Pacientes con cefalea y abuso de medicación. Indicadores de respuesta al tratamiento ambulatorio / Patients with headache and medication aubse. Indicators of response to ambulatory treatment

Introducción. Los pacientes con cefalea y abuso de medicación (CAM) son difíciles de tratar, presentan mayor tendenciaa la cronificación y peor calidad de vida que los que cursan con otras cefaleas. Objetivo. Valorar los indicadores de respuesta de estos pacientes al tratamiento ambulatorio. Pacientes y métodos. De una serie de pacientes con migraña, seleccionamos aquéllos con criterios de CAM según el apéndice de la International Classification of the Headache Disease (ICHD-2) de 2006 y que nunca habían llevado previamente tratamiento. Ambulatoriamente, se les aconsejó la supresión del fármaco del que abusaban. Se ajustó el tratamiento de sus crisis con los fármacos más eficaces y se inició tratamiento preventivo desde el principio, con topiramato o flunaricina. Se agrupó a los pacientes según persistieran con CAM o no. Se valoró el número días con cefalea en el mes previo y al cuarto mes de tratamiento y la persistencia de abuso. Resultados. Cumplieron criterios de CAM 178 pacientes (edad media: 40,9 años; 88,7% mujeres). El 68,5% (122 pacientes) respondió y dejó de cumplir criterios de CAM tras el tratamiento. En ambos grupos, los tratamientos de sus crisis (triptanes, antiinflamatorios no esteroideos, analgésicos) y preventivos utilizados (topiramato o flunaricina) fueron similares. La media de días con cefalea previa al tratamiento fue de 18,52 en el grupo que respondió y de 20,87 (p = 0,0263) en el grupo que no respondió al tratamiento. Un 7,3% abandonó el tratamiento preventivo en el grupo de respondedores frente al 35% (p = 0,0001) en los no respondedores. Conclusiones. El mayor número de días con cefalea en el mes previo al tratamiento y el abandono del tratamiento preventivo fueron indicadores de mala evolución (AU)

Introduction. Patients with headache and medication abuse (HMA) are difficult to treat, have a greater tendency owards chronification and a poorer quality of life than those with other types of headache. Aim. To evaluate the indicators showing that these patients are responding to ambulatory treatment. Patients and methods. From a series of patients with migraine, we selected those who satisfied HMA criteria according to the appendix of the 2006 International Classification of the Headache Disease (ICHD-2) and who had never previously undergone treatment. As outpatients, they were advised to stop taking the drug that they were abusing. The treatment of their seizures was adjusted with the most efficient drugs and preventive treatment was started from the outset with topiramate or flunarizine. Patients were grouped according to whether they continued with HMA or not. Comparisons were made between the number of days with headache during the previous month and after four months of treatment and the persistence of abuse. Results. HMA criteria were met by 178 patients (mean age 40.9; 88.7% females). Results showed that 68.5% (122 patients) responded and no longer met HMA criteria after treatment. The treatment used for their seizures (triptans, nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs, analgesics) and preventive treatment (topiramate or flunarizine) were similar in both groups. The average number of days with headache prior to treatment was 18.52 in the group that responded and 20.87 (p = 0.0263) in the group that did not respond to treatment. In the group of responders 7.3% dropped out of preventive treatment compared with 35% (p = 0.0001) in the group of non-responders. Conclusions. A higher number of days with headache during the previous month and withdrawing from preventive treatment were indicators of a bad progression (AU)

[Patients with headache and medication abuse. Indicators of response to ambulatory treatment]. / Pacientes con cefalea y abuso de medicación. Indicadores de respuesta al tratamiento ambulatorio.

INTRODUCTION: Patients with headache and medication abuse (HMA) are difficult to treat, have a greater tendency towards chronification and a poorer quality of life than those with other types of headache. AIM. To evaluate the indicators showing that these patients are responding to ambulatory treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From a series of patients with migraine, we selected those who satisfied HMA criteria according to the appendix of the 2006 International Classification of the Headache Disease (ICHD-2) and who had never previously undergone treatment. As outpatients, they were advised to stop taking the drug that they were abusing. The treatment of their seizures was adjusted with the most efficient drugs and preventive treatment was started from the outset with topiramate or flunarizine. Patients were grouped according to whether they continued with HMA or not. Comparisons were made between the number of days with headache during the previous month and after four months of treatment and the persistence of abuse. RESULTS: HMA criteria were met by 178 patients (mean age 40.9; 88.7% females). Results showed that 68.5% (122 patients) responded and no longer met HMA criteria after treatment. The treatment used for their seizures (triptans, nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs, analgesics) and preventive treatment (topiramate or flunarizine) were similar in both groups. The average number of days with headache prior to treatment was 18.52 in the group that responded and 20.87 (p = 0.0263) in the group that did not respond to treatment. In the group of responders 7.3% dropped out of preventive treatment compared with 35% (p = 0.0001) in the group of non-responders. CONCLUSIONS: A higher number of days with headache during the previous month and withdrawing from preventive treatment were indicators of a bad progression.

[Topiramate in chronic daily headache due to migraine]. / Topiramato en cefalea crónica diaria por migraña.

