Background: Many risk factors have been associated with migraine progression, including insufficient and ineffective utilization of migraine medications; however, they have been inadequately explored. This has resulted in suboptimal usage of medications without effective altering of prescribing recommendations for patients, posing a risk for migraine chronification. Methods: Our aim is to conduct a comprehensive review of the available evidence regarding the underuse of migraine medications, both acute and preventive. The term “underuse” includes, but is not limited to: ( 1 ) ineffective use of appropriate and inappropriate medication; ( 2 ) underutilization; ( 3 ) inappropriate timing of usage; and ( 4 ) patient dissatisfaction with medication. Results: The underuse of both acute and preventive medications has been shown to contribute to the progression of migraine. In terms of acute medication, chronification occurs as a result of insufficient drug use, including failure of the prescriber to select the appropriate type based on pain intensity and disability, patients taking medication too late (more than 60 minutes after the onset or after central sensitization has occurred as evidenced by allodynia), and discontinuation because of lack of effect or intolerable side effects. The underlying cause of inadequate effectiveness of acute medication lies in its inability to halt the propagation of peripheral activation to central sensitization in a timely manner. For oral and injectable preventive migraine medications, insufficient efficacy and intolerable side effects have led to poor adherence and discontinuation with subsequent progression of migraine. The underlying pathophysiology here is rooted in the repetitive stimulation of afferent sensory pain fibers, followed by ascending brainstem pain pathways plus dysfunction of the endogenous descending brainstem pain inhibitory pathway. Although anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) medications partially address pain caused by the above factors, including decreased efficacy and tolerability from conventional therapy, some patients do not respond well to this treatment. Research suggests that initiating preventive anti-CGRP treatment at an early stage (during low frequency episodic migraine attacks) is more beneficial than commencing it during high frequency episodic attacks or when chronic migraine has begun. Conclusions: The term “medication underuse” is underrecognized, but it holds significant importance. Optimal usage of acute care and preventive migraine medications could potentially prevent migraine chronification and improve the treatment of migraine attacks.

Background: We report the first case of COVID-19 associated acute necrotizing encephalopathy (ANE) without pulmonary disease in a patient with an extremely high interleukin-6 (IL-6) level and Ran Binding Protein 2 (RANBP2) mutation. Case presentation: A 29-year-old woman recently immunized with inactivated viral vaccine—BBIBP32-CorV (Sinopharm) presented with alteration of consciousness. Her body temperature was 37° Celsius, blood pressure 42/31 mmHg, heart rate 130 bpm, respiratory rate 20 per minute, and oxygen saturation 98%. Respiratory examination was unremarkable. Neurological examination revealed stupor but preserved brainstem reflexes. Non-contrast computerized tomography of the brain showed symmetrical hypodense lesions involving bilateral thalami and cerebellar hemispheres characteristic of ANE. No pulmonary infiltration was found on chest radiograph. SARS-CoV-2 was detected by PCR; whole genome sequencing later confirmed the Delta variant. RANBP2 gene analysis revealed heterozygous Thr585Met mutation. Serum IL-6 was 7390 pg/mL. Urine examination showed pyelonephritis. Her clinical course was complicated by seizure, septic shock, acute kidney injury, and acute hepatic failure. She later developed coma and passed away in 6 days. Conclusions: ANE is caused by cytokine storm leading to necrosis and hemorrhage of the brain. IL-6 was deemed as a prognostic factor and a potential treatment target of ANE in previous studies. RANBP2 missense mutation strongly predisposes this condition by affecting mitochondrial function, viral entry, cytokine signaling, immune response, and blood–brain barrier maintenance. Also, inactivated vaccine has been reported to precipitate massive production of cytokines by antibody dependent enhancement (ADE). The true incidence of COVID-19 associated ANE is not known as were the predictors of its development. We proposed these potential two factors (RANBP2 mutation and ADE) that could participate in the pathogenesis of ANE in COVID-19 apart from SARS-CoV2 infection by itself. Further study is needed to confirm this hypothesis, specifically in the post-vaccination period. Role of RANBP2 mutation and its application in COVID-19 and ANE should be further elaborated.

