1,721,117 research outputs found
Adverse event from drugs commonly employed in the headache attack treatment and prophylaxis: reuslts from a pharmacovigilance survey
No full textIn view of the fact that the expected benefit of headache pharmacological treatment is not a definitive cure, the side effects of the drugs most employed in headache treament assume great importance in clinical practic
How are managed headache sufferers outside from specialized centres? A pharmaco-epidemiology report
No full textHeadache patients employs more often OTCs (41.83%) than patients followed by the headache centre (16.45%). Only 14% of patients observed for the first time made a prophilactic treatment. Headache patients not followed by specialised care centre are often not treated with specif drugs for the headache attack nor with an adequate prophylaxi
Framing education on headache disorders into the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. The European Headache Federation stands ready
No full textFraming education on headache disorders into the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. The European Headache Federation stands ready
Framing education on headache disorders into the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. The European Headache Federation stands ready
Get PDFFraming education on headache disorders into the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. The European Headache Federation stands ready
European headache federation consensus on idiopathic intracranial hypertension
Get PDFBackground: Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension (IIH) is characterized by an elevation of intracranial pressure (ICP no identifiable cause. The aetiology remains largely unknown, however observations made in a number of recent clinical studies are increasing the understanding of the disease and now provide the basis for evidence-based treatment strategies.Methods: The Embase, CDSR, CENTRAL, DARE and MEDLINE databases were searched up to 1st June 2018. We analyzed randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews that investigate IIH.Results: Diagnostic uncertainty, headache morbidity and visual loss are among the highest concerns of clinicians and patients in this disease area. Research in this field is infrequent due to the rarity of the disease and the lack of understanding of the underlying pathology.Conclusions: This European Headache Federation consensus paper provides evidence-based recommendations and practical advice on the investigation and management of IIH
European Headache Federation recommendations for neurologists managing giant cell arteritis.
Get PDFBACKGROUND AND AIM
Giant cell arteritis (GCA) remains a medical emergency because of the risk of sudden irreversible sight loss and rarely stroke along with other complications. Because headache is one of the cardinal symptoms of cranial GCA, neurologists need to be up to date with the advances in investigation and management of this condition. The aim of this document by the European Headache Federation (EHF) is to provide an evidence-based and expert-based recommendations on GCA.
METHODS
The working group identified relevant questions, performed systematic literature review and assessed the quality of available evidence, and wrote recommendations. Where there was not a high level of evidence, the multidisciplinary (neurology, ophthalmology and rheumatology) group recommended best practice based on their clinical experience.
RESULTS
Across Europe, fast track pathways and the utility of advanced imaging techniques are helping to reduce diagnostic delay and uncertainty, with improved clinical outcomes for patients. GCA is treated with high dose glucocorticoids (GC) as a first line agent however long-term GC toxicity is one of the key concerns for clinicians and patients. The first phase 2 and phase 3 randomised controlled trials of Tocilizumab, an IL-6 receptor antagonist, have been published. It is now been approved as the first ever licensed drug to be used in GCA.
CONCLUSION
The present article will outline recent advances made in the diagnosis and management of GCA
Correction to: The role of community pharmacists in managing common headache disorders, and their integration within structured headache services: position statement on behalf of the European Headache Federation (EHF) and Lifting The Burden (LTB: the Global Campaign against Headache), with the formal endorsement of the International Pharmaceutical Federation (The Journal of Headache and Pain, (2025), 26, 1, (100), 10.1186/s10194-025-02021-3)
No full textCorrection: J Headache Pain 26, 100 (2025) In this article, the text “on behalf of the European Headache Federation, the Norwegian Centre for Headache Research (NorHead) and Lifting The Burden: the Global Campaign against Headache” has been removed from the author list because it erroneously duplicated text from the article title
Refractory chronic migraine: a Consensus Statement on clinical definition from the European Headache Federation
Get PDFThe debate on the clinical definition of refractory Chronic Migraine (rCM) is still far to be concluded. The importance to create a clinical framing of these rCM patients resides in the complete disability they show, in the high risk of serious adverse events from acute and preventative drugs and in the uncontrolled application of therapeutic techniques not yet validated.
