Spinal muscular atrophy combined with congenital heart disease: a report of two cases

Contains fulltext : 23013___.PDF (publisher's version ) (Open Access

Are psychedelics the answer to chronic pain: A review of current literature.

AIMS: We aim to provide an evidence-based overview of the use of psychedelics in chronic pain, specifically LSD and psilocybin. CONTENT: Chronic pain is a common and complex problem, with an unknown etiology. Psychedelics like lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) and psilocybin, may play a role in the management of chronic pain. Through activation of the serotonin-2A (5-HT2A) receptor, several neurophysiological responses result in the disruption of functional connections in brain regions associated with chronic pain. Healthy reconnections can be made through neuroplastic effects, resulting in sustained pain relief. However, this process is not fully understood, and evidence of efficacy is limited and of low quality. In cancer and palliative related pain, the analgesic potential of psychedelics was established decades ago, and the current literature shows promising results on efficacy and safety in patients with cancer-related psychological distress. In other areas, patients suffering from severe headache disorders like migraine and cluster headache who have self-medicated with psychedelics report both acute and prophylactic efficacy of LSD and psilocybin. Randomized control trials are now being conducted to study the effects in cluster headache Furthermore, psychedelics have a generally favorable safety profile especially when compared to other analgesics like opioids. In addition, psychedelics do not have the addictive potential of opioids. IMPLICATIONS: Given the current epidemic use of opioids, and that patients are in desperate need of an alternative treatment, it is important that further research is conducted on the efficacy of psychedelics in chronic pain conditions

Development and psychometric validation of the headache screening questionnaire - Dutch Version

Contains fulltext : 176988.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access)BACKGROUND: Headache is a common disorder which may lead to substantial socio-economic loss. Treatment options include self-management strategies, medication and physiotherapy. Physiotherapists need to be able to screen for the presence of migraine and tension-type headache (TTH), so they can adjust their treatment strategies to the type of headache. A quick screening questionnaire to recognize migraine and TTH in the physiotherapy practice is needed. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to create a headache screening questionnaire based on the ICHD-3 beta criteria for migraine and TTH, and to establish its content and criterion validity. DESIGN: A cross-sectional design was used during the validation phase of the study. METHODS: A screening questionnaire was developed for migraine and TTH. Content validity was checked by the research group and a headache research expert. For validation of this questionnaire, patients from the headache clinic of the Canisius Wilhelmina Hospital in Nijmegen were recruited. The outcome of the questionnaire was compared to the ICHD-3 beta diagnosis of the headache specialist. For criterion validity, sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios, and positive- and negative predictive values were calculated. RESULTS: A 10-item questionnaire has been developed: the Headache Screening Questionnaire. For validation of the Dutch version (HSQ-DV), 105 patients were included in the study. The sensitivity and specificity were 0.89 and 0.54 respectively for probable migraine, and for probable TTH 0.92 and 0.48 respectively. CONCLUSION: The HSQ-DV is a sensitive screening tool to detect patients with probable migraine and probable TTH

Safety and efficacy of occipital nerve stimulation for attack prevention in medically intractable chronic cluster headache (ICON):a randomised, double-blind, multicentre, phase 3, electrical dose-controlled trial

Item does not contain fulltextBACKGROUND: Occipital nerve stimulation (ONS) has shown promising results in small uncontrolled trials in patients with medically intractable chronic cluster headache (MICCH). We aimed to establish whether ONS could serve as an effective treatment for patients with MICCH. METHODS: The ONS in MICCH (ICON) study is an investigator-initiated, international, multicentre, randomised, double-blind, phase 3, electrical dose-controlled clinical trial. The study took place at four hospitals in the Netherlands, one hospital in Belgium, one in Germany, and one in Hungary. After 12 weeks' baseline observation, patients with MICCH, at least four attacks per week, and history of being non-responsive to at least three standard preventive drugs, were randomly allocated (at a 1:1 ratio using a computer-generated permuted block) to 24 weeks of occipital nerve stimulation at either 100% or 30% of the individually determined range between paraesthesia threshold and near-discomfort (double-blind study phase). Because ONS causes paraesthesia, preventing masked comparison versus placebo, we compared high-intensity versus low-intensity ONS, which are hypothesised to cause similar paraesthesia, but with different efficacy. In weeks 25-48, participants received individually optimised open-label ONS. The primary outcome was the weekly mean attack frequency in weeks 21-24 compared with baseline across all patients and, if a decrease was shown, to show a group-wise difference. The trial is closed to recruitment (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01151631). FINDINGS: Patients were enrolled between Oct 12, 2010, and Dec 3, 2017. We enrolled 150 patients and randomly assigned 131 (87%) to treatment; 65 (50%) patients to 100% ONS and 66 (50%) to 30% ONS. One of the 66 patients assigned to 30% ONS was not implanted and was therefore excluded from the intention-to-treat analysis. Because the weekly mean attack frequencies at baseline were skewed (median 15·75; IQR 9·44 to 24·75) we used log transformation to analyse the data and medians to present the results. Median weekly mean attack frequencies in the total population decreased from baseline to 7·38 (2·50 to 18·50; p<0·0001) in weeks 21-24, a median change of -5·21 (-11·18 to -0·19; p<0·0001) attacks per week. In the 100% ONS stimulation group, mean attack frequency decreased from 17·58 (9·83 to 29·33) at baseline to 9·50 (3·00 to 21·25) at 21-24 weeks (median change from baseline -4·08, -11·92 to -0·25), and for the 30% ONS stimulation group, mean attack frequency decreased from 15·00 (9·25 to 22·33) to 6·75 (1·50 to 16·50; -6·50, -10·83 to -0·08). The difference in median weekly mean attack frequency between groups at the end of the masked phase in weeks 21-24 was -2·42 (95% CI -5·17 to 3·33). In the masked study phase, 129 adverse events occurred with 100% ONS and 95 occurred with 30% ONS. None of the adverse events was unexpected but 17 with 100% ONS and eight with 30% ONS were labelled as serious, given they required brief hospital admission for minor hardware-related issues. The most common adverse events were local pain, impaired wound healing, neck stiffness, and hardware damage. INTERPRETATION: In patients with MICCH, both 100% ONS intensity and 30% ONS intensity substantially reduced attack frequency and were safe and well tolerated. Future research should focus on optimising stimulation protocols and disentangling the underlying mechanism of action. FUNDING: The Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research, the Dutch Ministry of Health, the NutsOhra Foundation from the Dutch Health Insurance Companies, and Medtronic