Differences and similarities between COVID-19 related-headache and COVID-19 vaccine related-headache. A case-control study. / Diferencias y similitudes entre la cefalea relacionada con la COVID-19 y la cefalea relacionada con la vacuna de la COVID-19. Un estudio de casos y controles.

INTRODUCTION: Headache is a frequent symptom at the acute phase of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and also one of the most frequent adverse effects following vaccination. In both cases, headache pathophysiology seems linked to the host immune response and could have similarities. We aimed to compare the clinical phenotype and the frequency and associated onset symptoms in patients with COVID-19 related-headache and COVID-19 vaccine related-headache. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: A case-control study was conducted. Patients with confirmed COVID-19 infection and COVID-19-vaccine recipients who experienced new-onset headache were included. A standardised questionnaire was administered, including demographic variables, prior history of headaches, associated symptoms and headache-related variables. Both groups were matched for age, sex, and prior history of headache. A multivariate regression analysis was performed. RESULTS: A total of 238 patients fulfilled eligibility criteria (143 patients with COVID-19 related-headache and 95 subjects experiencing COVID-19 vaccine related-headache). Patients with COVID-19 related-headache exhibited a higher frequency of arthralgia, diarrhoea, dyspnoea, chest pain, expectoration, anosmia, myalgia, odynophagia, rhinorrhoea, cough, and dysgeusia. Further, patients with COVID-19 related-headache had a more prolonged daily duration of headache and described the headache as the worst headache ever experienced. Patients with COVID-19 vaccine-related headache, experienced more frequently pain in the parietal region, phonophobia, and worsening of the headache by head movements or eye movements. CONCLUSION: Headache caused by SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 vaccination related-headache have more similarities than differences, supporting a shared pathophysiology, and the activation of the innate immune response. The main differences were related to associated symptoms.

TITLE: Diferencias y similitudes entre la cefalea relacionada con la COVID-19 y la cefalea relacionada con la vacuna de la COVID-19. Un estudio de casos y controles.Introducción. La cefalea es un síntoma frecuente en la fase aguda de la enfermedad por coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) y también uno de los efectos adversos más comunes tras la vacunación. En ambos casos, la fisiopatología de la cefalea parece estar relacionada con la respuesta inmunitaria del huésped y podría presentar similitudes. Nuestro objetivo fue comparar el fenotipo clínico y la frecuencia de los síntomas asociados y los síntomas de inicio en pacientes con cefalea relacionada con la COVID-19 y cefalea relacionada con la vacuna de la COVID-19. Sujetos y métodos. Se realizó un estudio de casos y controles. Se incluyó a pacientes con infección confirmada por COVID-19 y receptores de la vacuna de la COVID-19 que experimentaron un nuevo inicio de cefalea. Se administró un cuestionario estandarizado que incluyó variables demográficas, antecedentes previos de cefaleas, síntomas asociados y variables relacionadas con la cefalea. Ambos grupos se emparejaron por edad, sexo y antecedentes previos de cefaleas. Se realizó un análisis de regresión multivariante. Resultados. Un total de 238 pacientes cumplieron con los criterios de elegibilidad (143 pacientes con cefalea relacionada con la COVID-19 y 95 sujetos con cefalea relacionada con la vacuna de la COVID-19). Los pacientes con cefalea relacionada con la COVID-19 presentaron una mayor frecuencia de artralgia, diarrea, disnea, dolor torácico, expectoración, anosmia, mialgia, odinofagia, rinorrea, tos y disgeusia. Además, los pacientes con cefalea relacionada con la COVID-19 experimentaron una duración diaria más prolongada de la cefalea y describieron la cefalea como la peor que habían experimentado. Los pacientes con cefalea relacionada con la vacuna de la COVID-19 experimentaron con más frecuencia dolor en la región parietal, fonofobia y empeoramiento de la cefalea por movimientos de la cabeza o de los ojos. Conclusión. La cefalea causada por la infección por el SARS-CoV-2 y la cefalea relacionada con la vacunación de la COVID-19 presentan más similitudes que diferencias, lo que respalda una fisiopatología compartida y la activación de la respuesta inmunitaria innata. Las principales diferencias estuvieron relacionadas con los síntomas asociados.

