Explore the vast range of titles available.

IntroductionDespite advances in the management of headache disorders, some patients with migraine do not experience adequate pain relief with acute and preventive treatments. It is the aim of the present document to provide a definition of those migraines which are difficult-to-treat, to create awareness of existence of this group of patients, to help Healthcare Authorities in understanding the implications, and to create a basis to develop a better pathophysiological understanding and to support further therapeutic advances.Main bodyDefinitions were established with a consensus process using the Delphi method.Patients with migraine with or without aura or with chronic migraine can be defined as having resistant migraine and refractory migraine according to previous preventative failures. Resistant migraine is defined by having failed at least 3 classes of migraine preventatives and suffer from at least 8 debilitating headache days per month for at least 3 consecutive months without improvement; definition can be based on review of medical charts. Refractory migraine is defined by having failed all of the available preventatives and suffer from at least 8 debilitating headache days per month for at least 6 consecutive months. Drug failure may include lack of efficacy or lack of tolerability. Debilitating headache is defined as headache causing serious impairment to conduct activities of daily living despite the use of pain-relief drugs with established efficacy at the recommended dose and taken early during the attack; failure of at least two different triptans is required.ConclusionsWe hope, that the updated EHF definition will be able to solve the conflicts that have limited the use of definitions which have been put forward in the past. Only with a widely accepted definition, progresses in difficult-to-treat migraine can be achieved. This new definition has also the aim to increase the understanding of the impact of the migraine as a disease with all of its social, legal and healthcare implications. It is the hope of the EHF Expert Consensus Group that the proposed criteria will stimulate further clinical, scientific and social attention to patients who suffer from migraine which is difficult-to-treat.

BackgroundThere is an unmet need of pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatment options for migraine patients. Exercise can be used in the treatment of several pain conditions, including. However, what exact role exercise plays in migraine prevention is unclear. Here, we review the associations between physical exercise and migraine from an epidemiological, therapeutical and pathophysiological perspective.MethodsThe review was based on a primary literature search on the PubMed using the search terms “migraine and exercise”.ResultsLow levels of physical exercise and high frequency of migraine has been reported in several large population-based studies. In experimental studies exercise has been reported as a trigger factor for migraine as well as migraine prophylaxis. Possible mechanisms for how exercise may trigger migraine attacks, include acute release of neuropeptides such as calcitonin gene-related peptide or alternation of hypocretin or lactate metabolism. Mechanisms for migraine prevention by exercise may include increased beta-endorphin, endocannabinoid and brain-derived neurotrophic factor levers in plasma after exercise.ConclusionIn conclusion, it seems that although exercise can trigger migraine attacks, regular exercise may have prophylactic effect on migraine frequency. This is most likely due to an altered migraine triggering threshold in persons who exercise regularly. However, the frequency and intensity of exercise that is required is still an open question, which should be addressed in future studies to delineate an evidence-based exercise program to prevent migraine in sufferers.

BackgroundTriptans are migraine-specific acute treatments. A well-accepted definition of triptan failure is needed in clinical practice and for research. The primary aim of the present Consensus was to provide a definition of triptan failure. To develop this definition, we deemed necessary to develop as first a consensus definition of effective treatment of an acute migraine attack and of triptan-responder.Main bodyThe Consensus process included a preliminary literature review, a Delphi round and a subsequent open discussion. According to the Consensus Panel, effective treatment of a migraine attack is to be defined on patient well-being featured by a) improvement of headache, b) relief of non-pain symptoms and c) absence of adverse events. An attack is considered effectively treated if patient’s well-being, as defined above, is restored within 2 hours and for at least 24 hours. An individual with migraine is considered as triptan-responder when the given triptan leads to effective acute attack treatment in at least three out of four migraine attacks. On the other hand, an individual with migraine is considered triptan non-responder in the presence of failure of a single triptan (not matching the definition of triptan-responder). The Consensus Panel defined an individual with migraine as triptan-resistant in the presence of failure of at least 2 triptans; triptan refractory, in the presence of failure to at least 3 triptans, including subcutaneous formulation; triptan ineligibile in the presence of an acknowledged contraindication to triptan use, as specified in the summary of product characteristics.ConclusionsThe novel definitions can be useful in clinical practice for the assessment of acute attack treatments patients with migraine. They may be helpful in identifying people not responding to triptans and in need for novel acute migraine treatments. The definitions will also be of help in standardizing research on migraine acute care.

