Related Articles

Headache is the most common somatic complaint in children and adolescents. The evaluation should include detailed history of children and adolescents completed by detailed general and neurological examinations. Moreover, the possible role of psychological factors, life events and excessively stressful lifestyle in influencing recurrent headache need to be checked. The choice of laboratory tests rests on the differential diagnosis suggested by the history, the character and temporal pattern of the headache, and the physical and neurological examinations. Subjects who have any signs or symptoms of focal/progressive neurological disturbances should be investigated by neuroimaging techniques. The electroencephalogram and other neurophysiological examinations are of limited value in the routine evaluation of headaches. In a primary headache disorder, headache itself is the illness and headache is not attributed to any other disorder (e.g. migraine, tension-type headache, cluster headache and other trigeminal autonomic cephalgias). In secondary headache disorders, headache is the symptom of identifiable structural, metabolic or other abnormality. Red flags include the first or worst headache ever in the life, recent headache onset, increasing severity or frequency, occipital location, awakening from sleep because of headache, headache occurring exclusively in the morning associated with severe vomiting and headache associated with straining. Thus, the differential diagnosis between primary and secondary headaches rests mainly on clinical criteria. A thorough evaluation of headache in children and adolescents is necessary to make the correct diagnosis and initiate treatment, bearing in mind that children with headache are more likely to experience psychosocial adversity and to grow up with an excess of both headache and other physical and psychiatric symptoms and this creates an important healthcare problem for their future life.

Methods: All children presenting to a specialist headache clinic over seven years with headache as their main complaint were assessed by clinical history, physical and neurological examination, neuroimaging where indicated, and by follow up using prospective headache diaries. Results: A total of 815 children and adolescents (1.25–18.75 years of age, mean 10.8 years (SD 2.9); 432 male) were assessed. Mean duration of headache was 21.2 months (SD 21.2). Neuroimaging (brain CT or MRI) was carried out on 142 (17.5%) children. The vast majority of patients had idiopathic headache (migraine, tension, or unclassified headaches). Fifty one children (6.3%) had other chronic neurological disorders that were unrelated to the headache. The headache in three children (0.37%, 95% CI 0.08% to 1.1%) was related to active intracranial pathology which was predictable on clinical findings in two children but was unexpected until a later stage in one child (0.12%, 95% CI 0.006% to 0.68%).

Conclusions: Chronic headache in childhood is rarely due to serious intracranial pathology. Careful history and thorough clinical examination will identify most patients with serious underlying brain abnormalities. Change in headache symptomatology or personality change should lower the threshold for imaging.

The management of patients with headaches is a major component of every paediatric practice. In a nationally representative sample of Canadian adolescents, it was found that 26.6% of those 12 to 13 years of age and 31.2% of those 14 to 15 years of age reported that they experienced headaches at least once per week.

The diagnosis of headaches in children and adolescents is established through a headache history in the vast majority of patients. Specific questions can identify those at most risk for headaches secondary to underlying pathology. Similarly, the examination should be tailored to identify those who require further investigation. Investigations are not routinely indicated for paediatric headache, but neuroimaging should be considered in children whose headaches do not meet the criteria for one of the primary headache syndromes and in those with an abnormal neurological examination.

The optimal treatment of primary headaches should begin with nonpharmacological methods. Preventive pharmacological therapy should be considered when headaches significantly impair the patient’s quality of life. Flunarizine may be valuable in paediatric headache prevention, and ibuprofen, acetaminophen and nasal sumatriptan may be effective in the acute management of headaches.

Executive Summary

Objective

The objectives of this evidence based review are:

i) To determine the effectiveness of computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans in the evaluation of persons with a chronic headache and a normal neurological examination.

ii) To determine the comparative effectiveness of CT and MRI scans for detecting significant intracranial abnormalities in persons with chronic headache and a normal neurological exam.

iii) To determine the budget impact of CT and MRI scans for persons with a chronic headache and a normal neurological exam.

Clinical Need: Condition and Target Population

Headaches disorders are generally classified as either primary or secondary with further sub-classifications into specific headache types. Primary headaches are those not caused by a disease or medical condition and include i) tension-type headache, ii) migraine, iii) cluster headache and, iv) other primary headaches, such as hemicrania continua and new daily persistent headache. Secondary headaches include those headaches caused by an underlying medical condition. While primary headaches disorders are far more frequent than secondary headache disorders, there is an urge to carry out neuroimaging studies (CT and/or MRI scans) out of fear of missing uncommon secondary causes and often to relieve patient anxiety.

Tension type headaches are the most common primary headache disorder and migraines are the most common severe primary headache disorder. Cluster headaches are a type of trigeminal autonomic cephalalgia and are less common than migraines and tension type headaches. Chronic headaches are defined as headaches present for at least 3 months and lasting greater than or equal to 15 days per month. The International Classification of Headache Disorders states that for most secondary headaches the characteristics of the headache are poorly described in the literature and for those headache disorders where it is well described there are few diagnostically important features.

