F Dainese

Osmophobia in Migraine and Tension-Type Headache and Its Clinical Features in Patients With Migraine

Intolerance to smell is often reported by migraine patients. This study evaluates osmophobia in connection with the diagnosis of migraine and episodic tension-type headache (ETTH). The characteristics of this symptom are also investigated. We recruited from our Headache Centre 1005 patients (772 female, 233 male; age 37 ± 11 years), of whom 677 were migraine without aura (MoA), 130 migraine with aura (MA) and 198 TTH. Patients with two or more forms of primary headache were excluded. Among migraine patients, 43.9% with MoA and 38.5% with MA reported osmophobia during the attacks; none of the 198 TTH patients suffered this symptom. Most frequently offending odours were scents (63.9%), food (55.2%) and cigarette smoke (54.8%). Osmophobia appears structurally integrated into the migraine history of the patient. It seems to be a peculiar symptom favouring the diagnosis of migraine (MoA and MA) in the differential diagnosis with ETTH.

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.

Osmophobia in primary headaches

This study evaluates osmophobia (defined as an unpleasant perception, during a headache attack, of odours that are non–aversive or even pleasurable outside the attacks) in connection with the diagnosis of primary headaches. We recruited 775 patients from our Headache Centre (566 females, 209 males; age 38±12 years), of whom 477 were migraineurs without aura (MO), 92 with aura (MA), 135 had episodic tension–type headache (ETTH), 44 episodic cluster headache (ECH), 2 chronic paroxysmal hemicrania (CPH) and 25 other primary headaches (OPHs: 12 primary stabbing headaches, 2 primary cough headaches, 3 primary exertional headaches, 2 primary headaches associated with sexual activity, 3 hypnic headaches, 2 primary thunderclap headaches and 1 hemicrania continua). Among them, 43% with MO (205/477), 39% with MA (36/92), and 7% with CH (3/44) reported osmophobia during the attacks; none of the 135 ETTH and 25 OPH patients suffered this symptom. We conclude that osmophobia is a very specific marker to discriminate adequately between migraine (MO and MA) and ETTH; moreover, from this limited series it seems to be a good discriminant also for OPHs, and for CH patients not sharing neurovegetative symptoms with migraine. Therefore, osmophobia should be considered a good candidate as a new criterion for the diagnosis of migraine.

Weight variations in the prophylactic therapy of primary headaches: 6-month follow-up.

We conducted a study on 367 patients (86% female, 14% male; mean age 37±15 years) suffering from migraine with and without aura and chronic tension–type headache to evaluate the incidence of weight gain, an undesirable side effect observed during prophylactic therapy in primary headaches. Patients treated with amitriptyline (20 and 40 mg), pizotifen (1 mg), propranolol (80–160 mg), atenolol (50–100 mg), verapamil (160–240 mg), valproate (600 mg) and gabapentin (900–1200 mg) were evaluated after a period of 3 and 6 months. In particular, 89 patients were assessed (78% female, 22% male) at 6 months, of whom 10 were in treatment with amitriptyline 20 mg, 19 with amitriptyline 40 mg, 7 with pizotifen (1 mg), 13 with propranolol (80–160 mg), 4 with verapamil (160 mg), 10 with valproate (600 mg), 15 with atenolol (50 mg) and 11 with gabapentin (900–1200 mg). The control group consisted of 97 patients with migraine (79% female, 21% male; mean age 35±16 years) without indication for prophylactic therapy. Weight variations ≥1 kg were considered. After 6 months of therapy, the percentage of patients with weight gain was 86% with pizotifen (6/7; mean weight increase 4.4±2.5 kg), 60% with amitriptyline 20 mg (6/10; 3.1±1.6), 47% with amitriptyline 40 mg (9/19; 5.4±2.7), 25% with valproate 600 mg (2/8, 3.0±2.8 kg), 25% with verapamil (1/4, 2.5 kg), 20% with atenolol (3/15, 1.7±0.6 kg), 9% with gabapentin (1/11, 1.5 kg) and 8% with propranolol (1/13; 6 kg). We conclude that propranolol, gabapentin, atenolol, verapamil and valproate affect body weight in a modest percentage of patients at 6 months. A greater mean weight gain at 6 months was found in patients treated with pizotifen, amitriptyline, and, in one patient out of 13, with propranolol.

