Cluster headache: an update on clinical features, epidemiology, pathophysiology, diagnosis, and treatment

Cluster headache (CH) is one of the worst primary headaches that remain underdiagnosed and inappropriately treated. There are recent advances in the understanding of this disease and available treatments. This paper aims to review CH's recent clinical and pathophysiological findings, diagnosis, and treatment. We performed a narrative literature review on the socio-demographics, clinical presentations, pathophysiological findings, and diagnosis and treatment of CH. CH affects 0.1% of the population with an incidence of 2.07–9.8/100,00 person-years-habitants, a mean prevalence of 53/100,000 inhabitants (3–150/100,000 inhabitants). The male-to-female ratio remains inconclusive, as the ratio of 4.3:1 has recently been modified to 1.3–2.6, possibly due to previous misdiagnosis in women. Episodic presentation is the most frequent (80%). It is a polygenetic and multifactorial entity that involves dysfunction of the trigeminovascular system, the trigeminal autonomic reflex, and the hypothalamic networks. An MRI of the brain is mandatory to exclude secondary etiologies. There are effective and safe pharmacological treatments oxygen, sphenopalatine, and great occipital nerve block, with the heterogeneity of clinical trial designs for patients with CH divided into acute, transitional, or bridge treatment (prednisone) and preventive interventions. In conclusion, CH remains underdiagnosed, mainly due to a lack of awareness within the medical community, frequently causing a long delay in reaching a final diagnosis. Recent advances in understanding the principal risk factors and underlying pathophysiology exist. There are new therapeutic possibilities that are effective for CH. Indeed, a better understanding of this challenging pathology will continue to be a subject of research, study, and discoveries in its diagnostic and therapeutic approach

Consenso latino-americano para as diretrizes de tratamento da migranea cronica

Chronic migraine is a condition with significant prevalence all around the world and high socioeconomic impact, and its handling has been challenging neurologists. Developments for understanding its mechanisms and associated conditions, as well as that of new therapies, have been quick and important, a fact which has motivated the Latin American and Brazilian Headache Societies to prepare the present consensus. The treatment of chronic migraine should always be preceded by a careful diagnosis review; the detection of possible worsening factors and associated conditions; the stratification of seriousness/impossibility to treat; and monitoring establishment, with a pain diary. The present consensus deals with pharmacological and nonpharmacological forms of treatment to be used in chronic migraine.A migrânea crônica é uma condição com prevalência significativa ao redor do mundo e alto impacto socioeconômico, sendo que seu manuseio tem desafiado os neurologistas. Os avanços na compreensão de seus mecanismos e das condições a ela associadas, bem como nas novas terapêuticas, têm sido rápidos e importantes, fato que motivou as Sociedades Latino-americana e Brasileira de Cefaleia a elaborarem o presente consenso. O tratamento da migrânea crônica deve ser sempre precedido por uma revisão cuidadosa do diagnóstico, pela detecção de possíveis fatores de piora e das condições associadas, pela estratificação de gravidade/impossibilidade de se tratar e pelo monitoramento com um diário da dor. Este consenso apresenta abordagens farmacológicas e não-farmacológicas para tratar a migrânea crônica.Universidad de Santiago de Chile and Sociedad de Neurologia Psiquiatria y NeurocirugiaUniversidad de Costa Rica Hospital San Juan de DiosUniversidade Federal de Minas Gerais Hospital das ClinicasUniversidade Jose do Rosario VellanoUniversidade de São Paulo Faculdade de Medicina Barao de Maua Faculdade de Medicina de Ribeirao PretoUniversidad Nacional de CordobaBrazilian and International Headache Societies Academia Brasileira de NeurologiaCentro Universitario de Volta Redonda Universidade Federal Fluminense (UFF)Universidad de la Republica Hospital Maciel Facultad de MedicinaUniversidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP) Escola Paulista de Medicina Sector of Investigation and Treatment of Headaches at Clinical Neurology in the Neurology DisciplineUniversidade Federal do Rio Grande do NorteUniversidade Federal do ParanaUFF Associacao Latino-Americana de CefaleiaUniversidade Estadual de Campinas Faculdade de Medicina de CatanduvaUSP Faculdade de Medicina de Ribeirao PretoUniversidade Federal de Ciencias da Saude de Porto Alegre Academia Brasileira de NeurologiaUniversidade de La SabanaUSP Faculdade de MedicinaHospital Perez CarrenoUFFUniversidad Mayor de San AndresUniversidad Central de Venezuela Hospital Vargas de CaracasUniversidade de Santo Amaro Escola Paulista de Medicina da UNIFESPUniversidad de GuadalajaraUNIFESP Universidade Federal de Santa CatarinaUSP Faculdade de Medicina de Ribeirao Preto Centro Educacional Barao de MauaUniversidade Federal de PernambucoUniversidad Mayor de San Andres Hospital das ClinicasAcademia Mexicana de Neurologia Hospital Especialidades Centro Medico La RazaSociedad NeurologicaHospital Israelita Albert Einstein UNIFESPUniversidad de ConcepcionUniversidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro Hospital Universitario Clementino Fraga Filho Faculdade de MedicinaUniversity of TrondheimASS Colombiana de Neurologia AHSUniversidad de Buenos AiresUniversidad Central de Venezuela Hospital VargasUniversidad Diego PortalesUniversidad de SantiagoInstituto de NeurologiaUFF Medicine SchoolUNIFESP, EPM, Sector of Investigation and Treatment of Headaches at Clinical Neurology in the Neurology DisciplineUniversidade de Santo Amaro Escola Paulista de Medicina da UNIFESP, Universidade Federal de Santa CatarinaHospital Israelita Albert Einstein UNIFESPSciEL

