"Growing pains" in children and adolescents as an early symptom of migraine: A prospective study.

BACKGROUND: Children and adolescents may experience pain in the lower limbs, predominantly at the end of the day or during the night, without any relation to organic disease. These pains are often called "growing pains" (GP) by pediatricians and orthopedists. They are commonly attributed to rapid growth. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to review and characterize GP in children and adolescents as a precursor/comorbidity with migraine. METHODS: The study was of a cross-sectional, prospective, longitudinal cohort, with group comparison. A sample of 100 children/adolescents born to mothers with migraine seen at a headache clinic was recruited in a random order chosen by lot, maintaining the ratio of 1:1 for the group with GP and the controls. Both groups were followed for a period of 5 years. RESULTS: After 5 years of follow-up, 78 patients completed the study, of which 42 were from the GP group and 36 were from the control group. Headache fulfilling the International Classification of Headache Disorders, 3rd edition diagnostic criteria for migraine without aura or probable migraine occurred in 32/42 (76%) of patients with GP and in 8/36 (22%) of controls (p < 0.001). In the sample that initially had "growing pains," these pains persisted in 6/42 (14%) and appeared in 14/36 (39%) of those who were previously asymptomatic (p = 0.026). CONCLUSIONS: Pain in the lower limbs of children and adolescents, commonly referred to as GP by pediatricians and orthopedists, may reflect a precursor or comorbidity with migraine.

Migraine: epidemiology and systems of care.

Migraine is a neurovascular disorder that affects over 1 billion people worldwide. Its widespread prevalence, and associated disability, have a range of negative and substantial effects not only on those immediately affected but also on their families, colleagues, employers, and society. To reduce this global burden, concerted efforts are needed to implement and improve migraine care that is supported by informed health-care policies. In this Series paper, we summarise the data on migraine epidemiology, including estimates of its very considerable burden on the global economy. First, we present the challenges that continue to obstruct provision of adequate care worldwide. Second, we outline the advantages of integrated and coordinated systems of care, in which primary and specialist care complement and support each other; the use of comprehensive referral and linkage protocols should enable continuity of care between these systems levels. Finally, we describe challenges in low and middle-income countries, including countries with poor public health education, inadequate access to medication, and insufficient formal education and training of health-care professionals resulting in misdiagnosis, mismanagement, and wastage of resources.

Secondary stabbing headache associated with intracranial tumors, aneurysms, and arteriovenous malformation: An alarming warning sign.

BACKGROUND: Stabbing headache (SH) is considered as a pure primary headache, but according to a few clinical observations it could also be secondary. Over the past decades, we have been observing the complaint of SH in patients with intracranial vascular and neoplastic lesions. OBJECTIVE: To describe a series of patients with intracranial lesions who experienced SH. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional, retrospective study of 34 patients with intracranial lesions associated with SH, admitted at Hospital das Clínicas, Federal University of Pernambuco, Brazil. RESULTS: In this series of 34 patients [29 women, 44 ± 12 years (mean ± SD)] with secondary SH, the causes were intracranial neoplasms (n = 31), cerebral aneurysms (n = 2), or arteriovenous malformation (n = 1). Pituitary tumor (n = 18), meningioma (n = 6), and vestibular schwannomas (n = 4) were the most prevalent types of intracranial neoplasms. All these lesions had intimate contact with the dura mater, including an oligodendroglioma, the only intra-axial tumor in the series. A characteristic in the secondary SH is the crescendo pattern (12/34, 35%), progressing from infrequent attacks to recurrent crises occurring several times a day. The SH lasted from 5 days to 60 months (15 ± 18 months, mean ± SD) until the correct diagnosis [16/34 (47%) of the patients ≤6 months]. The SH was triggered by the movement of the head (5/34, 15%) or Valsalva maneuver (1/34). After surgery, suppression of the SH was observed. In a few of the patients to whom dexamethasone was prescribed, the SH subsided within a few days. CONCLUSION: This study was able to identify clinical red flags associated with intracranial lesions and secondary SH, for example, recent onset of SH, exclusively unilateral (ipsilateral) at the same location, crescendo pattern, triggered by head movements, or Valsalva maneuver.

Cefaleia em Salvas em Crianças e Adolescentes: Uma revisão sistemática de relatos de casos.