BackgroundEpidemiological research of headache is vital but resource consuming prerequisite for evidence-based development in the field. Rapid evolution of information technology may provide new opportunities for population-based surveys. The aim of this study was to evaluate the applicability of web-based solutions in epidemiological studies of primary headaches.MethodsAn online survey was conducted among 20–64 year old Estonian citizens, using a previously validated headache questionnaire. The participants were accessed through most popular portals and e-mail domains to get the maximum coverage of Estonian digital community. The resulting one-year headache prevalences were compared to those acquired in parallel from a population-based cross-sectional person-to-person study in Estonia.ResultsFive thousand seven hundred eight entries were made by 5347 participants in the online study. Of the participants, 3896 (72.9%) had no headache, 1436 (26.8%) had only one and 15 (0.3%) had more than one type of headache. The study sample demographics were statistically significantly different from Estonian population and the prevalences were adjusted by age, gender, education and habitat. The proportion of headache sufferers was smaller in the online study sample (23.1% vs 41.0% in the population-based parallel person-to-person study). Among the headache sufferers the proportions of different headache diagnoses were similar across the two studies with the exceptions of episodic migraine and episodic tension-type headache. There were less migraine and more tension-type headache sufferers in the online study sample.DiscussionThis is the first study addressing applicability of web-based solutions in headache related large epidemiological studies. Online approach presents a much faster means of data collection, larger samples, has mechanisms of avoiding data contamination and distinguishes the proportions of most primary headache disorders among the headache sufferers. However, the present online survey was significantly biased towards the people without headache, leading to underestimation of headache prevalence. This stems from the shortcomings related to method of sampling, access and engagement.ConclusionOnline headache epidemiology research could be a resource saving alternative to person-to-person studies, however, further research is needed to overcome the problems related to methods of sampling, access and engagement.

Background Neurosyphilis is defined as any involvement of the central nervous system by the bacterium Treponema pallidum . Movement disorders as manifestations of syphilis have been reported quite rarely. Case presentation We report a case of a 42-year-old Russian man living in Estonia with rapidly progressive dementia and movement disorders manifesting as myoclonus, cerebellar ataxia and parkinsonism. The mini mental state examination score was 12/30. After excluding different neurodegenerative causes, further diagnostic testing was consistent with neurosyphilis. Treatment with penicillin was started and 6 months later his mini mental state examination score was 25/30 and he had no myoclonus, parkinsonism or cerebellar dysfunction. Conclusion Since syphilis is easily diagnosed and treatable, it should be considered and tested in patients with cognitive impairment and movement disorders.

Background The COVID-19 pandemic led to an unprecedented increase in the use of personal protective equipment (PPE) among medical personnel. The goal of this study was to determine the risk factors and frequency of PPE-induced headache during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods From January 25 to March 1, 2021, an anonymous online survey was undertaken in the Baltic states. Results In total, 2132 individuals participated. 52.3% experienced a PPE-induced headache. Usual onset time was between 2–3 h, lasting up to 1 h after PPE removal. The most common localization was in temporal and frontal regions. Headache usually occurred 2 to 3 days per week with an average pain score of 5.04 ± 1.80 points. Higher risk was associated with discomfort/pressure OR = 11.55, heat stress OR = 2.228, skin conditions OR = 1.784, long PPE use (duration 10-12 h) OR = 2,18, headache history prior PPE use OR = 1.207. Out of 52.3% respondents with PPE-induced headache, 45.5% developed de novo headache, whereas 54.5% had headache history. Statistically significant differences of PPE-induced headache between respective groups included severity (4.73 vs 5.29), duration (≥ 6 h 6.7% vs 8.2%), accompanying symptoms (nausea (19.3% vs 25.7%), photophobia (19.1% vs 25.7%), phonophobia (15.8% vs 23.5%), osmophobia (5.3% vs 12.0%)) and painkiller use (43.0% vs 61.7%). Conclusions Over half of the medical personnel reported headache while using PPE. The risk was higher in individuals with headache history, increased duration of PPE use and discomfort while using PPE. Predisposed individuals reported PPE-induced headache which persisted longer, was more intense and debilitating than in the respondents with de novo headache.

