Fracaso de un anticuerpo monoclonal anti-CGRP en el tratamiento de la migraña. ¿Tiene sentido probar otro? / Failure of an anti-CGRP monoclonal antibody in the treatment of migraine. Is it worthwhile trying another one?

Introducción: La migraña es una enfermedad neurológica altamente prevalente y la búsqueda de un tratamiento eficaz que mejore la calidad de vida del paciente es fundamental. En 2018 se aprobaron en España los anticuerpos monoclonales anti-CGRP como tratamiento preventivo, y han demostrado eficacia al reducir el número de crisis de migraña al mes frente a placebo. Pacientes y métodos: Estudio descriptivo y retrospectivo de 14 pacientes con migraña episódica de alta frecuencia y crónica, en seguimiento en nuestra unidad de cefaleas, en los que se ha realizado el cambio de un monoclonal anti-CGRP por ineficacia. Se han recogido datos epidemiológicos y variables relacionadas con la respuesta a ambos fármacos, como los días de cefalea al mes y los días de migraña al mes, además de escalas validadas de calidad de vida (Migraine Disability Assessment Scale y Headache Impact Test-6). Resultados: El 50% de los pacientes son varones, con una mediana de edad de 46,5, y el 92% estaba diagnosticado de migraña crónica. Se realizó un seguimiento de entre seis y 12 meses tras el cambio de tratamiento en el 91,6%, y se observó mejoría significativa en el 33% de los pacientes. Además, en el 50% se objetivó respuesta inicial tras tres dosis con el primer monoclonal. Conclusiones: En nuestra serie, el 66% de los pacientes que no respondieron a un primer fármaco respondió inicialmente al cambio, y esta mejoría se mantuvo en el 36%. Se precisan estudios más amplios para aclarar esta diferencia de respuesta a los distintos anticuerpos monoclonales anti-CGRP.(AU)

Introduction: Migraine is a highly prevalent neurological disease and the search for an effective treatment to improve the patient’s quality of life is essential. In 2018, anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies were approved in Spain as a preventive treatment, and have proved to be effective in reducing the number of migraine crisis per month compared to placebo. Patients and methods: We conducted a descriptive and retrospective study of 14 patients suffering from high-frequency or chronic episodic migraine, under follow-up in our headache unit, in whom an anti-CGRP monoclonal was changed due to its ineffectiveness. Epidemiological data and variables related to the response to both drugs were collected, such as headache days per month and migraine days per month, as well as validated quality of life scales (Migraine Disability Assessment Scale and Headache Impact Test-6). Results: 50% of patients were males, with a median age of 46.5 years and 92% were diagnosed with chronic migraine. A follow-up of 6 to 12 months after the change of treatment was performed in 91.6% and significant improvement was observed in 33% of the patients. In addition, 50% had an initial response after three doses of the first monoclonal drug. Conclusions: In our series, 66% of patients who did not respond to a first drug responded initially to the switch and this improvement was maintained in 36% of them. Larger studies are needed to clarify this difference in response to different anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies.(AU)

[Failure of an anti-CGRP monoclonal antibody in the treatment of migraine. Is it worthwhile trying another one?] / Fracaso de un anticuerpo monoclonal anti-CGRP en el tratamiento de la migraña. ¿Tiene sentido probar otro?

INTRODUCTION: Migraine is a highly prevalent neurological disease and the search for an effective treatment to improve the patient's quality of life is essential. In 2018, anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies were approved in Spain as a preventive treatment, and have proved to be effective in reducing the number of migraine crisis per month compared to placebo. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a descriptive and retrospective study of 14 patients suffering from high-frequency or chronic episodic migraine, under follow-up in our headache unit, in whom an anti-CGRP monoclonal was changed due to its ineffectiveness. Epidemiological data and variables related to the response to both drugs were collected, such as headache days per month and migraine days per month, as well as validated quality of life scales (Migraine Disability Assessment Scale and Headache Impact Test-6). RESULTS: 50% of patients were males, with a median age of 46.5 years and 92% were diagnosed with chronic migraine. A follow-up of 6 to 12 months after the change of treatment was performed in 91.6% and significant improvement was observed in 33% of the patients. In addition, 50% had an initial response after three doses of the first monoclonal drug. CONCLUSIONS: In our series, 66% of patients who did not respond to a first drug responded initially to the switch and this improvement was maintained in 36% of them. Larger studies are needed to clarify this difference in response to different anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies.