The global prevalence of headache in general in the adult population is estimated at 46%, for tension-type headache it is 42% and 11% for migraine headache. The estimated prevalence of cluster headaches is 0.1% or 1 in 1000 persons. The prevalence of chronic daily headache is estimated at 3%.

Neuroimaging

Computed Tomography

Computed tomography (CT) is a medical imaging technique used to aid diagnosis and to guide interventional and therapeutic procedures. It allows rapid acquisition of high-resolution three-dimensional images, providing radiologists and other physicians with cross-sectional views of a person’s anatomy. CT scanning poses risk of radiation exposure. The radiation exposure from a conventional CT scanner may emit effective doses of 2-4mSv for a typical head CT.

Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is a medical imaging technique used to aid diagnosis but unlike CT it does not use ionizing radiation. Instead, it uses a strong magnetic field to image a person’s anatomy. Compared to CT, MRI can provide increased contrast between the soft tissues of the body. Because of the persistent magnetic field, extra care is required in the magnetic resonance environment to ensure that injury or harm does not come to any personnel while in the environment.

Research Questions

What is the effectiveness of CT and MRI scanning in the evaluation of persons with a chronic headache and a normal neurological examination?

What is the comparative effectiveness of CT and MRI scanning for detecting significant intracranial abnormality in persons with chronic headache and a normal neurological exam?

What is the budget impact of CT and MRI scans for persons with a chronic headache and a normal neurological exam.

Research Methods

Literature Search

Search Strategy

A literature search was performed on February 18, 2010 using OVID MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, EMBASE, the Cumulative Index to Nursing & Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), the Cochrane Library, and the International Agency for Health Technology Assessment (INAHTA) for studies published from January, 2005 to February, 2010. Abstracts were reviewed by a single reviewer and, for those studies meeting the eligibility criteria full-text articles were obtained. Reference lists were also examined for any additional relevant studies not identified through the search. Articles with an unknown eligibility were reviewed with a second clinical epidemiologist and then a group of epidemiologists until consensus was established.

Inclusion Criteria

Systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials, observational studies

Outpatient adult population with chronic headache and normal neurological exam

Studies reporting likelihood ratio of clinical variables for a significant intracranial abnormality

English language studies

2005-present

Exclusion Criteria

Studies which report outcomes for persons with seizures, focal symptoms, recent/new onset headache, change in presentation, thunderclap headache, and headache due to trauma

Persons with abnormal neurological examination

Case reports

Outcomes of Interest

Primary Outcome

Probability for intracranial abnormality

Secondary Outcome

Patient relief from anxiety

System service use

System costs

Detection rates for significant abnormalities in MRI and CT scans

Summary of Findings

Effectiveness

One systematic review, 1 small RCT, and 1 observational study met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The systematic review completed by Detsky, et al. reported the likelihood ratios of specific clinical variables to predict significant intracranial abnormalities. The RCT completed by Howard et al., evaluated whether neuroimaging persons with chronic headache increased or reduced patient anxiety. The prospective observational study by Sempere et al., provided evidence for the pre-test probability of intracranial abnormalities in persons with chronic headache as well as minimal data on the comparative effectiveness of CT and MRI to detect intracranial abnormalities.

Outcome 1: Pre-test Probability.

The pre-test probability is usually related to the prevalence of the disease and can be adjusted depending on the characteristics of the population. The study by Sempere et al. determined the pre-test probability (prevalence) of significant intracranial abnormalities in persons with chronic headaches defined as headache experienced for at least a 4 week duration with a normal neurological exam. There is a pre-test probability of 0.9% (95% CI 0.5, 1.4) in persons with chronic headache and normal neurological exam. The highest pre-test probability of 5 found in persons with cluster headaches. The second highest, that of 3.7, was reported in persons with indeterminate type headache. There was a 0.75% rate of incidental findings.

Likelihood ratios for detecting a significant abnormality

Clinical findings from the history and physical may be used as screening test to predict abnormalities on neuroimaging. The extent to which the clinical variable may be a good predictive variable can be captured by reporting its likelihood ratio. The likelihood ratio provides an estimate of how much a test result will change the odds of having a disease or condition. The positive likelihood ratio (LR+) tells you how much the odds of having the disease increases when a test is positive. The negative likelihood ratio (LR-) tells you how much the odds of having the disease decreases when the test is negative.

