Search

More than 0.6 million people suffer from disabling migraines in Greece causing a dramatic work loss, but only a small proportion of migraineurs attend headache centres, most of them being treated by non-experts. On behalf of the Hellenic Headache Society, we report here a consensus on the diagnosis and treatment of adult migraine that is based on the recent guidelines of the European Headache Federation, on the principles of Good Clinical Practice and on the Greek regulatory affairs. The purposes are three-fold: (1) to increase awareness for migraine in Greece; (2) to support Greek practitioners who are treating migraineurs; and (3) to help Greek migraineurs to get the most appropriate treatment. For mild migraine, symptomatic treatment with high dose simple analgesics is suggested, while for moderate to severe migraines triptans or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, or both, should be administered following an individually tailored therapeutic strategy. A rescue acute treatment option should always be advised. For episodic migraine prevention, metoprolol (50–200 mg/d), propranolol (40–240 mg/d), flunarizine (5–10 mg/d), valproate (500–1800 mg/d), topiramate (25–100 mg/d) and candesartan (16–32 mg/d) are the drugs of first choice. For chronic migraine prevention topiramate (100-200 mg/d), valproate (500–1800 mg/d), flunarizine (5–10 mg/d) and venlafaxine (150 mg/d) may be used, but the evidence is very limited. Botulinum toxin type A and monoclonal antibodies targeting the CGRP pathway (anti-CGRP mAbs) are recommended for patients suffering from chronic migraine (with or without medication overuse) who failed or did not tolerate two previous treatments. Anti-CGRP mAbs are also suggested for patients suffering from high frequency episodic migraine (≥8 migraine days per month and less than 14) who failed or did not tolerate two previous treatments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Burning Mouth Syndrome (BMS) is a chronic pain condition characterized by persistent intraoral burning without related objective findings and unknown etiology that affects elderly females mostly. There is no satisfactory treatment for BMS. We aimed to observe the long-term efficacy of high velanfaxine doses combined with systemic and topical administered clonazepam in a particular subgroup of BMS patients who do not respond to current clinical management. Results: Eight (66.1 ± 6.2 years old females) out of 14 BMS patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were treated with venlafaxine (300 mg/d) and clonazepam (5 mg/d) for 35.4 ± 12.1 (mean ± SD) months. The average duration of the symptoms at baseline was 4.3 ± 1.4 years and the overall mean daily pain intensity score was 8.6 ± 1.3 (VAS); pain was in tongue and within the oral mucosa, accompanying by oral and facial dysesthesia. In five patients tasting was abnormal. All patients had positive history of concomitant primary headache. The average score of Hamilton Rating scale for Anxiety and Depression was 21 ± 4.2, and 26.1 ± 2.9, respectively. Previous ineffective treatments include anticonvulsants and anti-depressants. All patients responded (more than 50% decrease in VAS) after three months treatment (mean VAS 3.2 ± 2.2) with no remarkable adverse events. Conclusion: BMS deserves bottomless psychiatric evaluation and management when current available treatments fail. Treatment with venlafaxine combined with topical and systemic clonazepam may be effective in refractory BMS cases but further investigation in a large-scale controlled study is needed to confirm these results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Chronic cluster headache (CCH) often resists to prophylactic pharmaceutical treatments resulting in patients’ life damage. In this rare but pragmatic situation escalation to invasive management is needed but framing criteria are lacking. We aimed to reach a consensus for refractory CCH definition for clinical and research use. The preparation of the final consensus followed three stages. Internal between authors, a larger between all European Headache Federation members and finally an international one among all investigators that have published clinical studies on cluster headache the last five years. Eighty-five investigators reached by email. Proposed criteria were in the format of the International Classification of Headache Disorders III-beta (description, criteria, notes, comments and references). Following this evaluation eight drafts were prepared before the final. Twenty-four (28.2%) international investigators commented during two rounds. Refractory CCH is described in the present consensus as a situation that fulfills the criteria of ICHD-3 beta for CCH with at least three severe attacks per week despite at least three consecutive trials of adequate preventive treatments. The condition is rare, but difficult to manage and invasive treatments may be needed. The consensus addresses five specific clinical and paraclinical diagnostic criteria followed by three notes and specific comments. Although refractory CCH may be not a separate identity these specific diagnostic criteria should help clinicians and investigators to improve patient’s quality of life. