Post-traumatic headache attributed to traumatic brain injury: classification, clinical characteristics, and treatment.

Post-traumatic headache is a common sequela of traumatic brain injury and is classified as a secondary headache disorder. In the past 10 years, considerable progress has been made to better understand the clinical features of this disorder, generating momentum to identify effective therapies. Post-traumatic headache is increasingly being recognised as a heterogeneous headache disorder, with patients often classified into subphenotypes that might be more responsive to specific therapies. Such considerations are not accounted for in three iterations of diagnostic criteria published by the International Headache Society. The scarcity of evidence-based approaches has left clinicians to choose therapies on the basis of the primary headache phenotype (eg, migraine and tension-type headache) and that are most compatible with the clinical picture. A concerted effort is needed to address these shortcomings and should include large prospective cohort studies as well as randomised controlled trials. This approach, in turn, will result in better disease characterisation and availability of evidence-based treatment options.

A Historical Review of Headaches: Who First Described Them and When did This Occur?

BACKGROUND: Headache is as old as human history and has been able to report, and the first descriptions were found in Greece and Mesopotamia. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to know the date of the first description of ICHD-3 headaches, with their respective author. METHODS: We searched for articles that addressed the historical aspects of primary and secondary headaches and painful cranial neuropathies. RESULTS: Twenty-seven different headaches were analyzed according to the occurrence of their first description, with the respective author and country of origin. CONCLUSIONS: The knowledge of the first description of ICHD-3 headaches, with their respective author, showed us how and when the different headaches appeared over the years.

Severity of Analgesic Dependence and Medication-overuse Headache.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Medication-overuse headache (MOH) is a common chronic headache caused by overuse of headache analgesics. It has similarities with substance dependence disorders. The treatment of choice for MOH is withdrawal of the offending analgesics. Behavioral brief intervention treatment using methods adapted from substance misuse settings is effective. Here we investigate the severity of analgesics dependence in MOH using the Severity of Dependence Scale (SDS), validate the SDS score against formal substance dependence diagnosis based on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th edition (DSM-IV) and examine whether the SDS predicts successful withdrawal. METHODS: Representative recruitment from the general population; 60 MOH patients, 15 chronic headache patients without medication overuse and 25 population controls. Headaches were diagnosed using the International Classification of Headache Disorders, medication use was assessed and substance dependence classified according to the DSM-IV. The SDS was scored by interviewers blinded to patient group. Descriptive statistics were used and validity of the SDS score assessed against a substance dependence diagnosis using ROC analysis. RESULTS: Sixty-two percent of MOH patients overused simple analgesics, 38% centrally acting analgesics (codeine, opiates, triptans). Fifty percent of MOH patients were classified as DSM-IV substance dependent. Centrally active medication and high SDS scores were associated with higher proportions of dependence. ROC analysis showed SDS scores accurately identified dependence (area under curve 88%). Lower SDS scores were associated with successful withdrawal (P = 0.004). CONCLUSIONS: MOH has characteristics of substance dependence which should be taken into account when choosing treatment strategy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Based on data collected in previously reported randomized BIMOH trial (; in the present manuscript, Clinical trials registration number: NCT01314768). The present part, however, represents observational data and is not a treatment trial.

The validation of the Hungarian version of the ID-migraine questionnaire.

BACKGROUND: Despite its high prevalence, migraine remains underdiagnosed and undertreated. ID-Migraine is a short, self-administrated questionnaire, originally developed in English by Lipton et al. and later validated in several languages. Our goal was to validate the Hungarian version of the ID-Migraine Questionnaire. METHODS: Patients visiting two headache specialty services were enrolled. Diagnoses were made by headache specialists according to the ICHD-3beta diagnostic criteria. There were 309 clinically diagnosed migraineurs among the 380 patients. Among the 309 migraineurs, 190 patients had only migraine, and 119 patients had other headache beside migraine, namely: 111 patients had tension type headache, 3 patients had cluster headache, 4 patients had medication overuse headache and one patient had headache associated with sexual activity also. Among the 380 patients, 257 had only a single type headache whereas 123 patients had multiple types of headache. Test-retest reliability of the ID-Migraine Questionnaire was studied in 40 patients. RESULTS: The validity features of the Hungarian version of the ID-Migraine questionnaire were the following: sensitivity 0.95 (95% CI, 0.92-0.97), specificity 0.42 (95% CI, 0.31-0.55), positive predictive value 0.88 (95% CI, 0.84-0.91), negative predictive value 0.65 (95% CI, 0.5-0.78), missclassification error 0.15 (95% CI, 0.12-0.19). The kappa coefficient of the questionnaire was 0.77. CONCLUSION: The Hungarian version of the ID-Migraine Questionnaire had adequate sensitivity, positive predictive value and misclassification error, but a low specificity and somewhat low negative predictive value.

