were men, with a mean age of 45.6 ± 10.1 years. Migraine's main effects on partners were observed in the sentimental relationship and items concerning children and friendships, with a minor impact at work. Partners showed a moderate burden (12/155 = 7.7% [4.1%-13.1%]), and a higher moderate-severe anxiety rate (23/155 = 14.8% [9.6%-21.4%]), and similar depression rate (5/155 = 3.2% [1.1%-7.3%]) compared to the National Health Survey. CONCLUSIONS: The burden of migraine impacts the partners' personal relationship, childcare, friendship and work. Moreover, certain migraine partners showed a moderate burden according to Zarit scale and higher anxiety levels than the Spanish population.

Estudio sobre el subtriaje del Sistema de Triaje de Manchester en pacientes que acuden a Urgencias por cefalea / Study about the Manchester Triage System subtriage in patients that visited the Emergency Department due to headache

Introducción: La cefalea es un motivo de consulta urgente frecuente, siendo la prioridad detectar a pacientes con cefalea secundaria, especialmente cefaleas secundarias de alto riesgo (CESAR). Para ello, se emplean sistemas de triaje como el Sistema de Triaje de Manchester (STM). Pretendemos evaluar la frecuencia de subtriaje en pacientes que acudieron a Urgencias por cefalea. Material y métodos: Estudio de serie de casos consecutivos. Se analizaron pacientes que acudieron a Urgencias refiriendo cefalea y tuvieron algún dato de alarma, definido como la presencia de datos que motivasen la solicitud de neuroimagen urgente y/o la valoración por Neurología de guardia. El diagnóstico de referencia fue realizado por neurólogos. Se evaluó el nivel de triaje asignado por el STM y la presencia de datos de alarma que implicaría el triaje en un nivel superior al asignado. Resultados: Hubo 1.120 visitas a Urgencias por cefalea, siendo elegibles 248 pacientes (22,8%). Se diagnosticó cefalea secundaria en 126 casos (50,8% de la muestra, 11,2% del total), siendo 60 CESAR (24,2% y 5,4%). El STM clasificó a dos pacientes como críticos (0,8%), 26 emergencias (10,5%), 147 urgencias (59,3%), 68 como estándar (27,4%) y cinco como no urgente (2%). El porcentaje de pacientes infravalorados durante el triaje fue del 85,1% en el nivel «emergencia» y 23,3% en el de «urgencia». Conclusión: Durante el periodo de estudio, al menos uno de cada diez pacientes que acudió a Urgencias por cefalea tenía una cefalea secundaria y uno de cada veinte una CESAR. El STM subvaloró a la mayoría de los pacientes con datos que implicarían una potencial emergencia.(AU)

Introduction: Headache is a frequent cause of consultation; it is important to detect patients with secondary headache, particularly high-risk secondary headache. Such systems as the Manchester Triage System (MTS) are used for this purpose. This study aims to evaluate the frequency of sub-triage in patients attending the Emergency Department due to headache. Material and methods: We studied a series of consecutive patients who came to the Emergency Department with headache and presenting some warning sign, defined as the presence of signs leading the physician to request an emergency neuroimaging study and/or assessment by the on-call neurologist. The reference diagnosis was established by neurologists. We evaluated the MTS triage level assigned and the presence of warning signs that may imply a higher level than that assigned. Results: We registered a total of 1,120 emergency department visits due to headache, and 248 patients (22.8%) were eligible for study inclusion. Secondary headache was diagnosed in 126 cases (50.8% of the sample; 11.2% of the total), with 60 cases presenting high-risk secondary headache (24.2%; 5.4%). According to the MTS, two patients were classified as immediate (0.8%), 26 as very urgent (10.5%), 147 as urgent (59.3%), 68 as normal (27.4%), and five as not urgent (2%). The percentage of patients under-triaged was 85.1% in the very urgent classification level and 23.3% in the urgent level. Conclusion: During the study period, at least one in 10 patients attending the Emergency Department due to headache had secondary headache; one in 20 had high-risk secondary headache. The MTS under-triaged most patients with warning signs suggesting a potential emergency.(AU)

Global uncertainty in the diagnosis of neurological complications of SARS-CoV-2 infection by both neurologists and non-neurologists: An international inter-observer variability study.