Latin American consensus on guidelines for chronic migraine treatment

Chronic migraine is a condition with significant prevalence all around the world and high socioeconomic impact, and its handling has been challenging neurologists. Developments for understanding its mechanisms and associated conditions, as well as that of new therapies, have been quick and important, a fact which has motivated the Latin American and Brazilian Headache Societies to prepare the present consensus. The treatment of chronic migraine should always be preceded by a careful diagnosis review; the detection of possible worsening factors and associated conditions; the stratification of seriousness/impossibility to treat; and monitoring establishment, with a pain diary. The present consensus deals with pharmacological and nonpharmacological forms of treatment to be used in chronic migraine

Consenso latino-americano para as diretrizes de tratamento da migranea cronica

Chronic migraine is a condition with significant prevalence all around the world and high socioeconomic impact, and its handling has been challenging neurologists. Developments for understanding its mechanisms and associated conditions, as well as that of new therapies, have been quick and important, a fact which has motivated the Latin American and Brazilian Headache Societies to prepare the present consensus. The treatment of chronic migraine should always be preceded by a careful diagnosis review; the detection of possible worsening factors and associated conditions; the stratification of seriousness/impossibility to treat; and monitoring establishment, with a pain diary. The present consensus deals with pharmacological and nonpharmacological forms of treatment to be used in chronic migraine.A migrânea crônica é uma condição com prevalência significativa ao redor do mundo e alto impacto socioeconômico, sendo que seu manuseio tem desafiado os neurologistas. Os avanços na compreensão de seus mecanismos e das condições a ela associadas, bem como nas novas terapêuticas, têm sido rápidos e importantes, fato que motivou as Sociedades Latino-americana e Brasileira de Cefaleia a elaborarem o presente consenso. O tratamento da migrânea crônica deve ser sempre precedido por uma revisão cuidadosa do diagnóstico, pela detecção de possíveis fatores de piora e das condições associadas, pela estratificação de gravidade/impossibilidade de se tratar e pelo monitoramento com um diário da dor. Este consenso apresenta abordagens farmacológicas e não-farmacológicas para tratar a migrânea crônica.47848

Retrotransposons Are the Major Contributors to the Expansion of the Drosophila ananassae Muller F Element

The discordance between genome size and the complexity of eukaryotes can partly be attributed to differences in repeat density. The Muller F element (∼5.2 Mb) is the smallest chromosome in Drosophila melanogaster, but it is substantially larger (>18.7 Mb) in D. ananassae. To identify the major contributors to the expansion of the F element and to assess their impact, we improved the genome sequence and annotated the genes in a 1.4-Mb region of the D. ananassae F element, and a 1.7-Mb region from the D element for comparison. We find that transposons (particularly LTR and LINE retrotransposons) are major contributors to this expansion (78.6%), while Wolbachia sequences integrated into the D. ananassae genome are minor contributors (0.02%). Both D. melanogaster and D. ananassae F-element genes exhibit distinct characteristics compared to D-element genes (e.g., larger coding spans, larger introns, more coding exons, and lower codon bias), but these differences are exaggerated in D. ananassae. Compared to D. melanogaster, the codon bias observed in D. ananassae F-element genes can primarily be attributed to mutational biases instead of selection. The 5′ ends of F-element genes in both species are enriched in dimethylation of lysine 4 on histone 3 (H3K4me2), while the coding spans are enriched in H3K9me2. Despite differences in repeat density and gene characteristics, D. ananassae F-element genes show a similar range of expression levels compared to genes in euchromatic domains. This study improves our understanding of how transposons can affect genome size and how genes can function within highly repetitive domains