Background: After the initiation of the COVID-19 vaccination program in Thailand, thousands of patients have experienced unusual focal neurological symptoms. We report 8 patients with focal neurological symptoms after receiving inactivated virus vaccine, CoronaVac. Case series: Patients were aged 24–48 years and 75% were female. Acute onset of focal neurological symptoms occurred within the first 24 h after vaccination in 75% and between 1-7d in 25%. All presented with lateralized sensory deficits, motor deficits, or both, of 2–14 day duration. Migraine headache occurred in half of the patients. Magnetic resonance imaging of the brain during and after the attacks did not demonstrate any abnormalities suggesting ischemic stroke. All patients showed moderately large regions of hypoperfusion and concurrent smaller regions of hyperperfusion on SPECT imaging while symptomatic. None developed permanent deficits or structural brain injury. Discussions: Here, we present a case series of transient focal neurological syndrome following Coronavac vaccination. The characteristic sensory symptoms, history of migraine, female predominant, and abnormal functional brain imaging without structural changes suggest migraine aura as pathophysiology. We propose that pain related to vaccine injection, component of vaccine, such as aluminum, or inflammation related to vaccination might trigger migraine aura in susceptible patients.

The cognitive screening test is a brief cognitive examination that could be easily performed in a clinical setting. However, one of the main drawbacks of this test was that only a paper-based version was available, which restricts the test to be manually administered and graded by medical personnel at the health centers. The main solution to these problems was to develop a potential remote assessment for screening individuals with cognitive impairment. Currently, multiple studies have been adopting artificial intelligence (AI) technology into these tests, evolving the conventional paper-based neurocognitive test into a digitized AI-assisted neurocognitive test. These studies provided credible evidence of the potential of AI-augmented cognitive screening tests to be better and provided the framework for future studies to further improve the implementation of AI technology in the cognitive screening test. The objective of this review article is to discuss different types of AI used in digitized cognitive screening tests and their advantages and disadvantages.

Background: Ischemic stroke is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. One possible predictor is the use of biomarkers especially neurofilament light chain (NFL). Objectives: To explore whether NFL could predict clinical outcome and hemorrhagic transformation in moderate to severe stroke. Design: Single center prospective cohort study. Methods: Fifty-one moderate to severe ischemic stroke patients were recruited. Blood NFL was obtained from patients at admission (First sample) and 24-96 hours later (Second sample). NFL was analyzed with the ultrasensitive single molecule array (Simoa). Later, we calculated incremental rate NFL (IRN) by changes in NFL per day from baseline. We evaluated National Institute of Health stroke scale (NIHSS), modified Rankins score (mRs), and the presence of hemorrhagic transformation (HT). Results: IRN was found to be higher in patients with unfavorable outcome (7.12 vs 24.07, P = .04) as well as Second sample (49.06 vs 71.41, P = .011), while NFL First sample was not significant. IRN had a great correlation with mRS (r = .552, P < .001). Univariate logistic regression model showed OR of IRN and Second sample to be 1.081 (95% CI 1.016-1.149, P = .013) and 1.019 (1.002-1.037, P = .03), respectively. Multiple logistic regression model has shown to be significant. In receiver operating analysis, IRN, Second sample, combined IRN with NIHSS and combined Second sample with NIHSS showed AUC (.744, P = .004; 0.713, P = .01; 0.805, P < .001; 0.803, P < .001, respectively). For HT, First sample and Second sample had significant difference with HT (Z = 2.13, P = .033; Z = 2.487, P = .013, respectively). Conclusion: NFL was found to correlate and predict clinical outcome. In addition, it was found to correlate with HT.

Gepants, a calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor antagonist, is a class of migraine therapeutic options with extensive evidence supporting a favorable efficacy and safety profile. However, as a novel class of medication in Thailand, specific guidelines or recommendations regarding rational drug use are currently unavailable. This could hinder physicians from utilizing the medications for eligible patients and prevent pharmacists from providing information to physicians and patients. In order to develop consensus-based statement recommendations, a modified Delphi approach was employed, which included two rounds of surveys, discussions, and voting. General recommendations were made, as well as specific recommendations of gepants in both acute and preventive treatment roles. Additionally, clinical settings where gepants could be suitable options were identified, along with the recommendations for their use in special populations and relevant precautions. Gepants can serve as both acute and preventive therapy for migraines. They provide an alternative to first-line therapies for patients with limitations to conventional agents, including contraindications or intolerance. Gepants can be utilized as monotherapy or in combination with other treatment approaches. Optimal prescribing practices for eligible patients could ensure that patients receive maximum benefit with minimal risk.