INTRODUCTION: Chronic daily headache (CDH) includes primary headaches that last more than four hours with a frequency equal or superior to 15 days a month over the last three months. It has a prevalence of 4-5% in the general population and is a frequent reason for visiting the physician in headache units. AIM: To evaluate the effectiveness of topiramate, as the primary drug, in CDH due to probable chronic migraine with or without medication abuse. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From the 447 patients with migraine in our database, we selected those: a) satisfying Silberstein criteria for CDH; b) that had not followed prior prophylactic treatment; and c) who were treated with topiramate as the primary drug. The mean number of days with headache and bouts of severe migraine in the fourth month of treatment using topiramate as compared to the month preceding treatment, as well as the percentage of responses and the rate of respondents in the fourth month were all analysed. RESULTS: Eighty-three patients (88% females) with a mean age of 38.0 +/- 14.13 years were selected. Medication abuse was reported in 44% of cases. At the fourth month of treatment, the mean number of days with headache dropped significantly from 20.8 to 7.9 (p < 0.0001) and the mean number of bouts of severe migraine diminished from 4.4 to 1.7 (p < 0.0001). The rate of respondents was 72%. Medication abuse continued in 14% of cases. Side effects were produced in 58% of patients and the dropout rate was 24%. CONCLUSIONS: Topiramate proved to be effective in the treatment of CDH due to probable chronic migraine and with probable medication abuse in de novo migraine patients.

Topiramato en cefalea crónica diaria por migraña / Topiramate in chronic daily headache due to migraine

La cefalea crónica diaria (CCD) incluye aquellas cefaleas primarias de más de cuatro horas de duracióny frecuencia igual o superior a 15 días al mes en los últimos tres meses. Presenta una prevalencia del 4-5% entre la población general y es un motivo frecuente de consulta en las unidades de cefaleas. Objetivo. Valorar la efectividad de topiramato, como primer fármaco, en la CCD por probable migraña crónica con o sin abuso de fármacos. Pacientes y métodos. De nuestra base de datos de 447 pacientes con migraña se seleccionaron aquellos: a) con criterios de Silberstein de CCD, b) queno habían llevado un tratamiento profiláctico previo, y c) tratados con topiramato como primer fármaco. Se analizaron la media de días con cefalea y crisis de migraña intensa en el cuarto mes de tratamiento con topiramato en relación con el mes previoal tratamiento, los porcentajes de respuesta y la tasa de respondedores en el cuarto mes. Resultados. Se seleccionaron 83 pacientes (88% de mujeres) con una edad media de 38,0 ± 14,13 años. El 44% abusaba de fármacos. Al cuarto mes de tratamiento, la media de días con cefalea disminuyó significativamente de 20,8 a 7,9 (p < 0,0001) y la medía de crisis de migrañaintensa, de 4,4 a 1,7 (p < 0,0001). La tasa de respondedores fue del 72%. Un 14% continuó abusando de los fármacos. Se produjeron efectos adversos en el 58% de pacientes y hubo un 24% de abandonos. Conclusión. El topiramato se mostró efectivo en el tratamiento de la CCD por probable migraña crónica y con probable abuso de fármacos en pacientes migrañosos de novo

Chronic daily headache (CDH) includes primary headaches that last more than four hours with afrequency equal or superior to 15 days a month over the last three months. It has a prevalence of 4-5% in the general population and is a frequent reason for visiting the physician in headache units. Aim. To evaluate the effectiveness of topiramate, as theprimary drug, in CDH due to probable chronic migraine with or without medication abuse. Patients and methods. From the 447 patients with migraine in our database, we selected those: a) satisfying Silberstein criteria for CDH; b) that had not followed prior prophylactic treatment; and c) who were treated with topiramate as the primary drug. The mean number of days with headache and bouts of severe migraine in the fourth month of treatment using topiramate as compared to the monthpreceding treatment, as well as the percentage of responses and the rate of respondents in the fourth month were all analysed.Results. Eighty-three patients (88% females) with a mean age of 38.0 ± 14.13 years were selected. Medication abuse was reported in 44% of cases. At the fourth month of treatment, the mean number of days with headache dropped significantly from20.8 to 7.9 (p < 0.0001) and the mean number of bouts of severe migraine diminished from 4.4 to 1.7 (p < 0.0001). The rate of respondents was 72%. Medication abuse continued in 14% of cases. Side effects were produced in 58% of patients and thedropout rate was 24%. Conclusions. Topiramate proved to be effective in the treatment of CDH due to probable chronic migraine and with probable medication abuse in de novo migraine patients

Demencia tipo Alzheimer, estudios de correlación cognitivo-funcional y memoria de trabajo / Dementia of Alzheimer type, studies of clinico-functional correlation and working memory

No disponible

Signo de Lhermitte y parestesias en manos como manifestación inicial de os odontoideo en la edad avanzada / Lhermitte's sign and paresthesia of the hands as an initial manifestation of os odontoideum at an advanced age

Las anomalías congénitas de la apófisis odontoides son poco frecuentes y se desconoce su prevalencia real, ya que pueden permanecer asintomáticas. Presentamos el caso de una mujer de 84 años de edad con manifestaciones clínicas y radiológicas de os odontoideo. La paciente fue remitida al servicio de Rehabilitación por dolor cervical de dos meses de evolución. Como datos más significativos, refería sensación subjetiva de pérdida de fuerza en ambas manos, parestesias y la aparición de una sensación ascendente de "descarga eléctrica" en extremidades inferiores y superiores desencadenada con la flexión cervical (signo de Lhermitte). En la resonancia magnética nuclear de columna cervical se evidenciaba una compresión medular a la altura de C1-C2 y una falta de fusión de la apófisis odontoides (os odontoideo). Radiológicamente en el os odontoideo se observa una banda radiolúcida amplia entre la apófisis odontoides y el cuerpo del axis, como manifestación de una anomalía de su fusión. Se desconoce la frecuencia real. Hay que tenerla en cuenta en pacientes con dolor occipitocervical y/o clínica de mielopatía y/o isquemia vertebrobasilar, ya que el diagnóstico sólo puede realizarse mediante la radiología. Discutimos sobre los signos clínicos y las imágenes radiológicas que llevan al diagnóstico, así como sobre su tratamiento. (AU)