Migraine is one of the most frequent and expensive neurological disease in the world. Non-pharmacological and digitally administered treatment options have long been used in the treatment of chronic pain and mental illness. Digital solutions increase the patients’ possibilities of receiving evidence-based treatment even when conventional treatment options are limited. The main goal of the study is to assess the efficacy of interdisciplinary digital interventions compared to conventional treatment. The maximum number of participants in this multi-centre, open-label, prospective, randomized study is 600, divided into eight treatment groups. The participants will take part in either a conventional or a digital intervention, performing various tests and interdisciplinary tasks. The primary outcome is expected to be a reduction in the number of headache days. We also undertake to measure various other headache-related burdens as a secondary outcome. The sample size, digital interventions not conducted via video calls, the lack of human connection, limited intervention program, and the conducting of studies only in digitally sophisticated countries are all significant limitations. However, we believe that digitally mediated treatment options are at least as effective as traditional treatment options while also allowing for a significantly higher patient throughput. The future of chronic disease treatment is remote monitoring and high-quality digitally mediated interventions.The study is approved by the Ethics Committee of the University of Tartu for Human Research (Permission No. 315T-17, 10.08.2020) and is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov: NTC05458817 (14.07.2022).

Background Underdiagnosis of migraine causes a significant health burden, including lower quality of life, excessive medication use, and a delay in effective treatment. The purpose of this study was to evaluate migraine diagnosis accuracy and to review the treatment approaches used by neurologists in the Baltic states. Methods The research was conducted as an anonymous e-survey with four cases in March and April 2021. Results 119 practicing adult neurologists have participated. The migraine diagnostic accuracy was 63.2%. The most commonly used diagnostic criteria were moderate/severe pain, unilateral pain, and disruption of daily activities. Diagnostic accuracy did not differ significantly between neurologists who always use ICHD-3 criteria and those who don’t (68.4% vs. 58.5%, p  = 0.167). It was higher in neurologists who were working in headache centers (91.7% vs. 60.9%, p  = 0.012), and was related to a higher percentage of migraine diagnoses in all consulted headache patients ( R 2  = 0.202, adjusted R 2  = 0.195, p  < 0.001), prophylaxis with onabotulinumtoxin A [OR = 4.332, 95% Cl (1.588–11.814)], and anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies [OR = 2.862, 95% Cl (1.186–6.907)]. Conclusions Migraine diagnostic accuracy is improved through practical patient counseling and modern treatment prescription. Although the neurologists in the Baltic states follow current European guidelines, there is room for improvement in diagnostic accuracy to reduce migraine burden.

Migraine is a disabling primary headache disorder that directly affects more than one billion people worldwide. Despite its widespread prevalence, migraine remains under-diagnosed and under-treated. To support clinical decision-making, we convened a European panel of experts to develop a ten-step approach to the diagnosis and management of migraine. Each step was established by expert consensus and supported by a review of current literature, and the Consensus Statement is endorsed by the European Headache Federation and the European Academy of Neurology. In this Consensus Statement, we introduce typical clinical features, diagnostic criteria and differential diagnoses of migraine. We then emphasize the value of patient centricity and patient education to ensure treatment adherence and satisfaction with care provision. Further, we outline best practices for acute and preventive treatment of migraine in various patient populations, including adults, children and adolescents, pregnant and breastfeeding women, and older people. In addition, we provide recommendations for evaluating treatment response and managing treatment failure. Lastly, we discuss the management of complications and comorbidities as well as the importance of planning long-term follow-up.In this Consensus Statement, which is endorsed by the European Headache Federation and the European Academy of Neurology, an expert panel provides recommendations for the diagnosis and management of migraine to support clinical decision-making by general practitioners, neurologists and headache specialists.

No abstract available Copyright © 2014 S. Karger AG, Basel [PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]