INTRODUCTION: Uniform case definitions are required to ensure harmonised reporting of neurological syndromes associated with SARS-CoV-2. Moreover, it is unclear how clinicians perceive the relative importance of SARS-CoV-2 in neurological syndromes, which risks under- or over-reporting. METHODS: We invited clinicians through global networks, including the World Federation of Neurology, to assess ten anonymised vignettes of SARS-CoV-2 neurological syndromes. Using standardised case definitions, clinicians assigned a diagnosis and ranked association with SARS-CoV-2. We compared diagnostic accuracy and assigned association ranks between different settings and specialties and calculated inter-rater agreement for case definitions as "poor" (κ ≤ 0.4), "moderate" or "good" (κ > 0.6). RESULTS: 1265 diagnoses were assigned by 146 participants from 45 countries on six continents. The highest correct proportion were cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST, 95.8%), Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS, 92.4%) and headache (91.6%) and the lowest encephalitis (72.8%), psychosis (53.8%) and encephalopathy (43.2%). Diagnostic accuracy was similar between neurologists and non-neurologists (median score 8 vs. 7/10, p = 0.1). Good inter-rater agreement was observed for five diagnoses: cranial neuropathy, headache, myelitis, CVST, and GBS and poor agreement for encephalopathy. In 13% of vignettes, clinicians incorrectly assigned lowest association ranks, regardless of setting and specialty. CONCLUSION: The case definitions can help with reporting of neurological complications of SARS-CoV-2, also in settings with few neurologists. However, encephalopathy, encephalitis, and psychosis were often misdiagnosed, and clinicians underestimated the association with SARS-CoV-2. Future work should refine the case definitions and provide training if global reporting of neurological syndromes associated with SARS-CoV-2 is to be robust.

Study about the Manchester Triage System subtriage in patients that visited the Emergency Department due to headache.

INTRODUCTION: Headache is a frequent cause of consultation; it is important to detect patients with secondary headache, particularly high-risk secondary headache. Such systems as the Manchester Triage System (MTS) are used for this purpose. This study aims to evaluate the frequency of undertriage in patients attending the emergency department due to headache. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We studied a series of consecutive patients who came to the emergency department with headache and presenting some warning sign, defined as the presence of signs leading the physician to request an emergency neuroimaging study and/or assessment by the on-call neurologist. The reference diagnosis was established by neurologists. We evaluated the MTS triage level assigned and the presence of warning signs that may imply a higher level than that assigned. RESULTS: We registered a total of 1120 emergency department visits due to headache, and 248 patients (22.8%) were eligible for study inclusion. Secondary headache was diagnosed in 126 cases (50.8% of the sample; 11.2% of the total), with 60 cases presenting high-risk secondary headache (24.2%; 5.4%). According to the MTS, 2 patients were classified as immediate (0.8%), 26 as very urgent (10.5%), 147 as urgent (59.3%), 68 as normal (27.4%), and 5 as not urgent (2%). The percentage of patients undertriaged was 85.1% in the very urgent classification level and 23.3% in the urgent level. CONCLUSION: During the study period, at least one in 10 patients attending the emergency department due to headache had secondary headache; one in 20 had high-risk secondary headache. The MTS undertriaged most patients with warning signs suggesting a potential emergency.

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)

[Effect of treatment with benzodiazepines on the hospital prognosis of Coronavirus disease 2019]. / Efecto del tratamiento con benzodiacepinas en el pronóstico hospitalario de la enfermedad por coronavirus 2019.

INTRODUCTION: The consequences of the use of of benzodiazepines in coronavirus disease 2019 have not yet been studied. We compared the hospital prognosis of patients hospitalized for coronavirus disease 2019 in benzodiazepine users and non-users. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Observational study with a retrospective cohort design. All consecutive patients admitted with a confirmed diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 were included. The patients under chronic treatment with benzodiazepines at the time of admission were studied and compared with non-users. The primary objective was to analyze the mortality of patients who used chronic benzodiazepines at the time of admission and compare them with those who did not use them. The secondary objective was to analyze the risk of severe disease due to coronavirus 2019, acute respiratory distress syndrome and admission to the Intensive Care Unit in both groups of patients. RESULTS: We included 576 patients, 138 (24.0%) used benzodiazepines. After adjusting for sex, age, baseline situation and all the different variables between both groups, benzodiazepine users did not show a higher odds of mortality (OR: 1,1, IC 95%: 0,7-1,9, p = 0,682) or higher risk of severe disease due to coronavirus 2019 (OR: 1.2, 95% CI: 0.7-1.8, p = 0.523). They also did not have a higher risk of acute respiratory distress syndrome (OR: 1.2, IC 95%: 0.8-1.9, p = 0.315) or more admission to the Intensive Care Unit (OR: 0.8, 95% CI: 0.4-1.4, p = 0.433). CONCLUSION: In our sample, treatment with benzodiazepines at the time of admission was not associated with a worse hospital prognosis in patients with coronavirus disease 2019.

