headache

Celiac disease is a chronic autoimmune disease caused by consumption of gluten in people with specific genetic markers. Celiac disease affects about 1% of people worldwide and people can start having symptoms at any age. Individuals at increased risk include those with a first-degree relative who has celiac disease and those with autoimmune diseases (eg, type 1 diabetes or Hashimoto thyroiditis) and certain chromosomal conditions (Down syndrome, Turner syndrome, or Williams syndrome).

Author/s:

Kristin L. Walter

Does This Child Have a Concussion?: The Rational Clinical Examination Systematic Review

Megan George — Thu, 09 Apr 2026 23:08:13 +0000

Date Added:

April 9, 2026

Journal/Publication:

JAMA

Publication Date:

April 6, 2026

URL:

Does This Child Have a Concussion?: The Rational Clinical Examination Systematic Review

Type:

Meta-analyses, Reviews, and Guidelines

Format:

Poster

DOI (1):

10.1001/jama.2026.1233

Keywords

PMID (1):

41941197

MeSH

A review of the evaluation of children with head injuries to detect evidence of concussion. James W. Mold, MD, MPH

View

Importance: Concussion is a mild traumatic brain injury with associated abnormalities in brain function, rather than structural injury. An estimated 1.1 million to 1.9 million pediatric concussions occur annually in the US.

Objective: To determine the accuracy of clinical history and physical examination findings for identifying concussion in children and adolescents who have had a plausible mechanism of injury.

Data sources and study selection: PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Google Scholar were searched from January 2002 through December 2025 without language restrictions. Observational studies including patients aged 2 to 18 years evaluated for concussion in outpatient, emergency, or inpatient settings were included.

Data extraction and synthesis: Four reviewers independently extracted study characteristics and diagnostic accuracy data and assessed study quality with the Rational Clinical Examination levels of evidence.

Main outcomes and measures: Sensitivity, specificity, and likelihood ratios (LRs) for symptoms and physical signs associated with concussion were calculated using random-effects meta-analysis when summary measures were appropriate.

Results: Of 7110 screened abstracts, 23 studies (level 4 evidence; case-control design) met inclusion criteria. The presence of mental fog (LR, 11.8-12.0; specificity, 0.96), noise sensitivity (LR, 6.9; 95% CI, 3.6-13.1; specificity, 0.94), nausea (LR, 6.7; 95% CI, 3.1-14.6; specificity, 0.93), and light sensitivity (LR, 6.4; 95% CI, 2.1-19.7; specificity, 0.93) were most useful for increasing the likelihood of a concussion diagnosis. The absence of headache was the most useful symptom for decreasing the likelihood of concussion (LR, 0.20; 95% CI, 0.10-0.39; sensitivity, 0.74). Signs that increased the likelihood of concussion were abnormal near-point convergence, which is the inability to maintain ocular convergence on a near target (LR, 7.0; 95% CI, 2.0-24.9; specificity, 0.97); abnormal smooth pursuits, which are jerky, irregular eye movements when tracking a target (LR, 6.5; 95% CI, 2.4-17.5; specificity, 0.96); and saccades, which are inaccurate or slow eye movements with overshooting or undershooting when looking between 2 or more targets (LR, 4.8; 95% CI, 1.8-13.1; specificity, 0.92); however, none of these findings had a sensitivity of more than 0.40. A consensus statement by the International Conference on Concussion in Sport recommends the Sport Concussion Assessment Tool to systematize the comprehensive evaluation of patients with symptoms concerning for concussion.

Conclusions and relevance: While no single finding was sufficient to confirm or exclude concussion, the presence of mental fog, noise and light sensitivity, nausea, or ocular abnormalities were most useful to identify patients more likely to have had a concussion, while absence of a headache made a concussion less likely. These symptoms and signs are integrated into structured clinical assessments to support the clinical diagnosis and management of pediatric concussion.

Author/s:

Sonal N. Shah, Haley M. Chizuk, Hiu-Fai Fong

What Do I Need to Know About the Pneumococcal Pneumonia Vaccine?

Megan George — Tue, 21 Oct 2025 13:35:47 +0000

Date Added:

October 21, 2025

Journal/Publication:

JAMA Internal Medicine Patient Page

Publication Date:

October 20, 2025

URL:

What Do I Need to Know About the Pneumococcal Pneumonia Vaccine?