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In order to promote education on headache disorders, European Headache Federation (EHF) in conjunction with National Headache Societies organizes educational courses meeting uniform standards according to previous published guidelines. Based on six headache summer schools’ experience, an EHF subcommittee has reviewed these guidelines, and here the revised version is presented. The goals remain the same: quality courses that will attract physicians and neurologists seeking to increase their knowledge, skills, and understanding in the area of primary and secondary headache. Detailed guidelines, a day-to-day program, and a multiple-choice test battery have now been outlined. It is recommended to include practical sessions with patient interviews and hands-on demonstrations of non-pharmacological treatment strategies. For countries that want a ‘low cost’ education program, a Video School program of a similar scientific standard has been developed. To be certified for CME credits, patronage, and financial support from EHF, it is highly recommended to adhere to the suggested teaching strategies. We hereby aim to promote and professionalize the education in headache disorders and endorse the educational courses meeting uniform standards of excellence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and aim: Despite recent publications, practitioners remain unfamiliar with the current terminology related to the placebo and nocebo phenomena observed in clinical trials and practice, nor with the factors that modulate them. To cover the gap, the European Headache Federation appointed a panel of experts to clarify the terms associated with the use of placebo in clinical trials. Methods: The working group identified relevant questions and agreed upon recommendations. Because no data were required to answer the questions, the GRADE approach was not applicable, and thus only expert opinion was provided according to an amended Delphi method. The initial 12 topics for discussion were revised in the opinion of the majority of the panelists, and after a total of 6 rounds of negotiations, the final agreement is presented. Results/recommendations: Two primary and mechanism-based recommendations are provided for the results of clinical trials: [1] to distinguish the placebo or nocebo response from the placebo or nocebo effect; and [2] for any favorable outcome observed after placebo administration, the term "placebo response" should be used, and for any unfavorable outcome recorded after placebo administration, the term "nocebo response" should be used (12 out of 17 panelists agreed, 70.6% agreement). The placebo or nocebo responses are attributed to a set of factors including those that are related to the medical condition (e.g. natural history, random comorbidities, etc.), along with idiosyncratic ones, in which the placebo or nocebo effects are attributed to idiosyncratic, or nonspecific mechanisms, exclusively (e.g. expectation, conditioning, observational learning etc.). To help investigators and practitioners, the panel summarized a list of environmental factors and idiosyncratic dynamics modulating placebo and nocebo effects. Some of them are modifiable, and investigators or physicians need to know about them in order to modify these factors appropriately to improve treatment. One secondary recommendation addresses the use of the terms "placebo" and "nocebo" ("placebos" and "nocebos" in plural), which refer to the triggers of the placebo/nocebo effects or responses, respectively, and which are inert agents or interventions that should not be confused with the placebo/nocebo responses or effects themselves (all panelists agreed, 100% agreement). Conclusion: The working group recommends distinguishing the term response from effect to describe health changes from before to after placebo application and to distinguish the terms placebo(s) or nocebo(s) from the health consequences that they cause (placebo/nocebo responses or effects). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The three primary headaches, tension-type headache, migraine and cluster headache, occur in both genders, but all seem to have a sex-specific prevalence. These gender differences suggest that both male and female sex hormones could have an influence on the course of primary headaches. This review aims to summarise the most relevant and recent literature on this topic.Methods: Two independent reviewers searched PUBMED in a systematic manner. Search strings were composed using the terms LH, FSH, progesteron*, estrogen*, DHEA*, prolactin, testosterone, androgen*, headach*, migrain*, "tension type" or cluster. A timeframe was set limiting the search to articles published in the last 20 years, after January 1st 1997.Results: Migraine tends to follow a classic temporal pattern throughout a woman's life corresponding to the fluctuation of estrogen in the different reproductive stages. The estrogen withdrawal hypothesis forms the basis for most of the assumptions made on this behalf. The role of other hormones as well as the importance of sex hormones in other primary headaches is far less studied.Conclusion: The available literature mainly covers the role of sex hormones in migraine in women. Detailed studies especially in the elderly of both sexes and in cluster headache and tension-type headache are warranted to fully elucidate the role of these hormones in all primary headaches. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]