Field testing of the ICHD-3ß and expert opinion criteria for chronic migraine.

BACKGROUND: Chronic headache (CrH) occurs commonly in the population, and chronic migraine (CM) accounts for much of the CrH. Diagnostic criteria for CM remain controversial, and this could lead to undertreatment of CM. The purpose of this study was to analyze the clinical profiles of CM and to field test the International Classification of Headache Disorders-3ß criteria (ICHD-3ß) and Expert Opinion criteria (EO) for CM application. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of CrH patients in our headache clinic during the period. Eligible patients were selected from CrH population based on Silberstein and Lipton criteria (S-L) for CM, and meanwhile fulfilled with migraine days at least 8 days/month. Then we evaluated the characteristics of clinic profiles and outcomes between patients diagnosed CM using ICHD-3ß and EO criteria. Field tested the CM criteria Of ICHD-3ß and EO. RESULTS: In a total of 710 CrH patients , 261 (36.8 %) were recruited with CM based on both S-L criteria and fulfilled at least 8 migraine days/month. Be understandable, all the 261 patients met the EO criteria, and only 185 (70.9 %) met ICHD-3ß for CM. For the 76 patients who met EO but not ICHD-3ß, 70 had atypical migraine attacks (probable migraine, PM), and another 6 had typical migraine attacks but less than a total history of 5 attacks. Although 173 (66.3 %) were concurrent with medication overuse, just one patient overused triptans and none used ergot agents. Clinical features were not significantly different between the ICHD-3ß and EO criteria groups (P > 0.05), and neither were outcomes of prophylaxis (P = 0.966). Total migraine prophylaxis effectiveness was 73 %. CONCLUSION: Migraine-specific analgesics are rarely used in China, permitting patients with PM to avail themselves of "migraine days" is a reasonable accommodation for this difficult condition. In our hands, use of the new EO criteria for diagnosis of CM increases the sensitivity and maintains the specificity of decision making, and therefore should be adopted in CM management practice.

Analysis of risk factors for medication-overuse headache relapse: a clinic-based study in China.

BACKGROUND: Medication overuse headache (MOH) is the third most prevalent headache type after migraine and tension-type headache. A large number of studies on the long-term prognosis have shown that MOH has a high relapse rate after treatment. Although MOH relapse-related risk factors have been reported, no related research has been performed in China. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to analyze and evaluate the risk factors for MOH relapse in China. METHODS: Eighty-six out-patients of Shandong Provincial Hospital who were initially diagnosed with MOH, and who had successful withdrawal treatment within 2 months, were chosen from March 2012 to July 2013. All subjects were followed up by the investigators of this study. Of the 86 subjects, 27 who had relapsed were compared with 59 who had not relapsed (i.e. the controls). Based on a standardized questionnaire, a database was created (with Microsoft Excel 2010). The data, which included 38 indexes, were analyzed by univariate analysis with chi-square test, Fisher's exact test, t-test, or paired rank test. The statistically correlated (P<0.05) variables were chosen as the independent variables, thereby enabling the calculation of the non-conditional multivariate stepwise logistic regression. RESULTS: The independent risk factors for medication-overuse headache relapse were determined as headache frequency before drug withdrawal, duration of primary headache, and headache frequency after drug withdrawal. CONCLUSION: Headache frequency before drug withdrawal, duration of primary headache, and headache frequency after drug withdrawal may be the independent risk factors for MOH relapse in China.

[Classification and therapy of medication-overuse headache: impact of the third edition of the International Classification of Headache Disorders]. / Klassifikation und Therapie des Medikamenten-Übergebrauch-Kopfschmerzes (MÜK) : Auswirkungen der 3. Auflage der internationalen Kopfschmerzklassifikation auf die Praxis.