TITLE: Efecto del tratamiento con benzodiacepinas en el pronóstico hospitalario de la enfermedad por coronavirus 2019.Introducción. Las consecuencias del consumo de benzodiacepinas en el marco de la la enfermedad por coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) no se habían estudiado hasta ahora. En el presente estudio se comparó el pronóstico hospitalario de pacientes ingresados por COVID-19 que tomaban benzodiacepinas con el de otros ingresados por idéntico motivo que no las tomaban. Pacientes y métodos. Estudio observacional de cohortes retrospectivo. En el estudio se admitió a todos los pacientes consecutivos ingresados con un diagnóstico confirmado de COVID-19. Se estudió a los pacientes que en el momento del ingreso estaban en tratamiento crónico con benzodiacepinas en comparación con otros que no las tomaban. El objetivo principal fue analizar la mortalidad de dichos pacientes con uso crónico de benzodiacepinas y compararla con la mortalidad de los que no tomaban. El objetivo secundario fue analizar en ambos grupos de pacientes el riesgo de padecer un cuadro grave por COVID-19, el síndrome de dificultad respiratoria aguda o el ingreso en la unidad de cuidados intensivos. Resultados. Se admitieron 576 pacientes, 138 (24,0%) de los cuales tomaban benzodiacepinas. Después del ajuste por sexo, edad, situación inicial y todas las variables diferentes entre ambos grupos, los pacientes que tomaban benzodiacepinas no mostraron una probabilidad mayor de muerte (odds ratio: 1,1; IC 95%: 0,7-1,9; p = 0,682) ni un riesgo más acusado de COVID-19 grave (odds ratio: 1,2; IC 95%: 0,7-1,8; p = 0,523). Tampoco presentaron un riesgo mayor de síndrome de dificultad respiratoria aguda (odds ratio: 1,2; IC 95%: 0,8-1,9; p = 0,315) ni de ingreso en la unidad de cuidados intensivos (odds ratio: 0,8; IC 95%: 0,4-1,4; p = 0,433). Conclusión. En esta muestra de pacientes con COVID-2019, el tratamiento con benzodiacepinas en el momento del ingreso no apareció asociado con un empeoramiento del pronóstico hospitalario.

Efecto del tratamiento con benzodiacepinas en el pronóstico hospitalario de la enfermedad por coronavirus 2019 / Effect of treatment with benzodiazepines on the hospital prognosis of Coronavirus disease 2019

Introducción: Las consecuencias del consumo de benzodiacepinas en el marco de la la enfermedad por coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) no se habían estudiado hasta ahora. En el presente estudio se comparó el pronóstico hospitalario de pacientes ingresados por COVID-19 que tomaban benzodiacepinas con el de otros ingresados por idéntico motivo que no las tomaban. Pacientes y métodos: Estudio observacional de cohortes retrospectivo. En el estudio se admitió a todos los pacientes consecutivos ingresados con un diagnóstico confirmado de COVID-19. Se estudió a los pacientes que en el momento del ingreso estaban en tratamiento crónico con benzodiacepinas en comparación con otros que no las tomaban. El objetivo principal fue analizar la mortalidad de dichos pacientes con uso crónico de benzodiacepinas y compararla con la mortalidad de los que no tomaban. El objetivo secundario fue analizar en ambos grupos de pacientes el riesgo de padecer un cuadro grave por COVID-19, el síndrome de dificultad respiratoria aguda o el ingreso en la unidad de cuidados intensivos. Resultados: Se admitieron 576 pacientes, 138 (24,0%) de los cuales tomaban benzodiacepinas. Después del ajuste por sexo, edad, situación inicial y todas las variables diferentes entre ambos grupos, los pacientes que tomaban benzodiacepinas no mostraron una probabilidad mayor de muerte (odds ratio: 1,1; IC 95%: 0,7-1,9; p = 0,682) ni un riesgo más acusado de COVID-19 grave (odds ratio: 1,2; IC 95%: 0,7-1,8; p = 0,523). Tampoco presentaron un riesgo mayor de síndrome de dificultad respiratoria aguda (odds ratio: 1,2; IC 95%: 0,8-1,9; p = 0,315) ni de ingreso en la unidad de cuidados intensivos (odds ratio: 0,8; IC 95%: 0,4-1,4; p = 0,433). Conclusión: En esta muestra de pacientes con COVID-2019, el tratamiento con benzodiacepinas en el momento del ingreso no apareció asociado con un empeoramiento del pronóstico hospitalario.(AU)