OBJETIVO: Descrever as características clínicas e as melhores opções terapêuticas para cefaleia em salvas na idade pediátrica. MÉTODO: Com base em pesquisa bibliográfica nas bases de dados médicos PubMed, LiLacs e WoS e usando descritores selecionados, analisamos todos os relatos de casos de cefaleia em salvas em idade pediátrica publicados de 1990 a 2020. RESULTADOS: Cinquenta e um pacientes (29 meninos e 22 meninas) com idade média (DP) de 9 anos e 7 meses (3 anos e 10 meses), variando de 2 a 16 anos, foram diagnosticados com cefaleia em salvas. O diagnóstico médio (DP) foi feito 27,8 meses (26,2 meses) após o início da cefaleia em salvas. A dor ocorreu à noite ou ao despertar (76,5%), uma a três crises por dia (62,7%), com duração de 30-120 minutos (68,6%), localizada unilateralmente (90,2%), de caráter pulsátil (64,7%) e intensidade severa (100%). Houve manifestações autonômicas (90,2%), predominantemente ipsilaterais à dor, nesta ordem: lacrimejamento, injeção conjuntival, congestão nasal, ptose, edema palpebral e rinorreia. Sumatriptano e inalação de oxigênio foram os tratamentos agudos mais eficazes. Na profilaxia, corticosteroides, verapamil e gabapentina foram os medicamentos mais eficazes. INTERPRETAÇÃO: Devido ao pequeno número de estudos publicados, esta revisão não foi capaz de fornecer dados confiáveis, mas parece que a cefaleia em salvas em crianças e adolescentes é semelhante à do adulto, tanto nas características clínicas quanto no tratamento.

Cluster headache in children and adolescents: a systematic review of case reports.

AIM: To describe the clinical characteristics and therapeutic options available to paediatric patients with cluster headache. METHOD: Based on a literature search of the medical databases PubMed, LILACS, and Web of Science and using selected descriptors, we carried out a systematic review of case reports on cluster headache in paediatric patients published from 1990 to 2020. RESULTS: Fifty-one patients (29 males, 22 females) with a mean (SD) age of 9 years 7 months (3y 10mo; range 2-16y) were diagnosed with cluster headache. The mean (SD) diagnosis was made 27.8 months (26.2mo) after the onset of cluster headache. Pain occurred at night or on waking up (76.5%) and consisted of 1 to 3 attacks per day (62.7%) lasting 30 to 120 minutes (68.6%). Headaches were unilateral (90.2%), had a pulsatile character (64.7%), and severe intensity (100%). There were autonomic manifestations (90.2%) predominantly ipsilateral to pain, in this order: lacrimation; conjunctival injection; nasal congestion; ptosis; eyelid oedema; and rhinorrhoea. Sumatriptan and oxygen inhalation were the most effective treatments for acute manifestation. Prophylaxis, corticosteroids, verapamil, and gabapentin were the most effective drugs. INTERPRETATION: Due to the small number of published studies, this review could not provide reliable data; however, it appears that cluster headache in children and adolescents is similar to adults, both in clinical characteristics and treatment. What this paper adds Cluster headache in children and adolescents is poorly studied. Cluster headache is uncommon before 10 years of age and diagnosis is difficult in the first few years of life. Treatment of cluster headache in children and adolescents is similar to that used in adults. The notion of the effectiveness of prophylactic treatment is based only on authors' experience.

Migraine Treatment in Emergency Departments of Brazil: A Retrospective Study of 2 Regions.

OBJECTIVE: This study describes the approaches, medications used, and time of care for migraineurs, who have been in emergency departments (ED) from 2 different regions of Brazil. METHODS: Retrospective, cross-sectional, observational, non-randomized study of migraine patients seen at 2 headache centers in Brazil. RESULTS: Eighty-four migraine patients (15 men and 69 women) were divided into 2 groups: chronic (19%, n = 16) and episodic migraineurs (81%, n = 68). In the ED, medications were used in the following order of frequency: dipyrone or metamizole (89.3%, 75/84), nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (57.1%; 48/84) opioids (51.1%; 43/84), metoclopramide (29.8%; 25/84), dexamethasone (28.6%; 24/84), chlorpromazine (13.1%; 11/84), and subcutaneous sumatriptan (7.1%; 6/84). The average time in the care center was 8.2 hours, but only 23 patients (27.4%) left the hospital with greater than 50% relief in headache severity. CONCLUSIONS: Dipyrone and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatories were the most used drugs, but nearly half received opioids. More efficient drugs were poorly used. Considering the number of patients leaving the hospital with headache relief, a changing treatment paradigm should be carried out in Brazil.

