Headaches and facial pain attributed to SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The aim was to provide insights to the characteristics of headache in the context of COVID-19 on behalf of the Headache Scientific Panel and the Neuro-COVID-19 Task Force of the European Academy of Neurology (EAN) and the European Headache Federation (EHF). METHODS: Following the Delphi method the Task Force identified six relevant questions and then conducted a systematic literature review to provide evidence-based answers and suggest specific diagnostic criteria. RESULTS: No data for facial pain were identified in the literature search. (1) Headache incidence during acute COVID-19 varies considerably, with higher prevalence rates in prospective compared to retrospective studies (28.9%-74.6% vs. 6.5%-34.0%). (2) Acute COVID-19 headache is usually bilateral or holocranial and often moderate to severe with throbbing pain quality lasting 2-14 days after first signs of COVID-19; photo-phonophobia, nausea, anosmia and ageusia are common associated features; persistent headache shares similar clinical characteristics. (3) Acute COVID-19 headache is presumably caused by immune-mediated mechanisms that activate the trigeminovascular system. (4) Headache occurs in 13.3%-76.9% following SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and occurs more often amongst women with a pre-existing primary headache; the risk of developing headache is higher with the adenoviral-vector-type vaccines than with other preparations. (5) Headache related to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination is mostly bilateral, and throbbing, pressing, jolting or stabbing. (6) No studies have been conducted investigating the underlying mechanism of headache attributed to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. CONCLUSION: The results of this joint EAN/EHF initiative provide a framework for a better understanding of headache in the context of SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination.

Recomendaciones de consenso para el tratamiento de la prevención de la migraña / Consensus recommendations for the treatment of migraine prevention

Objetivo los objetivos son conocer la opinión de neurólogos y farmacéuticos hospitalarios sobre aquellos aspectos aún en el debate respecto al papel de los anticuerpos monoclonales anti-CGRP en el tratamiento preventivo de la migraña. Identificar aquellas controversias aún existentes. Proponer recomendaciones consensuadas de mejora asistencial. Y promover el acceso de los clínicos y los pacientes a estos nuevos tratamientos en la prevención de la migraña con fármacos biológicos, a fin de mejorar la atención y seguimiento del paciente. Métodos se identificaron y valoraron recomendaciones para la utilización de fármacos biológicos en la prevención de la migraña a través de la metodología de consenso Delphi, proponiendo 88 aseveraciones agrupadas en 3 temas: un módulo de clínica que trata sobre el manejo de los tratamientos biológicos en la migraña, un módulo de pacientes que trata sobre las estrategias de educación al paciente y mejora de la adhesión y un módulo de coordinación que incluye las aseveraciones relacionadas con las estrategias para mejorar el trabajo conjunto entre los 2 colectivos. Se empleó la escala ordinal de Likert de 9 puntos para puntuar dichas recomendaciones y, posteriormente, los datos se analizaron estadísticamente a través de diferentes métricas. Resultados tras las 2 rondas de consulta, se alcanzó consenso en el acuerdo en 71 aseveraciones (80,7%) y consenso en el desacuerdo en una de ellas (1,1%), quedando como indeterminadas 16 aseveraciones (18,2%) de las 88 debatidas. Conclusiones el alto grado de consenso indica que la opinión de neurólogos y farmacéuticos hospitalarios sobre el papel de los anticuerpos monoclonales anti-CGRP en el tratamiento de la migraña es muy similar y permite identificar aquellas controversias aún existentes, para mejorar la atención y seguimiento del paciente con migraña. (AU)

Objective The objectives are to know the opinion of neurologists and hospital pharmacists on those aspects still under debate regarding the role of anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies in the preventive treatment of migraine. To identify those controversies that still exist. To propose agreed recommendations for improvement of care. And to promote access of clinicians and patients to these new treatments in the prevention of migraine with biological drugs, in order to improve patient care and follow-up. Methodology Recommendations for the use of biological drugs in the prevention of migraine were identified and evaluated through the Delphi consensus methodology, proposing 88 statements grouped into three themes: a clinical module that deals with the management of biological treatments in migraine; a patient module that discusses patient education and adherence improvement strategies; and a coordination module that includes statements related to strategies to improve joint work between the two groups. The 9-point Likert ordinal scale was used to score these recommendations and, subsequently, the data was statistically analyzed through different metrics. Results After both rounds of voting, consensus was reached in agreement on 71 of the 88 statements (80.7%), leaving one statement (1.1%) with consensus in disagreement and 16 remaining as indeterminate (18.2%). Conclusions The high degree of consensus indicates that the opinion of neurologists and hospital pharmacists on the role of anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies in the treatment of migraine is very similar and allows identifying those controversies that still exist, to improve the care and follow-up of patients with migraine. (AU)

[Translated article] Consensus recommendations on the preventive treatment of migraine.