Detsky et al., determined the likelihood ratio for specific clinical variable from 11 studies. There were 4 clinical variables with both statistically significant positive and negative likelihood ratios. These included: abnormal neurological exam (LR+ 5.3, LR- 0.72), undefined headache (LR+ 3.8, LR- 0.66), headache aggravated by exertion or valsalva (LR+ 2.3, LR- 0.70), and headache with vomiting (LR+ 1.8, and LR- 0.47). There were two clinical variables with a statistically significant positive likelihood ratio and non significant negative likelihood ratio. These included: cluster-type headache (LR+ 11, LR- 0.95), and headache with aura (LR+ 12.9, LR- 0.52). Finally, there were 8 clinical variables with both statistically non significant positive and negative likelihood ratios. These included: headache with focal symptoms, new onset headache, quick onset headache, worsening headache, male gender, headache with nausea, increased headache severity, and migraine type headache.

Outcome 2: Relief from Anxiety

Howard et al. completed an RCT of 150 persons to determine if neuroimaging for headaches was anxiolytic or anxiogenic. Persons were randomized to receiving either an MRI scan or no scan for investigation of their headache. The study population was stratified into those persons with a Hospital Anxiety and Depression scale (HADS) > 11 (the high anxiety and depression group) and those < 11 (the low anxiety and depression) so that there were 4 groups:

Group 1: High anxiety and depression, no scan group

Group 2: High anxiety and depression, scan group

Group 3: Low anxiety and depression, no scan group

Group 4: Low anxiety and depression, scan group

Anxiety

There was no evidence for any overall reduction in anxiety at 1 year as measured by a visual analogue scale of ‘level of worry’ when analysed by whether the person received a scan or not. Similarly, there was no interaction between anxiety and depression status and whether a scan was offered or not on patient anxiety. Anxiety did not decrease at 1 year to any statistically significant degree in the high anxiety and depression group (HADS positive) compared with the low anxiety and depression group (HADS negative).

There are serious methodological limitations in this study design which may have contributed to these negative results. First, when considering the comparison of ‘scan’ vs. ‘no scan’ groups, 12 people (16%) in the ‘no scan group’ actually received a scan within the follow up year. If indeed scanning does reduce anxiety then this contamination of the ‘no scan’ group may have reduced the effect between the groups results resulting in a non significant difference in anxiety scores between the ‘scanned’ and the ‘no scan’ group. Second, there was an inadequate sample size at 1 year follow up in each of the 4 groups which may have contributed to a Type II statistical error (missing a difference when one may exist) when comparing scan vs. no scan by anxiety and depression status. Therefore, based on the results and study limitations it is inconclusive as to whether scanning reduces anxiety.

Outcome 3: System Services

Howard et al., considered services used and system costs a secondary outcome. These were determined by examining primary care case notes at 1 year for consultation rates, symptoms, further investigations, and contact with secondary and tertiary care.

System Services

The authors report that the use of neurologist and psychiatrist services was significantly higher for those persons not offered as scan, regardless of their anxiety and depression status (P<0.001 for neurologist, and P=0.033 for psychiatrist)

Outcome 4: System Costs

System Costs

There was evidence of statistically significantly lower system costs if persons with high levels of anxiety and depression (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale score >11) were provided with a scan (P=0.03 including inpatient costs, and 0.047 excluding inpatient costs).

Comparative Effectiveness of CT and MRI Scans

One study reported the detection rate for significant intracranial abnormalities using CT and MRI. In a cohort of 1876 persons with a non acute headache defined as any type of headache that had begun at least 4 weeks before enrolment Sempere et al. reported that the detection rate was 19/1432 (1.3%) using CT and 4/444 (0.9%) using MRI. Of 119 normal CT scans 2 (1.7%) had significant intracranial abnormality on MRI. The 2 cases were a small meningioma, and an acoustic neurinoma.

Summary

The evidence presented can be summarized as follows:

Pre-test Probability

Based on the results by Sempere et al., there is a low pre-test probability for intracranial abnormalities in persons with chronic headaches and a normal neurological exam (defined as headaches experiences for a minimum of 4 weeks). The Grade quality of evidence supporting this outcome is very low.

Likelihood Ratios

Based on the systematic review by Detsky et al., there is a statistically significant positive and negative likelihood ratio for the following clinical variables: abnormal neurological exam, undefined headache, headache aggravated by exertion or valsalva, headache with vomiting. Grade quality of evidence supporting this outcome is very low.

Based on the systematic review by Detsky et al. there is a statistically significant positive likelihood ratio but non statistically significant negative likelihood ratio for the following clinical variables: cluster headache and headache with aura. The Grade quality of evidence supporting this outcome is very low.

Based on the systematic review by Detsky et al., there is a non significant positive and negative likelihood ratio for the following clinical variables: headache with focal symptoms, new onset headache, quick onset headache, worsening headache, male gender, headache with nausea, increased headache severity, migraine type headache. The Grade quality of evidence supporting this outcome is very low.

Relief from Anxiety

Based on the RCT by Howard et al., it is inconclusive whether neuroimaging scans in persons with a chronic headache are anxiolytic. The Grade quality of evidence supporting this outcome is low.