Introduction: The consequences of the use of of benzodiazepines in coronavirus disease 2019 have not yet been studied. We compared the hospital prognosis of patients hospitalized for coronavirus disease 2019 in benzodiazepine users and non-users. Patients and methods: Observational study with a retrospective cohort design. All consecutive patients admitted with a confirmed diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 were included. The patients under chronic treatment with benzodiazepines at the time of admission were studied and compared with non-users. The primary objective was to analyze the mortality of patients who used chronic benzodiazepines at the time of admission and compare them with those who did not use them. The secondary objective was to analyze the risk of severe disease due to coronavirus 2019, acute respiratory distress syndrome and admission to the Intensive Care Unit in both groups of patients. Results: We included 576 patients, 138 (24.0%) used benzodiazepines. After adjusting for sex, age, baseline situation and all the different variables between both groups, benzodiazepine users did not show a higher odds of mortality (OR: 1,1, IC 95%: 0,7-1,9, p = 0,682) or higher risk of severe disease due to coronavirus 2019 (OR: 1.2, 95% CI: 0.7-1.8, p = 0.523). They also did not have a higher risk of acute respiratory distress syndrome (OR: 1.2, IC 95%: 0.8-1.9, p = 0.315) or more admission to the Intensive Care Unit (OR: 0.8, 95% CI: 0.4-1.4, p = 0.433). Conclusion: In our sample, treatment with benzodiazepines at the time of admission was not associated with a worse hospital prognosis in patients with coronavirus disease 2019.(AU)

Síndrome de Eagle hacia la delimitación clínica / Eagle syndrome: Toward a clinical delimitation

Objetivos: El dolor orofacial y cervical es un motivo de consulta frecuente, y puede deberse a múltiples procesos patológicos. Entre ellos se encuentra el síndrome de Eagle, entidad muy infrecuente cuyo origen se atribuye a una osificación del ligamento estilohioideo o una elongación de la apófisis estiloides. Presentamos una serie de cinco pacientes con dicho diagnóstico.Material y métodosSe describen las características demográficas y clínicas de cinco pacientes atendidos en la Unidad de Cefaleas de dos hospitales terciarios por un cuadro compatible con síndrome de Eagle, y su respuesta a distintos tratamientos.ResultadosSe trata de tres varones y dos mujeres de entre 24 y 51 años, con dolor de localización predominante en un oído y la región amigdalina ipsilateral, de cualidad sorda y de gran intensidad. En todos ellos el patrón temporal era crónico y continuo, con exacerbaciones desencadenadas por la deglución. Cuatro pacientes habían realizado múltiples consultas en servicios de otorrinolaringología, y uno de ellos había recibido tratamiento antibiótico ante la sospecha de tubaritis. En todos los casos la palpación de la fosa amigdalina resultó dolorosa. En tres de los pacientes se demostró elongación de la apófisis estiloides y/o calcificación del ligamento estilohioideo mediante tomografía computarizada. Cuatro mejoraron con tratamiento neuromodulador (duloxetina, gabapentina, pregabalina) y solo uno precisó cirugía con escisión de la apófisis estiloides.ConclusionesEl síndrome de Eagle es una causa de dolor craneofacial poco frecuente y posiblemente infradiagnosticada. Aportamos cinco nuevos casos que permiten delimitar tanto la semiología como los posibles tratamientos. (AU)

Objectives: Orofacial and cervical pain are a frequent reason for neurology consultations and may be due to multiple pathological processes. These include Eagle syndrome (ES), a very rare entity whose origin is attributed to calcification of the stylohyoid ligament or elongation of the temporal styloid process. We present a series of five patients diagnosed with ES.Material and methodsWe describe the demographic and clinical characteristics and response to treatment of 5 patients who attended the headache units of two tertiary hospitals for symptoms compatible with Eagle syndrome.ResultsThe patients were three men and two women aged between 24 and 51, presenting dull, intense pain, predominantly in the inner ear and the ipsilateral tonsillar fossa. All patients had chronic, continuous pain in the temporal region, with exacerbations triggered by swallowing. Four patients had previously consulted several specialists at otorhinolaryngology departments; one had been prescribed antibiotics for suspected Eustachian tube inflammation. In all cases, the palpation of the tonsillar fossa was painful. Computed tomography scans revealed an elongation of the styloid process and/or calcification of the stylohyoid ligament in three patients. Four patients improved with neuromodulatory therapy (duloxetine, gabapentin, pregabalin) and only one required surgical excision of the styloid process.ConclusionsEagle syndrome is a rare and possibly underdiagnosed cause of craniofacial pain. We present five new cases that exemplify both the symptoms and the potential treatments of this entity. (AU)

Eagle syndrome: toward a clinical delimitation.

