Botulinum neurotoxin A (BoNT/A) is a toxin produced by the naturally-occurring Clostridium botulinum that causes botulism. The potential of BoNT/A as a useful medical intervention was discovered by scientists developing a vaccine to protect against botulism. They found that, when injected into a muscle, BoNT/A causes a flaccid paralysis. Following this discovery, BoNT/A has been used for many years in the treatment of conditions of pathological muscle hyperactivity, like dystonias and spasticities. In parallel, the toxin has become a “glamour” drug due to its power to ward off facial wrinkles, particularly frontal, due to the activity of the mimic muscles. After the discovery that the drug also appeared to have a preventive effect on headache, scientists spent many efforts to study the potentially-therapeutic action of BoNT/A against pain. BoNT/A is effective at reducing pain in a number of disease states, including cervical dystonia, neuropathic pain, lower back pain, spasticity, myofascial pain and bladder pain. In 2010, regulatory approval for the treatment of chronic migraine with BoNT/A was given, notwithstanding the fact that the mechanism of action is still not completely elucidated. In the present review, we summarize experimental evidence that may help to clarify the mechanisms of action of BoNT/A in relation to the alleviation of headache pain, with particular emphasis on preclinical studies, both in animals and humans. Moreover, we summarize the latest clinical trials that show evidence on headache conditions that may obtain benefits from therapy with BoNT/A.

There are different possible temporal associations between epileptic seizures and headache attacks which have given rise to unclear or controversial terminologies. The classification of the International League Against Epilepsy does not refer to this type of disorder, while the International Classification of Headache Disorders (ICHD-2) defines three kinds of association: (1) migraine-triggered seizure ("migralepsy"), (2) hemicrania epileptica, and (3) post-ictal headache. We performed an extensive review of the literature, not including "post-ictal" and "inter-ictal" headaches. On the basis of well-documented reports, the following clinical entities may be identified: (A) "epileptic headache (EH)" or "ictal epileptic headache (IEH)": in this condition headache (with or without migrainous features) is an epileptic manifestation per se, with onset, and cessation if isolated, coinciding with the scalp or deep EEG pattern of an epileptic seizure. EH maybe followed by other epileptic manifestations (motor/sensory/autonomic); this condition should be differentiated from "pure" or "isolated" EH, in which headache/migraine is the sole epileptic manifestation (requiring differential diagnosis from other headache forms). "Hemicrania epileptica" (if confirmed) is a very rare variant of EH, characterized by ipsilateral location of headache and ictal EEG paroxysms. (B) "Pre-ictal migraine" and "pre-ictal headache": when a headache attack is followed during, or shortly after, by a typical epileptic seizure. The migraine attack may be with or without aura, and its seizure-triggering role ("migraine-triggered seizure") is still a subject of debate. A differentiation from occipital epilepsy is mandatory. The term "migralepsy" has not been used uniformly, and may therefore led to misinterpretation. On the basis of this review we suggest definitions and a terminology which may become the basis of a forthcoming classification of headaches associated with epileptic seizures.

According to Nelson's (1976) criteria, the MCST (MWCST) is a simplification of the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test (WCST). As the MCST is particularly suitable for children, the aim of this study was to establish the normative data presently lacking for that group. The MCST was administered to 1126 normal children aged 4 to 13 years. Scoring was based on all the classical parameters, according to existing criteria, plus two new ones that we propose (“categorizing efficiency” and “categorizing efficiency plus”). Strong correlation (or inverse correlation) with age is found for most parameters, including all criteria used for perseverative responses. This does not occur for “failure to maintain set,” calculated according to the usual criteria. “Categorizing efficiency” and “categorizing efficiency plus” avoid the ceiling effect occurring at higher ages in the parameter categories. The MCST may be used in children 4 years of age and above. Most, but not all, of its parameters show regular improvement with age, demonstrating their validity. However, our data suggest that a participant's performance on the MCST may be based essentially on two parameters: categorizing efficiency (or categorizing efficiency plus), measuring the participant's ability to categorize, and perseverative errors (or percent perseverative errors), measuring his or her difficulty in shifting, both considered typical executive functions.

Background: Some questionnaires have already been elaborated to collect information from parents of children and adolescents, both as preparation for clinical evaluation and for screening and epidemiological studies. Here a new questionnaire, the CABI, is proposed, and it is validated in a population of 8-10 year-old children. Compared to existing questionnaires, the CABI has been organized so as to be of medium length, with items concerning the most significant symptoms indicated by the DSM-IV-TR for the pertinent disorders, and covering a wider range than existing instruments. There is no charge for its use. Methods: The answers of the parents of 302 children in the last 3 years of primary school provided the normative data. A discriminant validation was done for internalizing and externalizing disorders and as a comparison with self-administered anxiety and depression scales. Exploratory factor analysis and internal consistency were also performed. Results: Distribution of scores on the main scales in the normal population shows positive skewness, with the most frequent score being zero. A highly discriminant capability was found in regard to the sample of children with internalizing and externalizing disorders, with high correlation with the self-administered anxiety and depression scales. Conclusion: The CABI appears to be capable, at least for 8-10 year-old children, of effectively discriminating those with pathological symptoms from those without. Compared with the widely- used CBCL, it has the advantages of a lower number of items, which should facilitate parental collaboration especially in epidemiological studies, and of being free of charge.