System Services

Based on the RCT by Howard et al. scanning persons with chronic headache regardless of their anxiety and/or depression level reduces service use. The Grade quality of evidence is low.

System Costs

Based on the RCT by Howard et al., scanning persons with a score greater than 11 on the High Anxiety and Depression Scale reduces system costs. The Grade quality of evidence is moderate.

Comparative Effectiveness of CT and MRI Scans

There is sparse evidence to determine the relative effectiveness of CT compared with MRI scanning for the detection of intracranial abnormalities. The Grade quality of evidence supporting this is very low.

Economic Analysis

Ontario Perspective

Volumes for neuroimaging of the head i.e. CT and MRI scans, from the Ontario Health Insurance Plan (OHIP) data set were used to investigate trends in the province for Fiscal Years (FY) 2004-2009.

Assumptions were made in order to investigate neuroimaging of the head for the indication of headache. From the literature, 27% of all CT and 13% of all MRI scans for the head were assumed to include an indication of headache. From that same retrospective chart review and personal communication with the author 16% of CT scans and 4% of MRI scans for the head were for the sole indication of headache. From the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care (MOHLTC) wait times data, 73% of all CT and 93% of all MRI scans in the province, irrespective of indication were outpatient procedures.

The expenditure for each FY reflects the volume for that year and since volumes have increased in the past 6 FYs, the expenditure has also increased with a pay-out reaching 3.0M and 2.8M for CT and MRI services of the head respectively for the indication of headache and a pay-out reaching 1.8M and 0.9M for CT and MRI services of the head respectively for the indication of headache only in FY 08/09.

Cost per Abnormal Finding

The yield of abnormal finding for a CT and MRI scan of the head for the indication of headache only is 2% and 5% respectively. Based on these yield a high-level estimate of the cost per abnormal finding with neuroimaging of the head for headache only can be calculated for each FY. In FY 08/09 there were 37,434 CT and 16,197 MRI scans of the head for headache only. These volumes would generate a yield of abnormal finding of 749 and 910 with a CT scan and MRI scan respectively. The expenditure for FY 08/09 was 1.8M and 0.9M for CT and MRI services respectively. Therefore the cost per abnormal finding would be $2,409 for CT and $957 for MRI. These cost per abnormal finding estimates were limited because they did not factor in comparators or the consequences associated with an abnormal reading or FNs. The estimates only consider the cost of the neuroimaging procedure and the yield of abnormal finding with the respective procedure.

The aim of this study was to determine the frequency of misdiagnosis of sinus headache in migraine and other primary headache types in the children and adolescents with chronic or recurrent headaches. Children with chronic or recurrent headaches (n = 310) were prospectively evaluated. Data collection for each patient included history of previously diagnosed sinusitis due to headache, and additional sinusitis complaints (such as fever, cough, nasal discharge, postnasal discharge) at the time of sinusitis diagnosis, and improvement of the headache following treatment of sinusitis. If sinus radiographs existed they were recorded. The study included 214 patients with complete data. One hundred and sixteen (54.2%) patients have been diagnosed as sinusitis previously and 25% of them had at least one additional complaint, while 75% of them had none. Sinusitis treatment had no effect on the headaches in 60.3% of the patients. Sinus graphy had been performed in 52.8%, and 50.4% of them were normal. The prevalence of sinus headache concomitant with primary headache, and only sinus headache was detected in 7 and 1%, respectively, in our study. Approximately 40% of the patients with migraine and 60% of the patients with tension-type headache had been misdiagnosed as “sinus headache”. Children with chronic or recurrent headaches are frequently misdiagnosed as sinus headache and receive unnecessary sinusitis treatment and sinus graphy.

Headache is a common complaint that makes up for approximately 25% of any neurologists outpatient practice. Yet, it is often underdiagnosed and undertreated. Ninety percent of headaches seen in practice are due to a primary headache disorder where there are no confirmatory tests, and neuroimaging studies, if done, are normal. In this situation, a good headache history allows the physician to recognize a pattern that in turn leads to the correct diagnosis. A comprehensive history needs time, interest, focus and establishment of rapport with the patient. When to ask what question to elicit which information, is an art that is acquired by practice and improves with experience. This review discusses the art of history-taking in headache patients across different settings. The nuances of headache history-taking are discussed in detail, particularly the questions related to the time, severity, location and frequency of the headache syndrome in general and the episode in particular. An emphasis is made on the recognition of red flags that help in the identification of secondary headaches.