Prevalence of Headache Attributed to Airplane Travel Among Medical Students in Brazil.

BACKGROUND: Headache attributed to airplane travel is a rare form of headache that develops exclusively during airplane travel. It is characterized by occurring during takeoff, landing, or both, and improves spontaneously within 30 minutes after the ascent or descent of the airplane is completed. OBJECTIVES: Our objectives were to determine the prevalence of headache attributed to airplane travel among medical students who traveled by plane, the time of flight when it occurred, and the emotional state of passengers on new trips. METHODS: The study was prospective, cross-sectional, using a non-random sample of medical students who traveled by plane. In total, 155 passengers who traveled by plane on at least 3 flights, regardless of duration were interviewed. RESULTS: Headache during flight occurred 3 or more times in 7.5% (80/1070) of the trips and 14.2% (22/155) of the passengers, especially during takeoff or landing (17/22; 77.3%), having a stabbing character and lasting less than 30 minutes. The headache improved spontaneously at the end of the landing phase (17/22; 77.3%). When traveling again, 68.2% (15/22) of passengers traveled normally, despite previous painful experience. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that headache attributed to airplane travel is not as rare as previously thought, being predominant during takeoff or landing. In addition, despite the bothersome feeling, most passengers who experienced this headache traveled normally, despite previous painful experience.

Sodium Divalproate in Low Alternating Daily Doses for Migraine Prevention: A Retrospective Study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Sodium divalproate is an effective neuromodulator for migraine prevention. Recommended doses vary from 1,000 to 1,500 mg/day, which may provoke unpleasant side effects as weight gain, tremor, and hair loss. Some patients do respond to lower doses even used once daily in ER presentations, but alternating low daily doses was never studied so far. The aim of this study was to evaluate the adherence, the tolerability, and the efficacy of sodium divalproate (SD) in low alternating daily doses for migraine prevention in patients of a tertiary center. METHODS: Consecutive migraineurs from a tertiary center to whom SD was prescribed as monotherapy from January 2017 until September 2018 were studied retrospectively. The doses were 250 mg alternated with 500 mg and were used based on the treating physician expertise and previous experience with tolerability issues when using higher doses. Headache frequency compared to baseline, adherence expressed by returning to a visit after 2 and 4 months and side effects reported by the patients, were evaluated. RESULTS: Sixty-eight patients (53 women and 15 men, aged 18-58) were included. The average headache frequency (HF) during baseline was decreased from 8.2 to 5.1 headache days/month among the 50 out of 68 patients returning at 2 months (adherence rate 73.5%). Weight gain was reported by 15 patients (30%, mean 2.1 kg). At 4 months, HF was reduced to 4.2 days/month (adherence rate 61.8%, n = 42) and weight gain reported by 18 patients (42.8%, mean 2.3 kg). CONCLUSIONS: Despite the retrospective open design, which cannot allow definitive conclusions, SD in low alternating daily doses seems to be effective as with higher doses, but still induce modest weight gain. Controlled studies are necessary to confirm these observations.

Medication-Overuse Headache: Protocols and Outcomes in 149 Consecutive Patients in a Tertiary Brazilian Headache Center.

