Burden and attitude to resistant and refractory migraine: a survey from the European Headache Federation with the endorsement of the European Migraine & Headache Alliance

Background: New treatments are currently offering new opportunities and challenges in clinical management and research in the migraine field. There is the need of homogenous criteria to identify candidates for treatment escalation as well as of reliable criteria to identify refractoriness to treatment. To overcome those issues, the European Headache Federation (EHF) issued a Consensus document to propose criteria to approach difficult-to-treat migraine patients in a standardized way. The Consensus proposed well-defined criteria for resistant migraine (i.e., patients who do not respond to some treatment but who have residual therapeutic opportunities) and refractory migraine (i.e., patients who still have debilitating migraine despite maximal treatment efforts). The aim of this study was to better understand the perceived impact of resistant and refractory migraine and the attitude of physicians involved in migraine care toward those conditions. Methods: We conducted a web-questionnaire-based cross-sectional international study involving physicians with interest in headache care. Results: There were 277 questionnaires available for analysis. A relevant proportion of participants reported that patients with resistant and refractory migraine were frequently seen in their clinical practice (49.5% for resistant and 28.9% for refractory migraine); percentages were higher when considering only those working in specialized headache centers (75% and 46% respectively). However, many physicians reported low or moderate confidence in managing resistant (8.1% and 43.3%, respectively) and refractory (20.7% and 48.4%, respectively) migraine patients; confidence in treating resistant and refractory migraine patients was different according to the level of care and to the number of patients visited per week. Patients with resistant and refractory migraine were infrequently referred to more specialized centers (12% and 19%, respectively); also in this case, figures were different according to the level of care. Conclusions: This report highlights the clinical relevance of difficult-to-treat migraine and the presence of unmet needs in this field. There is the need of more evidence regarding the management of those patients and clear guidance referring to the organization of care and available opportunities

Common surgical procedures in pilonidal sinus disease: A meta-analysis, merged data analysis, and comprehensive study on recurrence

Abstract We systematically searched available databases. We reviewed 6,143 studies published from 1833 to 2017. Reports in English, French, German, Italian, and Spanish were considered, as were publications in other languages if definitive treatment and recurrence at specific follow-up times were described in an English abstract. We assessed data in the manner of a meta-analysis of RCTs; further we assessed non-RCTs in the manner of a merged data analysis. In the RCT analysis including 11,730 patients, Limberg & Dufourmentel operations were associated with low recurrence of 0.6% (95%CI 0.3–0.9%) 12 months and 1.8% (95%CI 1.1–2.4%) respectively 24 months postoperatively. Analysing 89,583 patients from RCTs and non-RCTs, the Karydakis & Bascom approaches were associated with recurrence of only 0.2% (95%CI 0.1–0.3%) 12 months and 0.6% (95%CI 0.5–0.8%) 24 months postoperatively. Primary midline closure exhibited long-term recurrence up to 67.9% (95%CI 53.3–82.4%) 240 months post-surgery. For most procedures, only a few RCTs without long term follow up data exist, but substitute data from numerous non-RCTs are available. Recurrence in PSD is highly dependent on surgical procedure and by follow-up time; both must be considered when drawing conclusions regarding the efficacy of a procedure