Headache Education Adaptation During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Impact on Undergraduate and Graduate Medical Education.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Our goal was to describe the changes to headache and neurological education that occurred as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, and the impact this had on medical learners. We also discuss subsequent implications for the future of education in the field of headache medicine. RECENT FINDINGS: Both educators and learners faced many challenges during the pandemic. These include the following: cancellation of in-person educational meetings, limited in-person networking and wellness events, disengagement from virtual didactic curricula, limitations in procedure-based learning, redeployment to inpatient settings with a decrease in outpatient exposures, and blurred boundaries between home and work life due to more virtual collaboration and home computer use. The development of telehealth programs and trainee wellness initiatives, improved collaboration opportunities among geographically distant institutions, and greater access to conferences for learners are among the many improvements forged by these challenging times in medical education. Given the high prevalence of headache disorders and the paucity of headache specialists, training new clinicians with competency in headache medicine is essential. There were many educational challenges and opportunities identified in the literature that resulted from the pressures of the pandemic. Educators need to develop assessments that capture any gaps in learning that may have occurred during this tumultuous time and be vigilant of remediation needs in our learners over the coming years. It is imperative to intentionally design curricula for the future by harnessing new pedagogical tools, innovations, and perspectives gleaned from our experience with the COVID-19 pandemic.

Ten Eleven Things Not to Say to Healthcare Professionals During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic.

On March 11, 2020, the infection caused by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) virus was declared a pandemic. Throughout this pandemic, healthcare professionals (HCPs) have experienced difficulties stemming from poor communications, resource scarcity, lack of transparency, disbelief, and threats to the safety of their loved ones, their patients, and themselves. As part of these hardships, negative statements have been heard repeatedly. This paper describes 11 scenarios of unhelpful and dysfunctional messages heard by the authors and their colleagues during the COVID-19 pandemic, reported to us by a combination of peers, administrative leadership, and the public. We explain why not to use such messaging, and we suggest more helpful and compassionate expressions based upon recommendations published by scientific organizations and well-established psychological principles. The first 10 scenarios discussed include (1) lack of understanding regarding the extent of the pandemic; (2) shaming over not seeing patients in person; (3) lack of clear and consistent communication from leadership on pandemic-related practice changes; (4) opinions that personal protective equipment (PPE) use by HCPs causes fear or is unnecessary; (5) forcing in-person care without appropriate PPE; (6) the risk of exposure to asymptomatic individuals as it relates to opening clinics; (7) media gag orders; (8) pay and benefit reductions; (9) spreading of misinformation about the COVID-19 pandemic; and (10) workload expectations. The 11th scenario addresses HCPs' psychological and physical reactions to this challenging and prolonged stressful situation. We close by discussing the need for support and compassion at this difficult and unpredictable time and by offering suggestions to foster resilience and feelings of self-efficacy among HCPs.

Cerebrospinal Fluid Removal for Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension: Less Cerebrospinal Fluid Is Best.

BACKGROUND: Although lumbar punctures (LPs) are used for diagnostic evaluation in idiopathic intracranial hypertension (IIH), they can also provide relief from IIH-associated headache. Conversely, low-pressure headache secondary to LP can be debilitating. Low-volume cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) removal to a "high-normal" closing pressure (CP), approximately 18-20 cm H2O, may result in relief of IIH-associated headache with a lowered frequency of post-LP headache. METHODS: We conducted a single-center retrospective analysis from 2011 to 2016 of patients who underwent fluoroscopic LPs aiming for high-normal CPs. Inclusion criteria were as follows: 1) pre-existing diagnosis of IIH, or opening pressure (OP) and clinical findings diagnostic for IIH; 2) height and weight recorded within 1 year; 3) documented LP data parameters; and 4) one week post-LP follow-up documenting whether headache was worse, unchanged, or better. RESULTS: One hundred forty-six patients met the inclusion criteria. Mean age was 34.9 years ± 11.0, and mean body mass index was 39.2 kg/m ± 10.5. Mean volume removed was 9.7 mL ± 4.6. The mean CP was 17.9 cm H2O ±2.7. The mean pressure change (OP-CP) per volume removed was 1.50 cm H2O/mL ±0.6. Headache symptoms at follow-up were improved in 64% (80/125) of patients, worse in 26% (33/125), and unchanged in 10% (12/125). Eleven patients were headache-free, and 11 patients required hospital care for post-LP headache. CONCLUSIONS: Low-volume CSF removal to approximately 18 cm H2O resulted in relief of IIH-associated headache in most patients and a low incidence of post-LP headache. Although clinically variable, these data suggest that for every 1 mL of CSF removed, the CP decreases approximately 1.5 cm H2O.

Registration status and outcome reporting of trials published in core headache medicine journals.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate randomized controlled trial (RCT) registration and outcome reporting compliance in core headache medicine journals. METHODS: We identified RCTs published in core journals (Headache, Cephalalgia, and the Journal of Headache and Pain) from 2005 through 2014. We searched articles for trial registration numbers, which were verified in the corresponding trial registry. We categorized trial funding sources as industry, academic, government, or mixed. We contacted corresponding authors to assess reasons for nonregistration. We evaluated whether primary outcomes in trial registries matched those in corresponding publications. RESULTS: The journals published 225 RCTs over the study period. Fifty-eight of 225 (26%) reported a trial registration number in the article that could be linked to a corresponding registry entry. Trial registration rates increased over the 9 years of the study. Forty-six of 118 (39%) of industry-funded studies were registered compared with 27% of academic and 0% of government-funded studies. Only 5% of RCTs were prospectively registered, reported primary outcomes identical to those in the trial registry, and did not report unacknowledged post hoc outcomes. The most common reason for nonregistration was lack of awareness. CONCLUSIONS: Only about a quarter of the articles published in the core headache medicine journals are compliant with trial registration, but compliance has increased over time. Selective reporting of outcomes remains a problem, and very few trials met all 3 reporting standards assessed in this study. Efforts to improve the quality of trial reporting in the headache literature should continue.

Headache Rounds: Sudden, Transient Neurologic Symptoms in a Woman With Migraine.

The following article is a Graham Headache Center headache rounds presentation at the Brigham and Women's Faulkner Hospital by fellows Roni Sharon and Melissa Rayhill with special guest Tobias Kurth. It summarizes the case of a 36-year-old female with no history of migraine in the past, presenting with several transient neurological episodes associated with headache. Her history, symptoms, imaging workup is reviewed. Following the case is a discussion of the differential diagnosis for the patient's symptoms along with a review of the association of migraine with and without aura with vascular neurological insult such as stroke. The article also discusses the clinical implications of migraine as a risk factor for stroke along with possible treatment recommendations.