Chronic daily headaches (CDHs) refers to primary headaches that happen on at least 15 days per month, for 4 or more hours per day, for at least three consecutive months. The differential diagnosis of CDHs is challenging and should proceed in an orderly fashion. The approach begins with a search for “red flags” that suggest the possibility of a secondary headache. If secondary headaches that mimic CDHs are excluded, either on clinical grounds or through investigation, the next step is to classify the headaches based on the duration of attacks. If the attacks last less than 4 hours per day, a trigeminal autonomic cephalalgia (TAC) is likely. TACs include episodic and chronic cluster headache, episodic and chronic paroxysmal hemicrania, SUNCT, and hypnic headache. If the duration is ≥4 h, a CDH is likely and the differential diagnosis encompasses chronic migraine, chronic tension-type headache, new daily persistent headache and hemicrania continua. The clinical approach to diagnosing CDH is the scope of this review.

Chronic daily headaches (CDHs) refers to primary headaches that happen on at least 15 days per month, for 4 or more hours per day, for at least three consecutive months. The differential diagnosis of CDHs is challenging and should proceed in an orderly fashion. The approach begins with a search for “red flags” that suggest the possibility of a secondary headache. If secondary headaches that mimic CDHs are excluded, either on clinical grounds or through investigation, the next step is to classify the headaches based on the duration of attacks. If the attacks last less than 4 hours per day, a trigeminal autonomic cephalalgia (TAC) is likely. TACs include episodic and chronic cluster headache, episodic and chronic paroxysmal hemicrania, SUNCT, and hypnic headache. If the duration is ≥4 h, a CDH is likely and the differential diagnosis encompasses chronic migraine, chronic tension-type headache, new daily persistent headache and hemicrania continua. The clinical approach to diagnosing CDH is the scope of this review.

This study aimed to analyze and classify the clinical features of headache in neurological outpatients. A cross-sectional study was conducted consecutively from March to May 2010 for headache among general neurological outpatients attending the First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University. Personal interviews were carried out and a questionnaire was used to collect medical records. Diagnosis of headache was according to the International classification of headache disorders, 2nd edition (ICHD-II). Headache patients accounted for 19.5% of the general neurology clinic outpatients. A total of 843 (50.1%) patients were defined as having primary headache, 454 (27%) secondary headache, and 386 (23%) headache not otherwise specified (headache NOS). For primary headache, 401 (23.8%) had migraine, 399 (23.7%) tension-type headache (TTH), 8 (0.5%) cluster headache and 35 (2.1%) other headache types. Overall, migraine patients suffered (1) more severe headache intensity, (2) longer than 6 years of headache history and (3) more common analgesic medications use than TTH ones (p < 0.001).TTH patients had more frequent episodes of headaches than migraine patients, and typically headache frequency exceeded 15 days/month (p < 0.001); 22.8% of primary headache patients were defined as chronic daily headache. Almost 20% of outpatient visits to the general neurology department were of headache patients, predominantly primary headache of migraine and TTH. In outpatient headaches, more attention should be given to headache intensity and duration of headache history for migraine patients, while more attention to headache frequency should be given for the TTH ones.

This study aimed to analyze and classify the clinical features of headache in neurological outpatients. A cross-sectional study was conducted consecutively from March to May 2010 for headache among general neurological outpatients attending the First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University. Personal interviews were carried out and a questionnaire was used to collect medical records. Diagnosis of headache was according to the International classification of headache disorders, 2nd edition (ICHD-II). Headache patients accounted for 19.5% of the general neurology clinic outpatients. A total of 843 (50.1%) patients were defined as having primary headache, 454 (27%) secondary headache, and 386 (23%) headache not otherwise specified (headache NOS). For primary headache, 401 (23.8%) had migraine, 399 (23.7%) tension-type headache (TTH), 8 (0.5%) cluster headache and 35 (2.1%) other headache types. Overall, migraine patients suffered (1) more severe headache intensity, (2) longer than 6 years of headache history and (3) more common analgesic medications use than TTH ones (p < 0.001).TTH patients had more frequent episodes of headaches than migraine patients, and typically headache frequency exceeded 15 days/month (p < 0.001); 22.8% of primary headache patients were defined as chronic daily headache. Almost 20% of outpatient visits to the general neurology department were of headache patients, predominantly primary headache of migraine and TTH. In outpatient headaches, more attention should be given to headache intensity and duration of headache history for migraine patients, while more attention to headache frequency should be given for the TTH ones.

Methods: An experienced neurology ward sister was trained in the differential diagnosis of headache disorders. Over six months, patients with non-acute headache disorders and role players trained to present with benign or sinister headaches were seen by both the nurse and a consultant neurologist. Both reached independent diagnoses of various headache disorders.

Results: Consultants diagnosed 239 patients with tension-type headache (47%), migraine (39%), or other headache disorders (14%). The nurse agreed with the consultant in 92% of cases of tension-type headache, 91% of migraine, and 61% of other diagnoses. Where the nurse did not agree with the diagnosis, most would have been referred for a consultant opinion. Both the nurse and the doctors misdiagnosed the same three of 13 role players. The investigation rate of the consultants varied between 18% and 59%. Only one clinically relevant abnormality was found on head scans and this was strongly suspected clinically.