The diagnosis of medication-overuse headache (MOH) is of central importance because this secondary headache disorder can be treated very effectively and patients do not usually respond to headache prophylaxis as long as MOH persists. The article describes important changes in the diagnostic criteria of different MOH subtypes after publication of the International Classification of Headache Disorders (ICHD-3beta) in 2013. The new classification has a crucial and direct impact on prevention and treatment of MOH. In addition interactions exist with the new criteria of chronic migraine. With a controlled medication intake scheme according to the 10-20 rule and using a medication break, MOH usually remits in most patients. If patient education and advice does not lead to remission of MOH, a specialized managed medication break or withdrawal treatment becomes necessary. This can be done on an outpatient, day clinic or inpatient basis. In uncomplicated cases, the results of these three treatment settings do not differ. From a cost-effectiveness standpoint, the outpatient treatment should be given priority. In complicated cases, a fully inpatient withdrawal treatment using a multimodal treatment concept is significantly superior.

Definitions of medication-overuse headache in population-based studies and their implications on prevalence estimates: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Case definitions of medication-overuse headache (MOH) in population-based research have changed over time. This study aims to review MOH prevalence reports with respect to these changes, and to propose a practical case definition for future studies based on the ICHD-3 beta. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted to identify MOH prevalence studies. Findings were summarized according to diagnostic criteria. RESULTS: Twenty-seven studies were included. The commonly used case definition for MOH was headache ≥15 days/month with concurrent medication overuse ≥3 months. There were varying definitions for what was considered as overuse. Studies that all used ICHD-2 criteria showed a wide range of prevalence among adults: 0.5%-7.2%. CONCLUSIONS: There are limits to comparing prevalence of MOH across studies and over time. The wide range of reported prevalence might not only be due to changing criteria, but also the diversity of countries now publishing data. The criterion "headache occurring on ≥15 days per month" with concurrent medication overuse can be applied in population-based studies. However, the new requirement that a respondent must have "a preexisting headache disorder" has not been previously validated. Exclusion of other headache diagnoses by expert evaluation and ancillary examinations is not feasible in large population-based studies.

[Headache in elderly patients].

Epidemiological studies reveal that the prevalence of primary forms of headache, in particular migraine and headache of tension, decreases with age. At the same time, there is the increase in the percentage of secondary forms of headache associated with brain tumors, temporal arteritis, subdural hematoma. Thus, elderly patients with newly developed or modified headache should be fully examined including neuroimaging. The choice of treatment should take into account concomitant diseases, in particular liver and kidney insufficiency, and possible interactions with other drugs.

Controversy over the classification of medication-overuse headache.

Medication-overuse headache (MOH) is a relatively common and impactful disorder, affecting 1% to 2% of the population, characterized by daily or near-daily headache aggravated by chronic acute medication intake. Primary headache patients do not necessarily develop MOH after acute medication overuse, although a pre-existing primary headache is inevitably present. Likewise, headache patients may deteriorate in terms of frequency without medication overuse, or suffer from chronic headache in the presence of drug abuse without any causal relationship. To classify and define diagnostic criteria for MOH in the absence of objective biomarkers is a difficult task that is presently based on clinical grounds and is limited in part by the relative lack of research in this field. The present criteria are less restrictive but also less precise than the previous versions because they allow the diagnosis without the previously required MOH confirmation after medication withdrawal. MOH should remain as a distinct secondary disorder based on the available clinical and pathophysiological evidence.

Chronic migraine classification: current knowledge and future perspectives.

In the field of so-called chronic daily headache, it is not easy for migraine that worsens progressively until it becomes daily or almost daily to find a precise and universally recognized place within the current international headache classification systems. In line with the 2006 revision of the second edition of the International Classification of Headache Disorders (ICHD-2R), the current prevailing opinion is that this headache type should be named chronic migraine (CM) and be characterized by the presence of at least 15 days of headache per month for at least 3 consecutive months, with headache having the same clinical features of migraine without aura for at least 8 of those 15 days. Based on much evidence, though, a CM with the above characteristics appears to be a heterogeneous entity and the obvious risk is that its definition may be extended to include a variety of different clinical entities. A proposal is advanced to consider CM a subtype of migraine without aura that is characterized by a high frequency of attacks (10-20 days of headache per month for at least 3 months) and is distinct from transformed migraine (TM), which in turn should be included in the classification as a complication of migraine. Therefore, CM should be removed from its current coding position in the ICHD-2 and be replaced by TM, which has more restrictive diagnostic criteria (at least 20 days of headache per month for at least 1 year, with no more than 5 consecutive days free of symptoms; same clinical features of migraine without aura for at least 10 of those 20 days).