AIM: Medication-overuse headache (MOH) is a challenging clinical disorder often resulting in frustration for patients and physicians. Adherence issues are common and limited treatment evidence is an obstacle to effective care. Individual bias usually directs the treatment. The aim of this study was to evaluate outcome and treatment strategies in consecutive MOH patients from a tertiary center. METHODS: Every consecutive patient seen between January and December 2014 with the diagnosis of MOH was included. Psychiatric comorbidities, inability to report baseline headache frequency, current or previous 2-month use of preventive medications, and refusal to sign informed consent were exclusion criteria. The patients were evaluated by the same specialist (AVK) in thorough initial consultations. The diagnosis and treatment strategies were clearly explained, and a detailed headache diary was given to all patients. Endpoints were headache frequency and adherence after 2, 4, and 8 months. RESULTS: One hundred sixty-eight patients (31 M, 137 F) met the inclusion criteria. Nineteen patients (11.3%) were excluded. All patients had migraine or chronic migraine as primary headache. Mean baseline frequency was 24.8 headache days/month, average headache history was 20.6 years (1-37), and mean time with > 15 headache days/month was 4.8 years (.5-32). All patients were overusing acute symptomatic medications (SM), and 59 (39.5%) were using more than one pharmacological class. Outpatient withdrawal from overused medications was carried out with all patients, who received different preventive treatment choices and triptan plus NSAID for the acute attacks (maximum of 2 days/week). One hundred and one patients (67.8%) received prednisone during the first 5-7 days. After 2 months, 30 (20.1%) were lost to follow-up, and in those who followed up, the mean headache frequency decreased to 10.7 headache days/month (ITT 13.1). After 4 and 8 months, 109 and 105 patients, respectively, were under treatment, with a mean headache frequency of 7.9 and 8.2 headache days/month. Patients who received prednisone did not perform better than those who did not (P = .3032, 5 d vs no prednisone; P = .639, 7 d vs no prednisone). CONCLUSIONS: Withdrawing overused medications, starting prevention, and motivating patients may have helped the high adherence rates and decreasing headache frequency. Additionally, real-world patient studies are scarce and may be useful to guide clinicians struggling to help their daily headache patients. Open studies do not allow definitive conclusions and controlled studies with this subset of patients are necessary.

The pharmacological treatment of migraine in Brazil.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Migraine is a chronic, disabling, and recurrent illness. Despite its burden, preventive medications are often underused, while acute strategies are frequently used injudiciously. Patients may benefit from comprehensive approaches with general informative orientation and formal medication strategies. In developing countries like Brazil, the access to comprehensive tertiary headache centers or updated specialists is somewhat limited, as are the resources available out of some private specialty care clinics. In addition, centers from the public system may not deliver effective care. The aim of this review is to perform a general description of the pharmacological treatments of migraine in tertiary headache centers of Brazil. METHODS: The data of 4 public and 6 private tertiary centers under the care of 16 neurologists involved with headache assistance in different cities of Brazil were gathered. Answers to questions directed to headache specialists, and analyzing data from previous care of patients was used to estimate a description of the general pharmacological approach used in Brazilian centers. The therapeutic options adopted by general practitioners were not considered as those from other medical specialties and holistic medicine, which also treat migraine on a common basis. RESULTS: Estimated data of nearly 4800 patients from 16 neurologists acting in headache clinics from 2005 to 2013 were collected. Headache approach by specialists in Brazil is basically divided into 2 groups. The public services, which assist nonpaying patients, deliver traditional and noncomprehensive approaches as well as prescribe mostly monotherapy. Roughly 30% of their patients do not receive preventive treatments that are generally tricyclic antidepressants or ß-blockers. Private centers, which are usually where paying people attend, as well as a few public centers of excellence, use multidisciplinary approaches and combination of drugs, despite the usual allegation of scarce evidence. Nearly 90% of the patients from these centers receive the prescription of preventive treatments, which are generally tricyclic antidepressants and/or neuromodulators and/or ß-blockers. COMMENTS: There is no consensus on whether patients turning to private tertiary centers are different from those seen in public nonpaying services. However, since it is directly related to economic status and public services may render free specific medications as well as official dispensation of work, it may be argued that patients have less headache impact, and suboptimal care is delivered in these instances. As for the studied private centers as well as for the few public excellence centers, care provided is usually varied, includes a combination of drugs, and prevention is commonly used.

Wine and headache.

BACKGROUND: The notion of migraine attacks triggered by food and beverages has been posited for centuries. Red wine in particular has been acknowledged as a migraine trigger since antiquity when Celsus (25 B.C.-50 A.D.) described head pain after drinking wine. Since then, references to the relationship between alcohol ingestion and headache attacks are numerous. The most common initiator of these attacks among alcoholic beverages is clearly wine. The aim of this review is to present and discuss the available literature on wine and headache. METHODS: A Medline search with the terms headache, migraine, and wine was performed. Data available on books and written material about wine and medicine as well as abstracts on alcohol, wine, and headache available in the proceedings of major headache meetings in the last 30 years were reviewed. In addition, available technical literature and websites about wine, grapes, and wine making were also evaluated. RESULTS: Full papers specifically on headache and wine are scarce. General literature related to medicine and wine is available, but scientific rigor is typically lacking. The few studies on wine and headache were mostly presented as abstracts despite the common knowledge and patients' complaints about wine ingestion and headache attacks. These studies suggest that red wine, but not white and sparkling wines, do trigger headache and migraine attacks independently of dosage in less than 30% of the subjects. DISCUSSION: Wine, and specifically red wine, is a migraine trigger. Non-migraineurs may have headache attacks with wine ingestion as well. The reasons for that triggering potential are uncertain, but the presence of phenolic flavonoid radicals and the potential for interfering with the central serotonin metabolism are probably the underlying mechanisms of the relationship between wine and headache. Further controlled studies are necessary to enlighten this traditional belief.