Conclusions: A headache nurse specialist can be trained to diagnose tension-type headache and migraine. A nationwide nurse led diagnostic headache service could lead to substantial reduction in neurology waiting times.

New daily persistent headache (NDPH) is a chronic headache developing in a person who does not have a past history of headaches. The headache begins acutely and reaches its peak within 3 days. It is important to exclude secondary causes, particularly headaches due to alterations in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) pressure and volume. A significant proportion of NDPH sufferers may have intractable headaches that are refractory to treatment. The condition is best viewed as a syndrome rather than a diagnosis. The headache can mimic chronic migraine and chronic tension-type headache, and it is also important to exclude secondary causes, particularly headaches due to alterations in CSF pressure and volume. A large proportion of NDPH sufferers have migrainous features to their headache and should be managed with treatments used for treating migraine. A small group of NDPH sufferers may have intractable headaches that are refractory to treatment.

The headache histories obtained from clinical interviews of 600 patients were analysed by computer to see whether patients could be separated systematically into clinical categories and to see whether sets of symptoms commonly reported together differed in distribution among the categories. The computer classification procedure assigned 537 patients to the same category as their clinical diagnosis, the majority of discrepancies between clinical and computer classifications involving common migraine, tension-vascular and tension headache. Cluster headache emerged as a clearly-definable syndrome, and neurological symptoms during headache were most prevalent in the classical migraine group. However, the classical migraine, common migraine, tension-vascular and tension headache categories differed in terms of the number, rather than the nature, of common migraine features. Whether the two extremes of this migraine-tension headache spectrum are different disorders can be determined only by studies of their pathophysiology.

Images

The purpose of this review was to provide a critical evaluation of medical literature on so-called “cardiac cephalgia” or “cardiac cephalalgia”. The 2004 International Classification of Headache Disorders codes cardiac cephalgia to 10.6 in the group of secondary headaches attributed to disorder of homoeostasis. This headache is hardly recognizable and is associated to an ischaemic cardiovascular event, of which it may be the only manifestation in 27% of cases. It usually occurs after exertion. Sometimes routine examinations, cardiac enzymes, ECG and even exercise stress test prove negative. In such cases, only a coronary angiogram can provide sufficient evidence for diagnosis. Cardiac cephalgia manifests itself without a specific pattern of clinical features: indeed, in this headache subtype there is a high variability of clinical manifestations between different patients and also within the same patient. It “mimics” sometimes a form of migraine either accompanied or not by autonomic symptoms, sometimes a form of tension-type headache; on other occasions, it exhibits characteristics that can hardly be interpreted as typical of primary headache. Pain location is highly variable. When the headache occurs as the only manifestation of an acute coronary event, the clues for suspicion are a) older age at onset, b) no past medical history of headache, c) presence of risk factors for vascular disorders and d) onset of headache under stress. Knowledge of cardiac cephalgia is scarce, due to its rare clinical occurrence and to the scant importance given to headache as a symptom concomitantly with an ischaemic cardiac event.

Headache is a common complaint that affects the majority of the population at some point in their lives. The underlying pathological bases for headache symptoms are many, diverse, and often difficult to distinguish. Classification of headache is principally based on the evaluation of headache symptoms as well as clinical testing. Although manual therapy has been advocated to treat a variety of different forms of headache, the current evidence only supports treatment for cervicogenic headache (CGH). This form of headache can be identified from migraine and other headache forms by a comprehensive musculoskeletal examination. Examination and subsequent diagnosis is essential not only to identify patients with headache where manual therapy is appropriate but also to form a basis for selection of the most appropriate treatment for the identified condition. The purpose of this paper is to outline, in clinical terms, the classification of headache, so that the clinician can readily identify those patients with headache suited to manual therapy.

Headache is one of the most common complaints of children who present to primary care providers. Although parents are often concerned about sinister pathology, the majority of children with headaches have primary headache syndromes, including migraine and tension-type headaches. Diagnostic criteria for children are currently evolving to better reflect the unique challenges of this group of patients. Advances in migraine pharmacotherapy have been achieved through the understanding of serotonin and its role in migraine pathophysiology. Serotonin agonists, commonly known as ‘triptans’, are the current standard of care in the management of acute migraine in adults. Recent evidence has confirmed that the efficacy of triptans also occurs in children. The present article focuses on recent advances in the areas of epidemiology, diagnostic criteria and pathophysiology of paediatric migraine. In addition, the present article reviews the evidence of management issues, including neuroimaging and the use of triptans in children.