TITLE: Fracaso de un anticuerpo monoclonal anti-CGRP en el tratamiento de la migraña. ¿Tiene sentido probar otro?Introducción. La migraña es una enfermedad neurológica altamente prevalente y la búsqueda de un tratamiento eficaz que mejore la calidad de vida del paciente es fundamental. En 2018 se aprobaron en España los anticuerpos monoclonales anti-CGRP como tratamiento preventivo, y han demostrado eficacia al reducir el número de crisis de migraña al mes frente a placebo. Pacientes y métodos. Estudio descriptivo y retrospectivo de 14 pacientes con migraña episódica de alta frecuencia y crónica, en seguimiento en nuestra unidad de cefaleas, en los que se ha realizado el cambio de un monoclonal anti-CGRP por ineficacia. Se han recogido datos epidemiológicos y variables relacionadas con la respuesta a ambos fármacos, como los días de cefalea al mes y los días de migraña al mes, además de escalas validadas de calidad de vida (Migraine Disability Assessment Scale y Headache Impact Test-6). Resultados. El 50% de los pacientes son varones, con una mediana de edad de 46,5, y el 92% estaba diagnosticado de migraña crónica. Se realizó un seguimiento de entre seis y 12 meses tras el cambio de tratamiento en el 91,6%, y se observó mejoría significativa en el 33% de los pacientes. Además, en el 50% se objetivó respuesta inicial tras tres dosis con el primer monoclonal. Conclusiones. En nuestra serie, el 66% de los pacientes que no respondieron a un primer fármaco respondió inicialmente al cambio, y esta mejoría se mantuvo en el 36%. Se precisan estudios más amplios para aclarar esta diferencia de respuesta a los distintos anticuerpos monoclonales anti-CGRP.

Miller-Fisher syndrome after SARS-CoV-2 infection.

INTRODUCTION: On March 11th, 2020, the WHO declared the SARS-Cov-2 pandemic. Syndromes have been detected in relation to COVID-19 such as encephalitis, acute necrotizing hemorrhagic encephalopathy and cerebrovascular complications. There are also cases of peripheral nervous system involvement. METHODS: Our case would be the 3rd patient with MFS associated with COVID-19 as far as we know. RESULTS: We present a 51 years old female diagnosed with MFS two weeks after COVID-19. RTPCR to SARS-CoV-2 was negative but IgG was positive. CONCLUSION: Most of the cases were mild or moderate with typical signs and symptoms. All were treated with IV immunoglobulin with good response in most cases. Despite the short evolution time of the cases surviving the current pandemic, the description of cases of post-infectious neurological syndromes suggests that this is probably not an infrequent complication in the subacute stage of Covid-19 disease.

Efectividad del acetato de glatiramero en la práctica clínica: un estudio observacional / The effectiveness of glatiramer acetate in clinical practice: an observational stud

Objetivos. Evaluar la efectividad clínica y la seguridad del acetato de glatiramero en las condiciones de la práctica diaria. Pacientes y métodos. Estudio retrospectivo, observacional, en pacientes con esclerosis múltiple tratados con acetato de glatiramero en las condiciones de la práctica clínica. El criterio principal de valoración fue la efectividad clínica del acetato de glatiramero. Resultados. En el estudio se incluyeron un total de 104 pacientes (mujeres: 59,6%; edad de inicio del acetato de glatiramero: 39,9 ± 10,9 años; tratamiento anterior para la esclerosis múltiple: 30,8%). Los pacientes recibieron acetato de glatiramero durante 3,6 ± 1,9 años. Durante el primer año de tratamiento con el acetato de glatiramero, la tasa de recidivas se redujo un 60%, en 47 pacientes (45,1%) se redujo el número de recidivas, 67 pacientes (68,4%) no sufrieron recidiva y 78 pacientes (75%) no mostraron progresión. Durante el segundo año de tratamiento con acetato de glatiramero, la tasa de recidivas había disminuido un 70%, en 43 pacientes (41,3%) se redujo el número de recidivas, 63 pacientes (75,9%) no sufrieron recidiva y 59 pacientes (56,7%) no mostraron progresión. No se notificaron recidivas ni progresión en 56 (53,8%) y 41 pacientes (39,4%) durante el primer y segundo año de tratamiento, respectivamente. La suspensión del acetato de glatiramero sólo fue necesaria en tres pacientes. Los acontecimientos adversos más frecuentes fueron cansancio (28,9%) y espasticidad (7,7%). Conclusión. La evaluación del acetato de glatiramero en las condiciones de la práctica clínica respalda el perfil de eficacia y seguridad observado en ensayos clínicos previamente publicados (AU)

Aim. To evaluate the clinical effectiveness and safety of glatiramer acetate for use in routine clinical practice. Patients and methods. A retrospective, observational study was conducted on patients with multiple sclerosis who were treated with glatiramer acetate in clinical practice. The primary outcome was the clinical effectiveness of glatiramer acetate treatment. Results. The study included a total of 104 patients (women, 59.6%; age at onset of glatiramer acetate treatment, 39.9 ± 10.9 years; prior treatment for multiple sclerosis, 30.8%). The patients had received glatiramer acetate treatment for an average of 3.6 ± 1.9 years. During the first year of glatiramer acetate treatment, the relapse rate decreased by 60%. At this time, the number of relapses had decreased for 47 patients (45.1%), 67 patients (68.4%) had not suffered a relapse and 78 patients (75.0%) showed no signs of progression. During the second year of glatiramer acetate treatment, the relapse rate decreased by 70%. At this time, the number of relapses had decreased for 43 patients (41.3%), 63 patients (75.9%) had not suffered a relapse and 59 patients (56.7%) showed no signs of progression. There were no reported relapses or progression in 56 patients (53.8%) and 41 patients (39.4%) during the first and second years of treatment, respectively. Discontinuation of glatiramer acetate was necessary in only three patients. The most common adverse effects included fatigue (28.9%) and spasticity (7.7%). Conclusion. This evaluation of glatiramer acetate use in clinical practice supports the effectiveness and the safety profile observed in previously published clinical trial studies (AU)