Temporomandibular disorders and chronic daily headaches in the community and in specialty care.

BACKGROUND: Chronic daily headaches (CDHs) are often associated with temporomandibular disorders (TMDs). However, large studies assessing the relationship were conducted in general, and not clinical, populations. Thus, clinical exams were not completed. Clinic-based studies with expert diagnosis are, in turn, often small and may not be representative. OBJECTIVE: To contrast the demographic and clinical symptoms of CDH and TMD in participants within the general population relative to patients seen in a headache clinic. METHODS: All inhabitants 10 years and older of a small city in Brazil were interviewed. Those with more than 15 days of headache per month were examined by a team consisting of a neurologist, a dentist, and a physical therapist. Headaches were classified as per the Second Edition of the International Classification of Headache Disorders and TMD as per the Research Diagnostic Criteria. The procedure was repeated (by the same team) with CDH sufferers consecutively seen in a headache center. RESULTS: Of 1605 inhabitants interviewed, 57 (3.6%) had CDH, and 43 completed all physical assessments. For specialty care group, of 289 patients, 92 had CDH, and 85 completed all assessments. No significant differences were seen for gender and age, but education level was significantly higher among those recruited at specialty care. Muscular TMD happened in 30.2% of CDH patients from the community vs 55.3% in the headache center (difference of -25.1%, 95% confidence interval of difference=-40.8% to -9.4%). No TMD happened in 41.9% of those recruited from the population relative to 20% of those in the headache center (21.9%, 95% confidence interval=6.7-37.1%). CONCLUSION: Individuals with CDH recruited from the general population are significantly less likely to have CDH relative to those selected from the headache center. Issues of generalizability are of concern when conducting clinic-based studies on the topic.

Monoclonal antibodies for chronic migraine and medication overuse headache: A real-world study.

Background: Medication-overuse headache is highly prevalent in tertiary care centers. It may be a cause or consequence of the overuse of symptomatic medications for migraine attacks. Objective: We aimed to compare the efficacy of anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) added to conventional pharmacological treatments in patients with chronic migraine (CM) and medication overuse headache (MOH). Methods: A cross-sectional, prospective, randomized, open study with real-world comparison groups of patients was carried out. The sample consisted of 200 patients with CM and MOH, who received the same approach to withdraw overused medications, started preventative treatment, and either did or did not receive mAbs. Results: A total of 172 patients (126 women and 46 men) were included in the study and divided into two groups: group one consisting of 58 patients (control) and group two of 114 patients who used mAbs added to conventional pharmacological agents. The mean age was 44.1 ± 13.6 years, ranging from 18 to 78 years. In the 3 months follow-up after starting the treatment, both groups presented headache frequency reduction, but those with monoclonal antibodies had a significantly higher reduction in the number of headache days and symptomatic medication intake when compared to the control (p < 0.0001). Conclusions: The addition of an anti-CGRP monoclonal antibody to the treatment for medication overuse headaches in chronic migraineurs may result in decreasing headache frequency and symptomatic medication use when compared to conventional treatments with drugs.

Medication Overuse Headache, Chronic Migraine and Monoclonal Antibodies Anti-CGRP: A Real-World Study.

OBJECTIVE: Medication overuse headache (MOH) in chronic migraineurs may be a cause or consequence of the overuse of symptomatic medications for headache attacks. It is highly prevalent in tertiary centers. We compared the efficacy of 3 anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies with traditional pharmacological agents in patients with chronic migraine (CM) and MOH. METHODS: A randomized, cross-sectional, prospective, and open trial with real-world comparison groups was carried out. The sample consisted of 100 consecutive patients having CM and MOH. RESULTS: Eighty-eight patients (65 women and 23 men) were included in the study and divided into 4 groups: those having used erenumab (19.3%), galcanezumab (29.6%), fremanezumab (25%) and conventional medications, and the control group (26.1%). Ages ranged from 18 to 78 years (mean, 44.1 ± 13.6 years). In the 6 months of follow-up, there was a significant reduction in the number of headache days in the 3 groups when compared with the control ( P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The small number of patients included in each group and the open design do not allow definitive conclusions, but the use of anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies in patients with CM and MOH may result in lessening the number of headache days when compared with conventional treatment with drugs.