The international Headache Society (I H S) diagnostic criteria (International classification of headache disorders edition 2- ICHD 2) for headache in children and adults improved the accuracy of migraine diagnoses. However many short duration headaches in children, receive an atypical migraine diagnosis. This study is to diagnose children and adolescents who presented with such atypical migraines of less than one hour duration. 1402 children and adolescents aged 5 to 15 years who presented with recurrent brief activity affected head pain, were studied. Known and common migraine triggers and family history of migraine were recorded in all. All the children studied had moderate to severe headache lasting 5 to 45 minutes which forced them motionless during the attacks (thus fulfilling 2 diagnostic pain features). At least one of the ICHD2 pediatric migraine diagnostic symptoms (nausea / vomiting / photophobia / phonophobia) were present in all. Two additional features were diagnostic of brief migraines in all of them- one of the parents or siblings was a migrainer and one of the common migraine triggers as a precipitating factor. This study concludes that if duration of head pain is less than one hour ,two additional features to be included to diagnose definitive migraine in children and adolescents - one migraine parent or sibling and one of the migraine triggers precipitating the head pain.

The prevalence and the clinical features of chronic daily headache (CDH) were studied in 968 children and adolescents observed during a period of one year in the Headache Centre of the Anna Meyer Paediatric Hospital of Florence. Nine hundred and fortyfour patients (97.52%) had primary headache according to ICHD-II, 24 subjects had secondary headache and 56 patients had CDH (5.93% of primary headaches). The mean age of subjects with CDH was higher than general (13.5 vs. 11.5 years), with a female preponderance (69.6% vs. 30.4%). According to the ICHD-II, headaches were classified as chronic migraine in 10 patients (1.5.2 ICHD-II), chronic tension-type headache in 36 (2.3 ICHD-II), new daily persistent headache in 8 (4.8 ICHD-II) and 2 patients reported mixed pattern (chronic migraine+chronic tension type headache). Medication overuse was not implicated in our patients.

PROBLEM ADDRESSED: Headache is a common clinical disorder. Nearly 50% of patients with headaches use prescription medications, and 90% regularly use nonprescription drugs. Medication-induced headaches (MIH) are chronic daily headaches caused by overuse of medicine. OBJECTIVES: To summarize the diagnostic criteria for MIH, to determine the investigations necessary to confirm the diagnosis and exclude other possible diagnoses, and to establish recommendations for managing MIH. MAIN FINDINGS: Diagnosis of MIH is based on patient's history and the clinical characteristics of the headache. Treatment includes patient education and support, withdrawal of offending medications, relief of withdrawal symptoms, and specific treatment of residual headache. When migraine and other causes of headache are adequately addressed, patients will not seek additional pain relief. CONCLUSION: Medication-induced headache is preventable. The key to prevention is appropriate drug therapy to relieve the primary headache. All patients with MIH can be treated and most cured.

Headache and facial pain are among the most common, disabling and costly disorders in Europe. Correct diagnosis and treatment is important for achieving a high quality of care. As a national organisation whose role is to educate and advocate for the needs of patients with primary headaches, the Danish Headache Society has set up a task force to develop a set of guidelines for the diagnosis, organisation and treatment of the most common types of headaches and for trigeminal neuralgia in Denmark. The guideline was published in Danish in 2010 and has been a great success. The Danish Headache Society decided to translate and publish our guideline in English to stimulate the discussion on optimal organisation and treatment of headache disorders and to encourage other national headache authorities to produce their own guidelines. The recommendations regarding the most common primary headaches and trigeminal neuralgia are largely in accordance with the European guidelines produced by the European Federation of Neurological Societies. The guideline provides a practical tool for use in daily clinical practice for primary care physicians, neurologists with a common interest in headache, as well as other health-care professionals treating headache patients. The guideline first describes how to examine and diagnose the headache patient and how headache treatment is organised in Denmark. This description is followed by individual sections on the characteristics, diagnosis, differential diagnosis and treatment of each of the major headache disorders and trigeminal neuralgia. The guideline includes many tables to facilitate a quick overview. Finally, the particular problems regarding headache in children and headache in relation to female hormones and pregnancy are described.

Headache and facial pain are among the most common, disabling and costly disorders in Europe. Correct diagnosis and treatment is important for achieving a high quality of care. As a national organisation whose role is to educate and advocate for the needs of patients with primary headaches, the Danish Headache Society has set up a task force to develop a set of guidelines for the diagnosis, organisation and treatment of the most common types of headaches and for trigeminal neuralgia in Denmark. The guideline was published in Danish in 2010 and has been a great success. The Danish Headache Society decided to translate and publish our guideline in English to stimulate the discussion on optimal organisation and treatment of headache disorders and to encourage other national headache authorities to produce their own guidelines. The recommendations regarding the most common primary headaches and trigeminal neuralgia are largely in accordance with the European guidelines produced by the European Federation of Neurological Societies. The guideline provides a practical tool for use in daily clinical practice for primary care physicians, neurologists with a common interest in headache, as well as other health-care professionals treating headache patients. The guideline first describes how to examine and diagnose the headache patient and how headache treatment is organised in Denmark. This description is followed by individual sections on the characteristics, diagnosis, differential diagnosis and treatment of each of the major headache disorders and trigeminal neuralgia. The guideline includes many tables to facilitate a quick overview. Finally, the particular problems regarding headache in children and headache in relation to female hormones and pregnancy are described.

