Neuropsychiatric side-effects of lidocaine: examples from the treatment of headache and a review

Lidocaine has been used in treatment of patients with refractory headache. Personal observations of neuropsychiatric toxicity in these patients led us to review our cases and the literature systematically for lidocaine side-effects, especially neuropsychiatric symptoms. In our series of 20 patients, side-effects were observed in all, the most frequent being neuropsychiatric (75%) and cardiological (50%). When reviewing published series on intravenous lidocaine use, reports of side-effects range from 0 to 100%, with neuropsychiatric symptoms being reported in 1.8–100%. Thirty-six case reports of lidocaine-induced psychiatric symptoms were also analysed. Psychiatric symptoms of toxicity were similar in most patients, despite their differing ages, pathologies, co-therapies and lidocaine dosages. In conclusion, lidocaine neuropsychiatric toxicity has a well-recognized stereotypical clinical presentation that is probably unrecognized in headache series. As lidocaine represents an emerging alternative therapy in headache, particularly in short-lasting unilateral neuralgiform headache attacks with conjunctival injection and tearing, clinicians and patients should be aware of the extent of this problem.     

Headache Gauge: a real-life calendar-based tool for headache monitoring

Neurological Sciences - This study aimed to validate a semi-quantitative composite score tool, “Headache Gauge” (HG), to monitor the treatment effect in primary headaches in everyday...     

Secondary “hypnic headache-

Abstract Hypnic headache is a rare form of primary headache with attacks occurring exclusively with sleep. As it is typical of the elderly, a wide range of alternative diagnosis must be considered. We present a case report of a 54-year-old woman with unsuspected secondary hypnic headache that was relieved by anti-hypertensive therapy. We reviewed the literature to evaluate the usual diagnostic workup performed in hypnic headache patients. We suggest that 24 h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring may be included in the evaluation of nocturnal headache complaints especially in the elderly, in whom essential hypertension is a very frequent comorbidity.     

Post-angiography headaches

Headache is a common symptom after cerebral angiography, although it has seldom been studied. We aimed to evaluate the frequency of headache at 24 h and 6 months after angiography and to describe its characteristics. We used a cross-sectional survey of consecutive patients submitted to angiography and determined headache presence and its characterization. Headache occurrence was analyzed against headache history, clinical data, technical and demographical variables. Of 107 procedures studied, 51.3% patients experienced headaches within 24 h. Patients more likely to experience headaches were females or had subarachnoid hemorrhage. Six months post-procedure 48.8% of patients had frequent headaches. These patients had a positive headache history before the procedure, migraine in particular. Half of patients undergoing routine angiography experience benign post-procedure headaches within 24 h (especially women), yet it does not seem to predispose to chronic long-term headaches.     

Headache service quality evaluation: implementation of quality indicators in primary care in Europe

BackgroundLifting The Burden (LTB) and European Headache Federation (EHF) have developed a set of headache service quality indicators, successfully tested in specialist headache centres. Their intended application includes all levels of care. Here we assess their implementation in primary care.MethodsWe included 28 primary-care clinics in Germany (4), Turkey (4), Latvia (5) and Portugal (15). To implement the indicators, we interviewed 111 doctors, 92 nurses and medical assistants, 70 secretaries, 27 service managers and 493 patients, using the questionnaires developed by LTB and EHF. In addition, we evaluated 675 patients’ records. Enquiries were in nine domains: diagnosis, individualized management, referral pathways, patient education and reassurance, convenience and comfort, patient satisfaction, equity and efficiency of headache care, outcome assessment and safety.ResultsThe principal finding was that Implementation proved feasible and practical in primary care. In the process, we identified significant quality deficits. Almost everywhere, histories of headache, especially temporal profiles, were captured and/or assessed inaccurately. A substantial proportion (20%) of patients received non-specific ICD codes such as R51 (“headache”) rather than specific headache diagnoses. Headache-related disability and quality of life were not part of routine clinical enquiry. Headache diaries and calendars were not in use. Waiting times were long (e.g., about 60 min in Germany). Nevertheless, most patients (> 85%) expressed satisfaction with their care. Almost all the participating clinics provided equitable and easy access to treatment, and follow-up for most headache patients, without unnecessary barriers.ConclusionsThe study demonstrated that headache service quality indicators can be used in primary care, proving both practical and fit for purpose. It also uncovered quality deficits leading to suboptimal treatment, often due to a lack of knowledge among the general practitioners. There were failures of process also. These findings signal the need for additional training in headache diagnosis and management in primary care, where most headache patients are necessarily treated. More generally, they underline the importance of headache service quality evaluation in primary care, not only to identify-quality failings but also to guide improvements.This study also demonstrated that patients’ satisfaction is not, on its own, a good indicator of service quality.Supplementary InformationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s10194-021-01236-4.     

Headaches associated with refractive errors: myth or reality?

INTRODUCTION: Headache and refractive errors are very common conditions in the general population, and those with headache often attribute their pain to a visual problem. The International Headache Society (IHS) criteria for the classification of headache includes an entity of headache associated with refractive errors (HARE), but indicates that its importance is widely overestimated. OBJECTIVES: To compare overall headache frequency and HARE frequency in healthy subjects with uncorrected or miscorrected refractive errors and a control group. METHODS: We interviewed 105 individuals with uncorrected refractive errors and a control group of 71 subjects (with properly corrected or without refractive errors) regarding their headache history. We compared the occurrence of headache and its diagnosis in both groups and assessed its relation to their habits of visual effort and type of refractive errors. RESULTS: Headache frequency was similar in both subjects and controls. Headache associated with refractive errors was the only headache type significantly more common in subjects with refractive errors than in controls (6.7% versus 0%). It was associated with hyperopia and was unrelated to visual effort or to the severity of visual error. With adequate correction, 72.5% of the subjects with headache and refractive error reported improvement in their headaches, and 38% had complete remission of headache. Regardless of the type of headache present, headache frequency was significantly reduced in these subjects (t = 2.34, P =.02). CONCLUSIONS: Headache associated with refractive errors was rarely identified in individuals with refractive errors. In those with chronic headache, proper correction of refractive errors significantly improved headache complaints and did so primarily by decreasing the frequency of headache episodes.