Medication-overuse headache-a review of different treatment strategies.

Medication-overuse headache (MOH) can develop from primary headaches. MOH is usually the result of overuse of symptomatic medications. It is a noteworthy personal and societal burden. The identification and treatment of patients at risk for MOH is an essential component of MOH management. Medication overuse can be modifiable and can advance from episodic to chronic migraine. Treatment for MOH is complex, and experts in the field have varied views on the most appropriate strategy for MOH treatment. The objective of this review is to give a comprehensive synopsis of the literature for the management of MOH. Treatment strategies, such as detoxification and prevention, are the debatable issues. Medication withdrawal is the foundation for management. The available literature suggested abrupt withdrawal with preventive approaches for early management. Bridging therapy could be useful to get relief from withdrawal symptoms. Multidisciplinary choices proved beneficial in supporting withdrawal and preventing relapse. Worldwide, the termination of overused medications has been observed as a standard treatment strategy; however, patient-specific approaches should be taken.

Low-dose topiramate plus sodium divalproate for positive responders intolerant to full-dose monotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Neuromodulators such as topiramate (TPM) and divalproex sodium (DVS) are effective in the preventive treatment of migraine. Nonetheless, patients often discontinue their use due to side effects. OBJECTIVES: The study aims to determine whether the combination of lower doses of TPM and DVS may be useful for patients responsive to higher doses of the individual drugs but experiencing intolerable side effects. METHODS: This clinic-based study was conducted to evaluate a series of patients who experienced at least a 50% reduction in headache frequency after 6 weeks of treatment with either TPM 100 mg/day or DVS 750 mg/day, but suffered intolerable drug-related side effects. At that point, patients were switched to TPM (50 mg in the morning and 25 mg at night) plus DVS 500 mg/day (single dose) and reevaluated after 6 further weeks. RESULTS: Thirty-eight patients were evaluated. Mean age was 37 years, and 84% were female. Of the 38, 17 (77.3%) initially were using TPM only, and 10 (62.5%) initially were using DVS only. After 6 weeks on combination therapy, 27 (62.9%) reported improved tolerability without any decrease in efficacy. Five patients who initially were using TPM only and six using DVS only failed to return for follow-up or were noncompliant with treatment due to persistent or worsening side effects. CONCLUSIONS: This small, open-label study suggests that the combination of TPM and DVS in doses lower than those typically used for migraine prophylaxis may be an effective option for patients who benefited from higher doses of these same medications used as monotherapy but were unable to tolerate such treatment due to side effects.

Prevalence and burden of headaches as assessed by the health family program.

BACKGROUND: Unified health systems often have Family Health Programs (FHPs) as a core component of their preventive and early curative strategies. In Brazil, the FHP is established to proactively identify diseases such as diabetes and hypertension. OBJECTIVE: To use the FHP in order to assess the prevalence of primary headaches, as per the Second Edition of the International Classification of Headache Disorders in a Brazilian city covered by the program, and to document the burden of migraine and tension-type headache (TTH) in this population. METHODS: FHP agents were trained on how to apply questionnaires that screened for the occurrence of headaches in the past year. Screening method had been previously validated. Respondents that screened positively were interviewed by a headache specialist, and all their headache types were classified. Additionally, disability (Migraine Disability Assessment Scale and Headache Impact Test) and health-related quality of life were assessed. RESULTS: The 1-year prevalence of migraine was 18.2% [95% confidence interval = 13.7; 23.5]. TTH occurred in 22.9% [18.0%; 28.6%]. Other primary headaches occurred in 10.8% of the participants. Idiopathic stabbing headache was significantly more common in individuals with migraine relative to those without migraine (44.7% vs 10.3%, P < .001). Contrasting with TTH, migraineurs had a mean of 3.1 headache types vs 1.9 in TTH (P < .001). Secondary headaches occurred in 21.7% of the participants over a 1-year period [16.9%; 27.3%]. Most cases were headaches attributed to infection (mostly respiratory). The impact of migraine was bimodal. Most sufferers had little impact, but a sizable minority was severely impaired. CONCLUSIONS: The FHP can be effectively used to bring individuals with headache to the attention of providers. Future investigations should assess whether this increased attention translates into improved outcomes.