OBJECTIVE: The objectives are to know the opinion of neurologists and hospital pharmacists on those aspects still under debate regarding the role of anti-Calcitonin Gene-related Peptide monoclonal antibodies in the preventive treatment of migraine. To identify those controversies that still exist. To propose agreed recommendations for improvement of care. And to promote access of clinicians and patients to these new treatments in the prevention of migraine with biological drugs, in order to improve patient care and follow-up. METHODOLOGY: Recommendations for the use of biological drugs in the prevention of migraine were identified and evaluated through the Delphi consensus methodology, proposing 88 statements grouped into 3 themes: a clinical module that deals with the management of biological treatments in migraine; a patient module that discusses patient education and adherence improvement strategies; and a coordination module that includes statements related to strategies to improve joint work between the two groups. The 9-point Likert ordinal scale was used to score these recommendations and, subsequently, the data was statistically analysed through different metrics. RESULTS: After both rounds of voting, consensus was reached in agreement on 71 of the 88 statements (80.7%), leaving 1 statement (1.1%) with consensus in disagreement and 16 remaining as indeterminate (18.2%). CONCLUSIONS: The high degree of consensus indicates that the opinion of neurologists and hospital pharmacists on the role of anti-Calcitonin Gene-related Peptide monoclonal antibodies in the preventive treatment of migraine is very similar and allows identifying those controversies that still exist, to improve the care and follow-up of patients with migraine.

Consensus recommendations for the treatment of migraine prevention. / Recomendaciones de consenso para el tratamiento de la prevención de la migraña.

OBJECTIVE: The objectives are to know the opinion of neurologists and hospital pharmacists on those aspects still under debate regarding the role of anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies in the preventive treatment of migraine. To identify those controversies that still exist. To propose agreed recommendations for improvement of care. And to promote access of clinicians and patients to these new treatments in the prevention of migraine with biological drugs, in order to improve patient care and follow-up. METHODOLOGY: Recommendations for the use of biological drugs in the prevention of migraine were identified and evaluated through the Delphi consensus methodology, proposing 88 statements grouped into three themes: a clinical module that deals with the management of biological treatments in migraine; a patient module that discusses patient education and adherence improvement strategies; and a coordination module that includes statements related to strategies to improve joint work between the two groups. The 9-point Likert ordinal scale was used to score these recommendations and, subsequently, the data was statistically analyzed through different metrics. RESULTS: After both rounds of voting, consensus was reached in agreement on 71 of the 88 statements (80.7%), leaving one statement (1.1%) with consensus in disagreement and 16 remaining as indeterminate (18.2%). CONCLUSIONS: The high degree of consensus indicates that the opinion of neurologists and hospital pharmacists on the role of anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies in the treatment of migraine is very similar and allows identifying those controversies that still exist, to improve the care and follow-up of patients with migraine.

Non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation (nVNS) for the preventive treatment of episodic migraine: The multicentre, double-blind, randomised, sham-controlled PREMIUM trial.

INTRODUCTION: Non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation (nVNS; gammaCore®) has the potential to prevent migraine days in patients with migraine on the basis of mechanistic rationale and pilot clinical data. METHODS: This multicentre study included a 4-week run-in period, a 12-week double-blind period of randomised treatment with nVNS or sham, and a 24-week open-label period of nVNS. Patients were to administer two 120-second stimulations bilaterally to the neck three times daily (6-8 hours apart). RESULTS: Of 477 enrolled patients, 332 comprised the intent-to-treat (ITT) population. Mean reductions in migraine days per month (primary outcome) were 2.26 for nVNS (n = 165; baseline, 7.9 days) and 1.80 for sham (n = 167; baseline, 8.1 days) (p = 0.15). Results were similar across other outcomes. Upon observation of suboptimal adherence rates, post hoc analysis of patients with ≥ 67% adherence per month demonstrated significant differences between nVNS (n = 138) and sham (n = 140) for outcomes including reduction in migraine days (2.27 vs. 1.53; p = 0.043); therapeutic gains were greater in patients with aura than in those without aura. Most nVNS device-related adverse events were mild and transient, with application site discomfort being the most common. CONCLUSIONS: Preventive nVNS treatment in episodic migraine was not superior to sham stimulation in the ITT population. The "sham" device inadvertently provided a level of active vagus nerve stimulation. Post hoc analysis showed significant effects of nVNS in treatment-adherent patients. Study identification and registration: PREMIUM; NCT02378844; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02378844.