Headache.

Headache is one of the most common complaints among patients presenting to an outpatient neurology practice. The evaluation, diagnosis, and treatment of headache can be rather cumbersome and at times quite challenging for even the most seasoned neurologist. Many complex issues that although not causative, can play an exacerbating role in the genesis of headaches. In this article, the authors review some of the essential elements that are part of headache evaluation including headache-specific history, physical examination, warning signs of secondary headache disorders, and when to consider further studies. They then provide a brief review on the diagnosis of primary headache disorders according to the International Headache Society's International Classification of Headache Disorders, 2nd Edition (ICHD-2), and treatment strategies of the more common primary headache disorders with a focus on migraine, trigeminal autonomic cephalalgias, tension-type headache, and chronic daily headache.

Adverse childhood experiences and frequent headaches in adults.

BACKGROUND: A variety of studies have linked childhood maltreatment to headaches, including migraines, and to headache severity. This study assesses the relationship of adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) to frequent headaches during adulthood. METHODS: We used data from the Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) study, which included 17,337 adult members of the Kaiser Health Plan in San Diego, CA who were undergoing a comprehensive preventive medical evaluation. The study assessed 8 ACEs including abuse (emotional, physical, sexual), witnessing domestic violence, growing up with mentally ill, substance abusing, or criminal household members, and parental separation or divorce. Our measure of headaches came from the medical review of systems using the question: "Are you troubled by frequent headaches?" We used the number of ACEs (ACE score) as a measure of cumulative childhood stress and hypothesized a "dose-response" relationship of the ACE score to the prevalence and risk of frequent headaches. RESULTS: Each of the ACEs was associated with an increased prevalence and risk of frequent headaches. As the ACE score increased the prevalence and risk of frequent headaches increased in a "dose-response" fashion. The risk of frequent headaches increased more than 2-fold (odds ratio 2.1, 95% confidence interval 1.8-2.4) in persons with an ACE score ≥5, compared to persons with and ACE score of 0. The dose-response relationship of the ACE score to frequent headaches was seen for both men and women. CONCLUSIONS: The number of ACEs showed a graded relationship to frequent headaches in adults. Future studies should examine general populations with headache, and carefully classify them. A better understanding of the link between ACEs and migraine may lead to new knowledge regarding pathophysiology and enhanced additional therapies for headache patients.

Cluster-like headache. A comprehensive reappraisal.

Among the primary headaches, cluster headache (CH) presents very particular features allowing a relatively easy diagnosis based on criteria listed in Chapter 3 of the International Classification of Headache Disorders (ICHD-II). However, as in all primary headaches, possible underlying causal conditions must be excluded to rule out a secondary cluster-like headache (CLH). The observation of some cases with clinical features mimicking primary CH, but of secondary origin, led us to perform an extended review of CLH reports in the literature. We identified 156 CLH cases published from 1975 to 2008. The more frequent pathologies in association with CLH were the vascular ones (38.5%, n = 57), followed by tumours (25.7%, n = 38) and inflammatory infectious diseases (13.5%, n = 20). Eighty were excluded from further analysis, because of inadequate information. The remaining 76 were divided into two groups: those that satisfied the ICHD-II diagnostic criteria for CH, 'fulfilling' group (F), n = 38; and those with a symptomatology in disagreement with one or more ICHD-II criteria, 'not fulfilling' group (NF), n = 38. Among the aims of this study was the possible identification of clinical features leading to the suspicion of a symptomatic origin. In the differential diagnosis with CH, red flags resulted both for F and NF, older age at onset; for NF, abnormal neurological/general examination (73.6%), duration (34.2%), frequency (15.8%) and localization (10.5%) of the attacks. We stress the fact that, on first observation, 50% of CLH presented as F cases, perfectly mimicking CH. Therefore, the importance of accurate, clinical evaluation and of neuroimaging cannot be overestimated.