A thorough evaluation of headache in children and adolescents is necessary to make the correct diagnosis and initiate treatment. In part 1 of this article (Özge et al. in J Headache Pain, 2010), we reviewed the diagnosis of headache in children and adolescents. In the present part, we will discuss therapeutic management of primary headaches. An appropriate management requires an individually tailored strategy giving due consideration to both non-pharmacological and pharmacological measures. Non-pharmacological treatments include relaxation training, biofeedback training, cognitive-behavioural therapy, different psychotherapeutic approaches or combinations of these treatments. The data supporting the effectiveness of these therapies are less clear-cut in children than in adults, but that is also true for the data supporting medical treatment. Management of migraine and TTH should include strategies relating to daily living activities, family relationships, school, friends and leisure time activities. In the pharmacological treatment age and gender of children, headache diagnosis, comorbidities and side effects of medication must be considered. The goal of symptomatic treatment should be a quick response with return to normal activity and without relapse. The drug should be taken as early as possible and in the appropriate dosage. Supplementary measures such as rest in a quiet, darkened room is recommended. Pharmaco-prophylaxis is only indicated if lifestyle modification and non-pharmacological prophylaxis alone are not effective. Although many prophylactic medications have been tried in paediatric migraine, there are only a few medications that have been studied in controlled trials. Multidisciplinary treatment is an effective strategy for children and adolescents with improvement of multiple outcome variants including frequency and severity of headache and school days missed because of headache. As a growing problem both children and families should be informed about medication overuse and the children’s drug-taking should be checked.

A thorough evaluation of headache in children and adolescents is necessary to make the correct diagnosis and initiate treatment. In part 1 of this article (Özge et al. in J Headache Pain, 2010), we reviewed the diagnosis of headache in children and adolescents. In the present part, we will discuss therapeutic management of primary headaches. An appropriate management requires an individually tailored strategy giving due consideration to both non-pharmacological and pharmacological measures. Non-pharmacological treatments include relaxation training, biofeedback training, cognitive-behavioural therapy, different psychotherapeutic approaches or combinations of these treatments. The data supporting the effectiveness of these therapies are less clear-cut in children than in adults, but that is also true for the data supporting medical treatment. Management of migraine and TTH should include strategies relating to daily living activities, family relationships, school, friends and leisure time activities. In the pharmacological treatment age and gender of children, headache diagnosis, comorbidities and side effects of medication must be considered. The goal of symptomatic treatment should be a quick response with return to normal activity and without relapse. The drug should be taken as early as possible and in the appropriate dosage. Supplementary measures such as rest in a quiet, darkened room is recommended. Pharmaco-prophylaxis is only indicated if lifestyle modification and non-pharmacological prophylaxis alone are not effective. Although many prophylactic medications have been tried in paediatric migraine, there are only a few medications that have been studied in controlled trials. Multidisciplinary treatment is an effective strategy for children and adolescents with improvement of multiple outcome variants including frequency and severity of headache and school days missed because of headache. As a growing problem both children and families should be informed about medication overuse and the children’s drug-taking should be checked.

Chronic Daily Headache is a descriptive term that includes disorders with headaches on more days than not and affects 4% of the general population. The condition has a debilitating effect on individuals and society through direct cost to healthcare and indirectly to the economy in general. To successfully manage chronic daily headache syndromes it is important to exclude secondary causes with comprehensive history and relevant investigations; identify risk factors that predict its development and recognise its sub-types to appropriately manage the condition. Chronic migraine, chronic tension-type headache, new daily persistent headache and medication overuse headache accounts for the vast majority of chronic daily headaches. The scope of this article is to review the primary headache disorders. Secondary headaches are not discussed except medication overuse headache that often accompanies primary headache disorders. The article critically reviews the literature on the current understanding of daily headache disorders focusing in particular on recent developments in the treatment of frequent headaches.

This paper reviews the diagnostic features of cluster headache-like disorder and describes its presentation in childhood. Case note summaries of patients with this condition are presented in the context of a brief summary of the literature. Four patients (two girls; aged 12 to 15 years) with cluster headache-like disorder were seen over a period of four years in the paediatric neurology department of Birmingham Children's Hospital. Their histories and clinical courses are described. All had a history of "thrashing around" or bizarre behaviour during attacks, which had distracted attention from the headache and seemed to contribute to delay in diagnosis. It appears that cluster headache-like disorder does occur in childhood but is not common and can be mistaken for other conditions. A history of thrashing around accompanied by headache is very suggestive. Recognition of the symptoms in the general paediatric clinic would allow rapid diagnosis.