Chronic migraine poses a significant personal, social and economic burden and is characterized by headache present on 15 or more days per month for at least three months, with at least eight days of migrainous headache per month. It is frequently associated with analgesic or acute migraine medication overuse and this should not be overlooked. The present consensus was elaborated upon by a group of members of the Brazilian Headache Society in order to describe current evidence and to provide recommendations related to chronic migraine pharmacological and nonpharmacological treatment. Withdrawal strategies in medication overuse headache are also described, as well as treatment risks during pregnancy and breastfeeding. Oral topiramate and onabotulinum toxin A injections are the only treatments granted Class A recommendation, while valproate, gabapentin, and tizanidine received Class B recommendation, along with acupuncture, biofeedback, and mindfulness. The anti-CGRP or anti-CGRPr monoclonal antibodies, still unavailable in Brazil, are promising new drugs already approved elsewhere for migraine prophylactic treatment, the efficacy of which in chronic migraine is still to be definitively proven.

The Brazilian Headache Society (Sociedade Brasileira de Cefaleia, SBCe, in Portuguese) nominated a Committee of Authors with the aim of establishing a consensus with recommendations regarding prophylactic treatment for episodic migraine based on articles published in the worldwide literature, as well as personal experience. Migraine affects 1 billion people around the world and more than 30 million Brazilians. In addition, it is an underdiagnosed and undertreated disorder. It is well known within the medical community of neurologists, and especially among headache specialists, that there is a need to disseminate knowledge about prophylactic treatment for migraine. For this purpose, together with the need for drug updates and to expand knowledge of the disease itself (frequency, intensity, duration, impact and perhaps the progression of migraine), this Consensus was developed, following a full online methodology, by 12 groups who reviewed and wrote about the pharmacological categories of the drugs used and, at the end of the process, met to read and establish conclusions for this document. The drug classes studied were: anticonvulsants, tricyclic antidepressants, monoclonal anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide (anti-CGRP) antibodies, beta-blockers, antihypertensives, calcium channel inhibitors, other antidepressants (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, SSRIs, and dual-action antidepressants), other drugs, and polytherapy. Hormonal treatment and anti-inflammatories and triptans in minimum prophylaxis schemes (miniprophylaxis) will be covered in a specific chapter. The drug classes studied for part I of the Consensus were: anticonvulsants, tricyclic antidepressants, monoclonal anti-CGRP antibodies, and beta-blockers.

Background Migraine affects 1 billion people worldwide and > 30 million Brazilians; besides, it is an underdiagnosed and undertreated disorder.Objective The need to disseminate knowledge about the prophylactic treatment of migraine is known, so the Brazilian Headache Society (SBCe, in the Portuguese acronym) appointed a committee of authors with the objective of establishing a consensus with recommendations on the prophylactic treatment of episodic migraine based on articles from the world literature as well as from personal experience.Methods Meetings were held entirely online, with the participation of 12 groups that reviewed and wrote about the pharmacological categories of drugs and, at the end, met to read and finish the document. The drug classes studied in part II of this Consensus were: antihypertensives, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, calcium channel blockers, other drugs, and rational polytherapy.Results From this list of drugs, only candesartan has been established as effective in controlling episodic migraine. Flunarizine, venlafaxine, duloxetine, and pizotifen were defined as likely to be effective, while lisinopril, enalapril, escitalopram, fluvoxamine, quetiapine, atorvastatin, simvastatin, cyproheptadine, and melatonin were possibly effective in prophylaxis of the disease.Conclusions Despite an effort by the scientific community to find really effective drugs in the treatment of migraine, given the large number of drugs tested for this purpose, we still have few therapeutic options.

Background: Migraine is one of the most common disorders in neurological clinical practice and is part of the group of primary headaches. It often affects individuals in the age group of 25-55 years, when people are at their peak of economic productivity. Many patients ultimately overuse analgesics. Overuse is defined by the use of analgesics for at least 15 times a month - within a minimal three-month period. Impulsivity and migraine cause losses in the lives of individuals suffering from them, as they can compromise these individuals’ social, emotional, and professional spheres. Regarding the professional sphere, it results in economic losses compared with the overall population. Objective: To investigate the presence of impulsive behavior in patients with migraine and with medication-overuse migraine. Methods: Cross-sectional study on 210 female and male patients; 140 were diagnosed with migraine according to criteria of the International Classification of Headache Disorders and were subdivided into two groups (70 patients each). One of these groups was composed of medication-overuse patients; the control group was composed of non-migraine patients (70 patients). All patients were evaluated with the Barratt Impulsivity Scale (BIS-11). Results: The group of migraine patients accounted for the highest impulsivity level, followed by the control group and, finally, by the medication-overuse group. However, these differences did not attain statistical significance. Conclusions: It was not possible to establish a clear connection between migraine and impulsive behavior. Association was higher among migraineurs without medication overuse.

Resumo Introdução Idosos institucionalizados possuem maiores riscos para a prescrição de cinco ou mais medicamentos, ou polifarmácia, e, por consequência, de eventos adversos, por apresentarem problemas de saúde limitantes, fragilidade e baixa funcionalidade. Esse risco é ainda maior quanto maior o declínio cognitivo. Objetivo Determinar a prevalência de declínio cognitivo (DC) e a relação com o uso de medicamentos em idosos institucionalizados. Método Estudo transversal descritivo realizado por análise de prontuários dos idosos institucionalizados portadores ou não de DC, conforme resultados de testes validados. Foram levantados os medicamentos utilizados e os medicamentos potencialmente inadequados (MPI) por meio dos Critérios de Beers (2015). Resultados Foram avaliados 88 idosos, com idade média de 77,6 (9,2) anos. A prevalência de DC foi de 75%, sendo maior no sexo feminino (82,5%, p = 0,01) e em idosos acima de 80 anos (85%, p = 0,04). Antieméticos e inibidores de bomba de prótons foram significativamente mais utilizados nos idosos com DC. A prevalência de polifarmácia foi de 69,3%, e 71 idosos (80,68%) utilizavam pelo menos um MPI, com maior prevalência do uso de MPI na faixa etária de 60 a 79 anos (p = 0,004). Os idosos que utilizavam pelo menos um MPI também usavam maior número de medicamentos (p = 0,014). Conclusão A presença de DC teve relação com a maior utilização de antieméticos e inibidores de bomba de prótons, mas não com o maior uso de MPI. Além disso, foi observada elevada prevalência de polifarmácia e MPI em prescrições dos idosos institucionalizados.

Background: Delirium subsyndrome (SSD) and delirium (DL) are known complications in the intensive care unit (ICU) and are associated with worse clinical outcomes. The aim of this study was to screen for SSD and DL in individuals with COVID-19 admitted to the ICU and to study the associated factors and clinical outcomes. Method: An observational, longitudinal study was conducted in the reference ICU for COVID-19. All admitted individuals with COVID-19 were screened for SSD and DL during their ICU stay using the Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist (ICDSC). Individuals with SSD and/or DL were compared to those without SSD and/or DL. Results: Ninety-three patients were evaluated, of which 46.7% had SSD and/or DL. The incidence rate was 4.17 cases/100 person-days. Individuals with SSD and/or DL had higher severity of illness on admission to the ICU, as measured by the APACHE II score (median 16 versus 8 points, p < 0.001). SSD and/or DL were associated with longer ICU and hospital stays (median 19 versus 6 days, p < 0.001 and median 22 versus 7 days, p < 0.001, respectively). Conclusion: Individuals with SSD and/or DL had greater disease severity and longer ICU and hospital stays when compared to those without SSD and/or DL. This reinforces the importance of screening for consciousness disorders in the ICU.