Topiramate plus nortriptyline in the preventive treatment of migraine: a controlled study for nonresponders.

A sizeable proportion of migraineurs in need of preventive therapy do not significantly benefit from monotherapy. The objective of the study is to conduct a randomized controlled trial testing whether combination therapy of topiramate and nortriptyline is useful in patients who had less than 50% decrease in headache frequency with the use of the single agents. Patients with episodic migraine were enrolled if they had less than 50% reduction in headache frequency after 8 weeks of using topiramate (TPM) (100 mg/day) or nortriptyline (NTP) (30 mg/day). They were randomized (blinded fashion) to have placebo added to their regimen, or to receive the second medication (combination therapy). Primary endpoint was decrease in number of headache days at 6 weeks, relative to baseline, comparing both groups. Secondary endpoint was proportion of patients with at least 50% reduction in headache frequency at 6 weeks relative to baseline. A total of 38 patients were randomized to receive combination therapy, while 30 continued on monotherapy (with placebo) (six drop outs in the combination group and three for each single drug group). For the primary endpoint, mean and standard deviation (SD) of reduction in headache frequency were 4.6 (1.9) for those in polytherapy, relative to 3.5 (2.3) for those in monotherapy. Differences were significant (p < 0.05]. Similarly, 78.3% of patients randomized to receive polytherapy had at least 50% headache reduction, as compared to 37% in monotherapy (p < 0.04). Finally we conclude that combination therapy (of TPM and NTP) is effective in patients with incomplete benefit using these agents in monotherapy.

Brazilian descriptive study of 104 consecutive real-world migraine patients treated with monoclonal antibodies.

BACKGROUND: Migraine is a highly disabling and prevalent neurological disorder. A peptide, calcitonin gene-related peptide, was identified as involved in migraine pathophysiology and monoclonal anti-CGRP antibodies have been developed. AIM: To describe the clinical characteristics and therapeutic response of migraine patients treated with monoclonal antibodies. METHOD: An observational, prospective, uncontrolled, and descriptive study was carried out with a sample of 112 consecutive patients with episodic or chronic migraine treated with monoclonal antibodies. Eight patients did not return for the following medical consultation. They were excluded from the study. RESULTS: A total of 104 patients were described. There was a predominance of episodic migraine. Before treatment, the average frequency of headache was 15.3 ± 8.5 days per month, during the previous three months. Monoclonal antibodies were prescribed at the following frequency: erenumab (49%), galcanezumab (45.2%), and fremanezumab (5.8%). After the third month, the reduction in headache attacks was greater than 50% in 57.7% of patients. Adverse events were referred by 18.3% of patients, in this order of frequency: constipation (7.7%), insomnia (2.9%), vertigo (1.9%), erythema at the injection site (1.9%), arthralgia (1%), nasopharyngitis (1%), facial and hand edema (1%), irritation at the injection site (1%), and paresthesia at the injection site (1%). CONCLUSIONS: This described analysis of migraine patients who used monoclonal antibodies presented one of the first Brazilian experiences with real-world patients. Our results may enlighten clinicians on the outcomes and ways of prescribing anti-CGRP antibodies.

Indomethacin for refractory COVID or post-COVID headache: a retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19, a disease caused by SARS-CoV-2, manifests with headache, both in the acute phase and as a post-infection symptom, which may be refractory to usual analgesics. OBJECTIVES: Investigate the therapeutic response of refractory COVID or post-COVID headache to indomethacin. METHODS: This was an observational, retrospective, open and uncontrolled. A sample of 37 patients diagnosed with COVID-19 presenting headache during the acute phase or after the resolution of the disease, with refractoriness to the usual symptomatic medication was treated with indomethacin. RESULTS: Of the 37 patients (24 women and 13 men), 29 were migraineurs and 8 had no previous history of headache. The average age was 40.4 ± 9.4 years, ranging from 19 to 65 years. In 26 (70.3%) patients, the onset of headache occurred within 72 h, and in 11 (29.7%), after 10 days of positivity for Sars-CoV-2. After treatment with indomethacin, 36 patients reported greater than 50% headache relief from the third day and 5 became asymptomatic on the fifth day. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with migraine or no prior history of headache who present with refractory COVID or post-COVID headache to common analgesics, anti-inflammatory drugs, and/or triptans, indomethacin should be considered a therapeutic option.