Global variation in postoperative mortality and complications after cancer surgery: a multicentre, prospective cohort study in 82 countries

© 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 licenseBackground: 80% of individuals with cancer will require a surgical procedure, yet little comparative data exist on early outcomes in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). We compared postoperative outcomes in breast, colorectal, and gastric cancer surgery in hospitals worldwide, focusing on the effect of disease stage and complications on postoperative mortality. Methods: This was a multicentre, international prospective cohort study of consecutive adult patients undergoing surgery for primary breast, colorectal, or gastric cancer requiring a skin incision done under general or neuraxial anaesthesia. The primary outcome was death or major complication within 30 days of surgery. Multilevel logistic regression determined relationships within three-level nested models of patients within hospitals and countries. Hospital-level infrastructure effects were explored with three-way mediation analyses. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03471494. Findings: Between April 1, 2018, and Jan 31, 2019, we enrolled 15 958 patients from 428 hospitals in 82 countries (high income 9106 patients, 31 countries; upper-middle income 2721 patients, 23 countries; or lower-middle income 4131 patients, 28 countries). Patients in LMICs presented with more advanced disease compared with patients in high-income countries. 30-day mortality was higher for gastric cancer in low-income or lower-middle-income countries (adjusted odds ratio 3·72, 95% CI 1·70–8·16) and for colorectal cancer in low-income or lower-middle-income countries (4·59, 2·39–8·80) and upper-middle-income countries (2·06, 1·11–3·83). No difference in 30-day mortality was seen in breast cancer. The proportion of patients who died after a major complication was greatest in low-income or lower-middle-income countries (6·15, 3·26–11·59) and upper-middle-income countries (3·89, 2·08–7·29). Postoperative death after complications was partly explained by patient factors (60%) and partly by hospital or country (40%). The absence of consistently available postoperative care facilities was associated with seven to 10 more deaths per 100 major complications in LMICs. Cancer stage alone explained little of the early variation in mortality or postoperative complications. Interpretation: Higher levels of mortality after cancer surgery in LMICs was not fully explained by later presentation of disease. The capacity to rescue patients from surgical complications is a tangible opportunity for meaningful intervention. Early death after cancer surgery might be reduced by policies focusing on strengthening perioperative care systems to detect and intervene in common complications. Funding: National Institute for Health Research Global Health Research Unit

Effects of hospital facilities on patient outcomes after cancer surgery: an international, prospective, observational study

© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 licenseBackground: Early death after cancer surgery is higher in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) compared with in high-income countries, yet the impact of facility characteristics on early postoperative outcomes is unknown. The aim of this study was to examine the association between hospital infrastructure, resource availability, and processes on early outcomes after cancer surgery worldwide. Methods: A multimethods analysis was performed as part of the GlobalSurg 3 study—a multicentre, international, prospective cohort study of patients who had surgery for breast, colorectal, or gastric cancer. The primary outcomes were 30-day mortality and 30-day major complication rates. Potentially beneficial hospital facilities were identified by variable selection to select those associated with 30-day mortality. Adjusted outcomes were determined using generalised estimating equations to account for patient characteristics and country-income group, with population stratification by hospital. Findings: Between April 1, 2018, and April 23, 2019, facility-level data were collected for 9685 patients across 238 hospitals in 66 countries (91 hospitals in 20 high-income countries; 57 hospitals in 19 upper-middle-income countries; and 90 hospitals in 27 low-income to lower-middle-income countries). The availability of five hospital facilities was inversely associated with mortality: ultrasound, CT scanner, critical care unit, opioid analgesia, and oncologist. After adjustment for case-mix and country income group, hospitals with three or fewer of these facilities (62 hospitals, 1294 patients) had higher mortality compared with those with four or five (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 3·85 [95% CI 2·58–5·75]; p<0·0001), with excess mortality predominantly explained by a limited capacity to rescue following the development of major complications (63·0% vs 82·7%; OR 0·35 [0·23–0·53]; p<0·0001). Across LMICs, improvements in hospital facilities would prevent one to three deaths for every 100 patients undergoing surgery for cancer. Interpretation: Hospitals with higher levels of infrastructure and resources have better outcomes after cancer surgery, independent of country income. Without urgent strengthening of hospital infrastructure and resources, the reductions in cancer-associated mortality associated with improved access will not be realised. Funding: National Institute for Health and Care Research