The European Headache Federation Expert Group on rCM presents hereby the updated definition criteria for this harmful subset of headache disorders. This attempt wants to be the first impulse towards the correct identification of these patients, the correct application of innovative therapeutic techniques and lastly aim to be acknowledged as clinical entity in the next definitive version of the International Classification of Headache Disorders 3 (ICHD-3 beta)
European Headache Federation recommendations for placebo and nocebo terminology
No full textBackground and aim: Despite recent publications, practitioners remain unfamiliar with the current terminology related to the placebo and nocebo phenomena observed in clinical trials and practice, nor with the factors that modulate them. To cover the gap, the European Headache Federation appointed a panel of experts to clarify the terms associated with the use of placebo in clinical trials. Methods: The working group identified relevant questions and agreed upon recommendations. Because no data were required to answer the questions, the GRADE approach was not applicable, and thus only expert opinion was provided according to an amended Delphi method. The initial 12 topics for discussion were revised in the opinion of the majority of the panelists, and after a total of 6 rounds of negotiations, the final agreement is presented. Results/recommendations: Two primary and mechanism-based recommendations are provided for the results of clinical trials: [1] to distinguish the placebo or nocebo response from the placebo or nocebo effect; and [2] for any favorable outcome observed after placebo administration, the term "placebo response"should be used, and for any unfavorable outcome recorded after placebo administration, the term "nocebo response"should be used (12 out of 17 panelists agreed, 70.6% agreement). The placebo or nocebo responses are attributed to a set of factors including those that are related to the medical condition (e.g. natural history, random comorbidities, etc.), along with idiosyncratic ones, in which the placebo or nocebo effects are attributed to idiosyncratic, or nonspecific mechanisms, exclusively (e.g. expectation, conditioning, observational learning etc.). To help investigators and practitioners, the panel summarized a list of environmental factors and idiosyncratic dynamics modulating placebo and nocebo effects. Some of them are modifiable, and investigators or physicians need to know about them in order to modify these factors appropriately to improve treatment. One secondary recommendation addresses the use of the terms "placebo"and "nocebo"("placebos"and "nocebos"in plural), which refer to the triggers of the placebo/nocebo effects or responses, respectively, and which are inert agents or interventions that should not be confused with the placebo/nocebo responses or effects themselves (all panelists agreed, 100% agreement). Conclusion: The working group recommends distinguishing the term response from effect to describe health changes from before to after placebo application and to distinguish the terms placebo(s) or nocebo(s) from the health consequences that they cause (placebo/nocebo responses or effects). © 2020 The Author(s)
1<sup>st</sup> Post-European Headache Federation Meeting:A review of the latest developments presented at the 2020 European Headache Federation Congress
No full textIntroduction. After the European Headache Federation (EHF) Congress, renowned Spanish neurologists specialised in migraine presented the most significant latest developments in research in this field at the Post-EHF Meeting. Development. The main data presented concerning the treatment of chronic and episodic migraine were addressed, with attention paid more specifically to those related to preventive treatments and real-life experience in the management of the disease. An important review was carried out of the new therapeutic targets and the possibilities they offer in terms of understanding the pathophysiology of migraine and its treatment. An update was also presented of the latest developments in the treatment of migraine with fremanezumab, a monoclonal antibody recently authorised by the European Medicines Agency. Participants were also given an update on the latest developments in basic research on the pathology, as well as an overview of the symptoms of migraine and COVID-19. Finally, the repercussions of migraine in terms of its burden on the care and economic resources of the health system were addressed, along with its impact on society. Conclusions. The meeting summarised the content presented at the 14th EHF Congress, which took place in late June/early July 2020.</p
- …
