Post-vaccination headache reporting: Trends according to the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the characteristics and associated disability of headache as an adverse event following vaccination. BACKGROUND: According to clinical trials and post-licensure surveillance, headache is a common symptom of vaccines, yet systematic investigations of post-licensure reports of this adverse event are lacking. METHODS: This was a retrospective database analysis study. We searched the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) database completed from July 1990 to June 2020 (a 30-year period prior to the start of COVID-19 pandemic) to identify reports of headache. We evaluated epidemiological features, including event characteristics, patient demographics, and vaccine type. RESULTS: In those aged 3 years or older, headache was the fifth most reported adverse symptom, present in 8.1% (43,218/536,120) of all reports. Of headache reports, 96.3% (41,635/43,218) included the code "headache" not further specified. Migraine was coded in 1973 cases, although almost one-third (12,467/41,808; 29.8%) of headache reports without a migraine code mention nausea or vomiting. The onset of symptoms was within 1 day of vaccination in over two-thirds of cases. The majority of reports were classified as not serious; about one-third involved emergency room or office visits. Of the 43,218 total headache reports, only a minority involved hospitalizations (2624; 6.1%) or permanent disability (1091; 2.5%), females accounted for 68.9% (29,771) and males for 29.5% (12,725), patients aged 6 to 59 years represented 67.3% (29,112), and over one-third of cases were reported after herpes zoster (8665; 20.1%) and influenza (6748; 15.6%) vaccinations. CONCLUSION: In a national surveillance system, headache was a commonly reported post-vaccination adverse event; a small subset of reports was considered serious. The development of standardized vaccine-related case definitions could be useful for better evaluating headache as an adverse event during vaccine development, and may reduce vaccine hesitancy especially in headache-prone individuals.

Headache After Vaccination: An Update on Recent Clinical Trials and Real-World Reporting.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The aim of this review is to characterize headache as a vaccine adverse event (VAE) in clinical trials. RECENT FINDINGS: Of the recent phase III vaccine RCTs (non-COVID-19), 53 studies reported on headache (13 infectious agents). The median rate (interquartile range) of headache was 15.6% (IQR: 9.6-37.6%). Of these, 24.5% of the RCTs reported headache greater in the vaccine group compared to the placebo/control group. In the herpes zoster vaccination trials, headache was more common in all active groups: median rate 33.9% (IQR: 29.7-40.5%) as compared to placebo: median rate 17.7% (IQR: 15.4-23.8%). Influenza and HPV vaccination trials were the 2nd and 3rd most common to have headache as a VAE. Of the 6 widely distributed COVID-19 vaccinations, median rate of post-vaccination headache was 39% (IQR: 28-50%). Headache is a common VAE in vaccine trials. Standardized grading methods, predictors of persistence, and treatment regimens are warranted.

Headache as a Neurologic Manifestation of Systemic Disease.

Purpose of Review: This is an update of headache attributed to systemic disease and current therapeutic strategies. Clinical scenarios are discussed. Recent Findings: The diagnosis of headache attributed to metabolic or systemic disorder appears in the Appendix of International Classification of Headache Disorders, Third Edition, and requires further evaluation and validation. However, recent studies characterizing headache appear in the literature. Specific treatment includes addressing underlying systemic disorders, managing concurrent primary headache, and treating comorbidities that may exacerbate headache. Evidence for specific treatment trials for headache as a symptom is lacking, including headaches post-COVID19 infection. Calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonists and 5-HT1F receptor agonists are attractive options for migraine with vascular comorbidities, but long-term studies are needed. Summary: Headache is commonly encountered as a manifestation or complication of systemic disease. Further research is needed to validate headache associated with systemic disorders and to determine optimal treatment strategies.