Spontaneous carotid artery dissection with cluster‐like headache

A case of carotid artery dissection in a 41-year-old-woman is described whose main symptom was cluster-like pain. The case is interesting for its atypical presentation with only two other like cases in the literature, and the site of dissection, localized in the intrapetrous curvature of the carotid artery. The case highlights the need for active co-operation between clinician and neuroradiologist during neuroimaging assessment which must be focused on the clinical evaluation of the individual patient so as to avoid error, particularly in atypical cases.

Ictal headache: Headache as first ictal symptom in focal epilepsy

Headache may be associated with seizures as a preictal, ictal, or postictal phenomenon, but it is often neglected because of the dramatic neurological manifestations of the seizure. Headache can also be the sole or predominant clinical manifestation of epileptic seizures, although this is a relatively rare condition. We describe two cases of focal symptomatic drug-resistant epilepsy with headache as the first ictal symptom. In both cases, the headache, which lasted a few seconds, was contralateral to the ictal discharge and did not have the clinical features of migraine. Ictal headache is a rare epilepsy symptom that can help to localize ictal EEG discharges. Recently, the term ictal epileptic headache has been proposed in cases in which headache is the sole ictal epileptic manifestation Diagnosis requires the simultaneous onset of headache with EEG-demonstrated ictal discharges.

Cluster-like headache secondary to cavernous sinus metastasis

Cluster Headache (CH) is a primary disorder defined by the International Headache Society (IHS) classification (1) as severe, unilateral orbital, supra-orbital, or temporal pain lasting 15–180 min if untreated and associated to signs of dysfunction of the autonomic nervous system such as conjunctival injection, nasal congestion, lacrimation, Horner’s sign, and rhinorrhea. The attack frequency is ranged from one every other day to eight per day. In recent years several cases have been described concerning patients having cluster-like syndromes associated with intracranial pathologies, usually showing atypical manifestations with respect to the above mentioned diagnostic criteria (2). We report the case of a female patient affected by cluster-like headache completely fulfilling IHS diagnostic criteria, at least at presentation, who during the course of the illness presented clinical and neuro-imaging aspects of an organic brain lesion, e.g. a cavernous sinus metastasis.

Headache in the elderly: a clinical study

AbstractAlthough the prevalence of headache in the elderly is relevant, until now few studies have been conducted in patients over the age of 65 years. We analyzed the clinical charts of 4,417 consecutive patients referred to our Headache Centre from 1995 to 2002. There were 282 patients over 65 years of age at the first visit, corresponding to 6.4% of the study population. Primary headaches were diagnosed in 81.6% of the cases, while secondary headaches and non-classifiable headaches represented, respectively, 14.9% and 3.5% of the cases. Among primary headaches, the prevalence was almost the same for migraine without aura (27.8%), transformed migraine (26.1%) and chronic tension- type headache (25.7%). The most frequent secondary headaches were trigeminal neuralgia and headache associated with cervical spine disorder.

Cluster-like headache after surgical crystalline removal and intraocular lens implant: a case report.

Cluster headache (CH) is a well characterized primary headache disorder. Nevertheless, symptomatic CH has been reported in association with various underlying diseases. Symptomatic cluster headache related to ocular pathologies have been rarely described. We report a case consequent to a surgical operation for cataract.

Intermittent angle-closure glaucoma in the presence of a white eye, posing as retinal migraine.

The differential diagnosis between primary and secondary headache may still represent a problematic clinical situation (1–3). Whereas the ‘ de novo ’ onset of headache in a patient surely constitutes a reason for increased attention by the physician, difficulties occur when a new pathology arises in a patient already diagnosed as suffering from a primary form. This represents a risk in disregarding the supervening secondary cause, especially if the secondary headache remains quite similar in its clinical manifestation to the previous primary one. The following case, which recently came to our attention, is significant in this regard.