Diferencias y similitudes entre la cefalea relacionada con la COVID-19 y la cefalea relacionada con la vacuna de la COVID-19. Un estudio de casos y controles / Differences and similarities between COVID-19 related-headache and COVID-19 vaccine related-headache. A case-control study

Introducción La cefalea es un síntoma frecuente en la fase aguda de la enfermedad por coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) y también uno de los efectos adversos más comunes tras la vacunación. En ambos casos, la fisiopatología de la cefalea parece estar relacionada con la respuesta inmunitaria del huésped y podría presentar similitudes. Nuestro objetivo fue comparar el fenotipo clínico y la frecuencia de los síntomas asociados y los síntomas de inicio en pacientes con cefalea relacionada con la COVID-19 y cefalea relacionada con la vacuna de la COVID-19. Sujetos y métodos Se realizó un estudio de casos y controles. Se incluyó a pacientes con infección confirmada por COVID-19 y receptores de la vacuna de la COVID-19 que experimentaron un nuevo inicio de cefalea. Se administró un cuestionario estandarizado que incluyó variables demográficas, antecedentes previos de cefaleas, síntomas asociados y variables relacionadas con la cefalea. Ambos grupos se emparejaron por edad, sexo y antecedentes previos de cefaleas. Se realizó un análisis de regresión multivariante. Resultados Un total de 238 pacientes cumplieron con los criterios de elegibilidad (143 pacientes con cefalea relacionada con la COVID-19 y 95 sujetos con cefalea relacionada con la vacuna de la COVID-19). Los pacientes con cefalea relacionada con la COVID-19 presentaron una mayor frecuencia de artralgia, diarrea, disnea, dolor torácico, expectoración, anosmia, mialgia, odinofagia, rinorrea, tos y disgeusia. Además, los pacientes con cefalea relacionada con la COVID-19 experimentaron una duración diaria más prolongada de la cefalea y describieron la cefalea como la peor que habían experimentado. Los pacientes con cefalea relacionada con la vacuna de la COVID-19 experimentaron con más frecuencia dolor en la región parietal, fonofobia y empeoramiento de la cefalea por movimientos de la cabeza o de los ojos. Conclusión ... (AU)

INTRODUCTION Headache is a frequent symptom at the acute phase of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and also one of the most frequent adverse effects following vaccination. In both cases, headache pathophysiology seems linked to the host immune response and could have similarities. We aimed to compare the clinical phenotype and the frequency and associated onset symptoms in patients with COVID-19 related-headache and COVID-19 vaccine related-headache. SUBJECTS AND METHODS A case-control study was conducted. Patients with confirmed COVID-19 infection and COVID-19-vaccine recipients who experienced new-onset headache were included. A standardised questionnaire was administered, including demographic variables, prior history of headaches, associated symptoms and headache-related variables. Both groups were matched for age, sex, and prior history of headache. A multivariate regression analysis was performed. RESULTS A total of 238 patients fulfilled eligibility criteria (143 patients with COVID-19 related-headache and 95 subjects experiencing COVID-19 vaccine related-headache). Patients with COVID-19 related-headache exhibited a higher frequency of arthralgia, diarrhoea, dyspnoea, chest pain, expectoration, anosmia, myalgia, odynophagia, rhinorrhoea, cough, and dysgeusia. Further, patients with COVID-19 related-headache had a more prolonged daily duration of headache and described the headache as the worst headache ever experienced. Patients with COVID-19 vaccine-related headache, experienced more frequently pain in the parietal region, phonophobia, and worsening of the headache by head movements or eye movements. CONCLUSION. Headache caused by SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 vaccination related-headache have more similarities than differences, supporting a shared pathophysiology, and the activation of the innate immune response. The main differences were related to associated symptoms. (AU)

Evaluation of the burden of migraine on the partner's lifestyle.

BACKGROUND: Despite the number of research studies regarding the individual burden of migraine, few studies have examined its impact on the patients' partners. We aim to assess migraine effects on the patients' partners on sentimental relationship, children relationship, friendship, and work, as well as the caregiver burden, anxiety and/or depression. METHODS: A cross-sectional observational study was conducted through an online survey of partners of patients with migraine followed-up in 5 Headache Units. Questions about the 4 areas of interest and 2 scales (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and Zarit scale) were included. Scores were compared against the population prevalence. RESULTS: One hundred and fifty-five answers were analysed. Among the patient's partners 135/155 (87.1%) were men, with a mean age of 45.6 ± 10.1 years. Migraine's main effects on partners were observed in the sentimental relationship and items concerning children and friendships, with a minor impact at work. Partners showed a moderate burden (12/155 = 7.7% [4.1%-13.1%]), and a higher moderate-severe anxiety rate (23/155 = 14.8% [9.6%-21.4%]), and similar depression rate (5/155 = 3.2% [1.1%-7.3%]) compared to the National Health Survey. CONCLUSIONS: The burden of migraine impacts the partners' personal relationship, childcare, friendship and work. Moreover, certain migraine partners showed a moderate burden according to Zarit scale and higher anxiety levels than the Spanish population.