Headache as a Neurologic Manifestation of Systemic Disease

Purpose of Review This is an update of headache attributed to systemic disease and current therapeutic strategies. Clinical scenarios are discussed. Recent Findings The diagnosis of headache attributed to metabolic or systemic disorder appears in the Appendix of International Classification of Headache Disorders, Third Edition, and requires further evaluation and validation. However, recent studies characterizing headache appear in the literature. Specific treatment includes addressing underlying systemic disorders, managing concurrent primary headache, and treating comorbidities that may exacerbate headache. Evidence for specific treatment trials for headache as a symptom is lacking, including headaches post-COVID19 infection. Calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonists and 5-HT1F receptor agonists are attractive options for migraine with vascular comorbidities, but long-term studies are needed. Summary Headache is commonly encountered as a manifestation or complication of systemic disease. Further research is needed to validate headache associated with systemic disorders and to determine optimal treatment strategies.

Characterizing Long COVID: Deep Phenotype of a Complex Condition.

BACKGROUND: Numerous publications describe the clinical manifestations of post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 (PASC or "long COVID"), but they are difficult to integrate because of heterogeneous methods and the lack of a standard for denoting the many phenotypic manifestations. Patient-led studies are of particular importance for understanding the natural history of COVID-19, but integration is hampered because they often use different terms to describe the same symptom or condition. This significant disparity in patient versus clinical characterization motivated the proposed ontological approach to specifying manifestations, which will improve capture and integration of future long COVID studies. METHODS: The Human Phenotype Ontology (HPO) is a widely used standard for exchange and analysis of phenotypic abnormalities in human disease but has not yet been applied to the analysis of COVID-19. FUNDING: We identified 303 articles published before April 29, 2021, curated 59 relevant manuscripts that described clinical manifestations in 81 cohorts three weeks or more following acute COVID-19, and mapped 287 unique clinical findings to HPO terms. We present layperson synonyms and definitions that can be used to link patient self-report questionnaires to standard medical terminology. Long COVID clinical manifestations are not assessed consistently across studies, and most manifestations have been reported with a wide range of synonyms by different authors. Across at least 10 cohorts, authors reported 31 unique clinical features corresponding to HPO terms; the most commonly reported feature was Fatigue (median 45.1%) and the least commonly reported was Nausea (median 3.9%), but the reported percentages varied widely between studies. INTERPRETATION: Translating long COVID manifestations into computable HPO terms will improve analysis, data capture, and classification of long COVID patients. If researchers, clinicians, and patients share a common language, then studies can be compared/pooled more effectively. Furthermore, mapping lay terminology to HPO will help patients assist clinicians and researchers in creating phenotypic characterizations that are computationally accessible, thereby improving the stratification, diagnosis, and treatment of long COVID. FUNDING: U24TR002306; UL1TR001439; P30AG024832; GBMF4552; R01HG010067; UL1TR002535; K23HL128909; UL1TR002389; K99GM145411.

Development of an Equity, Diversity, Inclusion, and Anti-racism Pledge as the Foundation for Action in an Academic Department of Neurology.

Racial inequities as illustrated by the health disparities in COVID19 infections and deaths, the recent killings of Black men and women by law enforcement, and the widening socioeconomic inequality and have brought systemic racism into a national conversation. These unprecedented times may have deleterious consequences, increasing stress, and trauma for many members of the neurology workforce. The Equity, Diversity, Inclusion and Anti-Racism Committee within our Department of Neurology provides infrastructure and guidance to foster a culture of belonging and addresses the well-being of faculty, staff, and trainees. Here, we present the creation and implementation of our Equity, Diversity, Inclusion, and Anti-Racism (EDIA) Pledge which was central to our committee's response to these unprecedented times. We outline the process of developing this unique EDIA Pledge and provide a roadmap for approaching these important topics through a CME Neurology Grand Rounds aimed at fostering a diverse, inclusive, equitable and antiracist work environment. Through the lived experiences of 4 faculty members, we identify the impact of bias and microaggressions, and encourage allyship and personal development for cultural intelligence. We hope these efforts will inspire Neurology departments and other academic institutions across the globe to make a similar pledge.