INTRODUCTION: Orofacial and cervical pain are a frequent reason for neurology consultations and may be due to multiple pathological processes. These include Eagle syndrome (ES), a very rare entity whose origin is attributed to calcification of the stylohyoid ligament or elongation of the temporal styloid process. We present a series of five patients diagnosed with ES. METHODS: We describe the demographic and clinical characteristics and response to treatment of 5 patients who attended the headache units of 2 tertiary hospitals for symptoms compatible with Eagle syndrome. RESULTS: The patients were 3 men and 2 women aged between 24 and 51, presenting dull, intense pain, predominantly in the inner ear and the ipsilateral tonsillar fossa. All patients had chronic, continuous pain in the temporal region, with exacerbations triggered by swallowing. Four patients had previously consulted several specialists at otorhinolaryngology departments; one had been prescribed antibiotics for suspected Eustachian tube inflammation. In all cases, the palpation of the tonsillar fossa was painful. Computed tomography scans revealed an elongation of the styloid process and/or calcification of the stylohyoid ligament in 3 patients. Four patients improved with neuromodulatory therapy (duloxetine, gabapentin, pregabalin) and only one required surgical excision of the styloid process. CONCLUSIONS: Eagle syndrome is a rare and possibly underdiagnosed cause of craniofacial pain. We present 5 new cases that exemplify both the symptoms and the potential treatments of this entity.

1st Post-European Headache Federation Meeting: a review of the latest developments presented at the 2020 European Headache Federation Congress. / I Reunión Post-European Headache Federation: revisión de las novedades presentadas en el Congreso de la European Headache Federation de 2020.

INTRODUCTION: After the European Headache Federation (EHF) Congress, renowned Spanish neurologists specialised in migraine presented the most significant latest developments in research in this field at the Post-EHF Meeting. DEVELOPMENT: The main data presented concerning the treatment of chronic and episodic migraine were addressed, with attention paid more specifically to those related to preventive treatments and real-life experience in the management of the disease. An important review was carried out of the new therapeutic targets and the possibilities they offer in terms of understanding the pathophysiology of migraine and its treatment. An update was also presented of the latest developments in the treatment of migraine with fremanezumab, a monoclonal antibody recently authorised by the European Medicines Agency. Participants were also given an update on the latest developments in basic research on the pathology, as well as an overview of the symptoms of migraine and COVID-19. Finally, the repercussions of migraine in terms of its burden on the care and economic resources of the health system were addressed, along with its impact on society. CONCLUSIONS: The meeting summarised the content presented at the 14th EHF Congress, which took place in late June/early July 2020.

TITLE: I Reunión Post-European Headache Federation: revisión de las novedades presentadas en el Congreso de la European Headache Federation de 2020.Introducción. Tras la celebración del congreso de la European Headache Federation (EHF), reconocidos neurólogos españoles expertos en el tratamiento de la migraña expusieron en la Reunión Post-EHF las principales novedades presentadas en el congreso y relacionadas con ese ámbito. Desarrollo. Se abordan los principales datos presentados relacionados con el tratamiento de la migraña crónica y episódica; concretamente, los relacionados con los tratamientos preventivos y la experiencia en vida real en el manejo de la enfermedad. Se hizo una importante revisión de las nuevas dianas terapéuticas y las posibilidades que ofrecen en cuanto al conocimiento de la fisiopatología de la migraña y su tratamiento. Asimismo, se hizo una actualización de las novedades presentadas en el tratamiento de la migraña con fremanezumab, anticuerpo monoclonal recientemente autorizado por la Agencia Europea de Medicamentos. Se hizo una actualización de las novedades en investigación básica en la patología, así como una relación de los síntomas de migraña y COVID-19. Finalmente, se abordaron las implicaciones de la migraña en la carga sanitaria asistencial y económica, y su impacto en la sociedad. Conclusiones. En la reunión se hizo un resumen del contenido presentado en el 14 Congreso de la EHF, que tuvo lugar a finales de junio y principios de julio de 2020.