Parálisis del nervio recurrente y derrame pleural por cabergolina / Paralysis recurrent nerve and pleural effusion due to cabergoline

No disponible

[Tolosa-Hunt syndrome and orbital pseudotumour. Overlapping conditions in a case with an unusual clinical profile]. / Síndrome de Tolosa-Hunt y pseudotumor orbitario. Entidades solapadas en un caso con perfil clínico no habitual.

INTRODUCTION: The origin of Tolosa-Hunt syndrome (THS) and orbital pseudotumour (OP) is not fully understood. It is acknowledged as having an unspecific granulomatous inflammatory nature in different locations. Although there are differences between the clinical features of the two conditions, they also share a number of physiopathogenetic, therapeutic and, in some cases, iconographic similarities. Possible clinical recurrences are common in the two conditions and a broad differential diagnosis is required in all cases. Yet, the association of both processes in the same patient, with radiological proof of the migration of the inflammatory injury, is not frequent. CASE REPORT: We report the case of a male patient with a long history of recurring unilateral painful ophthalmoplegia that was sensitive to steroids; criteria for THS were fulfilled and there was later development of homolateral OP, six years after the onset of his symptoms. The findings in serial studies conducted with magnetic resonance imaging must be highlighted. The patient was submitted to a surgical intervention to treat the orbital injury and a chronic inflammatory process was observed in the fibrotic phase. CONCLUSIONS: Inflammatory pseudotumour and THS perhaps have more points in common than has traditionally been accepted. To our knowledge few cases of the above-mentioned association have been reported in the same patient. When confronted by cases of painful ophthalmoplegia with excessive recurrences the physician must consider the possibility of other alternative diagnoses.

Síndrome de Tolosa-Hunt y pseudotumor orbitario. Entidades solapadas en un caso con perfil clínico no habitual / Tolosa-hunt syndrome and orbital pseudotumour. Overlapping conditions in a case with an unusual clinical profile

Introducción. El origen del síndrome de Tolosa-Hunt (STH) y del pseudotumor orbitario (PO) no es del todo conocido. Se admite su naturaleza inflamatoria granulomatosa localizaciones diferentes. Aunque existen divergencias clínicas entre ambos, también comparten similitudes fisiopatogénicas, terapéuticas y, en algunos casos, iconográficas. Las posibles recurrencias clínicas en ambas entidades son comunes y requieren en todo caso un amplio diagnóstico diferencial. Sin embargo, no es frecuente la asociación de ambos procesos en el mismo paciente, con documentación radiológica de la migración de la lesión inflamatoria. Caso clínico. Se presenta un paciente con oftalmoplejía dolorosa unilateral recurrente de larga evolución, sensible a esteroides, con criterios de STH y posterior desarrollo de PO homolateral, seis años tras el comienzo de sus síntomas. Destacamos los hallazgos de neuroimagen en resonancias magnéticas seriadas. Se interviene al paciente a causa de la lesión orbitaria, y se evidencia unproceso inflamatorio crónico en fase fibrótica. Conclusión. Quizás el pseudotumor inflamatorio y el STH compartan más aspectos comunes de lo tradicionalmente aceptado. En nuestro conocimiento existen pocos casos documentados de la citada asociación en elm ismo paciente. Los casos de oftalmoplejía dolorosa con excesivas recurrencias deben suscitar al clínico la posibilidad de otras alternativas diagnósticas (AU)

Introduction. The origin of Tolosa-Hunt syndrome (THS) and orbital pseudotumour (OP) is not fully understood. Itis acknowledged as having an unspecific granulomatous inflammatory nature in different locations. Although there are differences between the clinical features of the two conditions, they also share a number of physiopathogenetic, therapeutic and, in some cases, iconographic similarities. Possible clinical recurrences are common in the two conditions and a broad differential diagnosis is required in all cases. Yet, the association of both processes in the same patient, with radiological proof of the migration of the inflammatory injury, is not frequent. Case report. We report the case of a male patient with a long history of recurring unilateral painful ophthalmoplegia that was sensitive to steroids; criteria for THS were fulfilled and there was later development of homolateral OP, six years after the onset of his symptoms. The findings in serial studies conducted with magnetic resonance imaging must be highlighted. The patient was submitted to a surgical intervention to treat the orbital injury and a chronic inflammatory process was observed in the fibrotic phase. Conclusions. Inflammatory pseudotumour and THSperhaps have more points in common than has traditionally been accepted. To our knowledge few cases of the above-mentioned association have been reported in the same patient. When confronted by cases of painful ophthalmoplegia with excessive recurrences the physician must consider the possibility of other alternative diagnoses (AU)