Fibroblast activation and abnormal extracellular matrix remodelling as common hallmarks in three cancer-prone genodermatoses.

BACKGROUND: Recessive dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa (RDEB), Kindler syndrome (KS) and xeroderma pigmentosum complementation group C (XPC) are three cancer-prone genodermatoses whose causal genetic mutations cannot fully explain, on their own, the array of associated phenotypic manifestations. Recent evidence highlights the role of the stromal microenvironment in the pathology of these disorders. OBJECTIVES: To investigate, by means of comparative gene expression analysis, the role played by dermal fibroblasts in the pathogenesis of RDEB, KS and XPC. METHODS: We conducted RNA-Seq analysis, which included a thorough examination of the differentially expressed genes, a functional enrichment analysis and a description of affected signalling circuits. Transcriptomic data were validated at the protein level in cell cultures, serum samples and skin biopsies. RESULTS: Interdisease comparisons against control fibroblasts revealed a unifying signature of 186 differentially expressed genes and four signalling pathways in the three genodermatoses. Remarkably, some of the uncovered expression changes suggest a synthetic fibroblast phenotype characterized by the aberrant expression of extracellular matrix (ECM) proteins. Western blot and immunofluorescence in situ analyses validated the RNA-Seq data. In addition, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay revealed increased circulating levels of periostin in patients with RDEB. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that the different causal genetic defects converge into common changes in gene expression, possibly due to injury-sensitive events. These, in turn, trigger a cascade of reactions involving abnormal ECM deposition and underexpression of antioxidant enzymes. The elucidated expression signature provides new potential biomarkers and common therapeutic targets in RDEB, XPC and KS. What's already known about this topic? Recessive dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa (RDEB), Kindler syndrome (KS) and xeroderma pigmentosum complementation group C (XPC) are three genodermatoses with high predisposition to cancer development. Although their causal genetic mutations mainly affect epithelia, the dermal microenvironment likely contributes to the physiopathology of these disorders. What does this study add? We disclose a large overlapping transcription profile between XPC, KS and RDEB fibroblasts that points towards an activated phenotype with high matrix-synthetic capacity. This common signature seems to be independent of the primary causal deficiency, but reflects an underlying derangement of the extracellular matrix via transforming growth factor-ß signalling activation and oxidative state imbalance. What is the translational message? This study broadens the current knowledge about the pathology of these diseases and highlights new targets and biomarkers for effective therapeutic intervention. It is suggested that high levels of circulating periostin could represent a potential biomarker in RDEB.

Higher proliferative capacity of T lymphocytes from patients with Crohn disease than from ulcerative colitis is disclosed by use of Herpesvirus saimiri-transformed T-cell lines.

BACKGROUND: T lymphocytes play a crucial role in the pathogenesis of inflammatory bowel disease. Achieving stable T-cell lines, rather than continuous bleeding of patients, is desirable in order to dissect their implication in the disease. METHODS: Long-lasting T-cell lines from patients with Crohn disease and ulcerative colitis and from healthy volunteers have been obtained by transformation of T lymphocytes using the lymphotropic Herpesvirus saimiri. Lines were subjected to phenotypic and functional analyses, and the results compared with freshly isolated peripheral blood mononuclear cells. RESULTS: Fresh cells revealed only minor differences between patients and controls, with regard to phenotype and proliferative capacity. In contrast, the use of T-cell lines showed that cells from Crohn disease patients, but not ulcerative colitis patients, over-responded to several membrane or cytoplasmic stimuli when compared to control T-cell lines. Thus, higher responses were found when stimulated with alphaCD3 and IL2, alphaCD3 and alphaCD28, IL2 alone, phorbol esters (PMA) and alphaCD3 and, finally, PMA and alphaCD2 (P < 0.05 in all instances). Further, lines from patients with Crohn disease responded more vigorously to alphaCD3 and alphaCD28 or alphaCD3 and PMA when compared to ulcerative colitis (P < 0.05 in both instances). CONCLUSIONS: The data obtained with these lines suggest that T cells from patients with Crohn disease differ in vivo in their proliferative capacity, as compared with those from ulcerative colitis patients, a finding that may reflect the clear Th-1 phenotype found in the former and absent in the latter.