Type:

Patient Education Materials

Format:

Article

DOI (1):

10.1001/jamainternmed.2025.5277

Keywords

'Vaccination

Infectious diseases

Patient Information

Pneumococcal Vaccines

PMID (1):

41114997

MeSH

23-valent pneumococcal capsular polysaccharide vaccine

pneumonia

13-valent pneumococcal vaccine

spleen

COVID-19

Streptococcus pneumoniae

Influenza

Pneumococcal Vaccines

Pneumococcal Infections

Hypersensitivity

Herpes Zoster

Information for patients about pneumococcal immunizations. James W. Mold, MD, MPH

View

What Is the Pneumococcal Pneumonia Vaccine?
The pneumococcal vaccine protects against infections from a type of bacteria called pneumococcus. Pneumococcus is a common cause of pneumonia (a lung infection), as well as other serious infections. The vaccine prepares your immune system to recognize and fight pneumococcal bacteria. The vaccine is usually given through an injection into the arm. Some versions can also be inhaled. The vaccines do not contain living or dead bacteria. The pneumococcal vaccine does not protect you from other lung infections like the flu (influenza), COVID-19, RSV (respiratory syncytial virus), or other kinds of bacteria that cause pneumonia. It is still important to get your flu shot every year and other vaccines your doctor recommends, even if you already got the pneumococcal vaccine.

What Are Benefits of Pneumococcal Pneumonia Vaccines?
The vaccine substantially lowers your risk of hospitalization or dying from serious pneumococcal infection. Vaccination can reduce the risk of pneumonia-related deaths by almost half.

Why Is There a New Pneumococcal Pneumonia Vaccine, and How Does It Differ From Prior Versions?
There are several types of pneumococcal bacteria that can cause pneumonia. Being vaccinated against one type of pneumococcus may not protect you from other types that could make you sick. Previous pneumococcal pneumonia vaccines like PPSV23 or PCV13 do not protect against all types of the pneumococcal bacteria that cause pneumonia. Newer vaccines were made in 2021 (PCV15 and PCV20) and 2024 (PCV21). These help to prevent infections from types of bacteria not covered by older versions.

What Are the Potential Side Effects?
Side effects are frequent but generally mild. The most common side effect is pain or redness at the site of injection. Less common side effects include fever, feeling tired, muscle ache, and headache. These are less severe than for other vaccines like flu and shingles. These effects can be treated with over-the-counter medications and generally go away within 24 to 48 hours. Life-threatening allergic reactions are extremely rare but possible. Seek immediate medical attention if you experience severe symptoms like difficulty breathing or progressive weakness after vaccination. The pneumonia vaccine cannot cause pneumonia or other bacterial illness.

Who Should Get a New Pneumococcal Pneumonia Vaccine?
All adults 50 years and older who have not been vaccinated should receive one of the new vaccines: PCV21, PCV20, or a sequence of PCV15 followed by PPSV23. People younger than 50 years with certain health problems should also get the new vaccine. These health problems include diabetes; chronic conditions affecting the heart, lungs, liver, or kidneys; current tobacco use or heavy alcohol consumption; a weak immune system from certain health problems or medications; absence or prior removal of the spleen; and a history of spinal fluid leak or a cochlear (inner ear) implant.

Most adults who got either PPSV23 and/or PCV13 should still get a booster with one of the newer vaccines. The different pneumococcal vaccines protect against different types of bacteria. Some types of bacteria are more common in people depending on their age, health, and where they live. Talk to your doctor about which vaccine is best for you.

Author/s:

Jerard Z. Kneifati-Hayek, Michael A. Incze

Understanding and Managing Headaches in Children and Teens

Megan George — Tue, 05 Aug 2025 14:39:21 +0000

Date Added:

August 5, 2025

Journal/Publication:

JAMA Pediatrics

Publication Date:

August 1, 2025

URL:

Understanding and Managing Headaches in Children and Teens

Type:

Patient Education Materials

Format:

Article

DOI (1):

10.1001/jamapediatrics.2025.1111

Keywords

headache

neurology

pediatric

PMID (1):

40549366

MeSH

headache

tension-type headache

Information for parents about headaches in children. James W. Mold, MD, MPH

View

This JAMA Pediatrics Patient Page discusses symptoms and treatment of headaches in children and teens.

Author/s:

Cynthia-Mae M Hunt, Lindsay A Thompson

Understanding and Managing Headaches in Children and Teens

Hope Smashey — Tue, 01 Jul 2025 19:28:20 +0000

Date Added:

July 1, 2025

Journal/Publication:

JAMA Pediatrics

Publication Date:

June 23, 2025

URL:

Understanding and Managing Headaches in Children and Teens

Type:

Patient Education Materials

Format:

Article

DOI (1):

10.1001/jamapediatrics.2025.1111

Keywords

children

teens

headaches

PMID (1):

40549366

MeSH

A summary for parents on the causes and management of headaches in children. James W. Mold, MD, MPH

Free full text

View

This JAMA Pediatrics Patient Page discusses symptoms and treatment of headaches in children and teens.

Author/s:

Cynthia-Mae M Hunt, Lindsay A Thompson

Prevention of Episodic Migraine Headache Using Pharmacologic Treatments in Outpatient Settings: A Clinical Guideline From the American College of Physicians

Alex Haga — Mon, 24 Feb 2025 17:56:47 +0000

Date Added:

February 24, 2025

Journal/Publication:

Annals of Internal Medicine

Publication Date:

February 4, 2025

URL:

Prevention of Episodic Migraine Headache Using Pharmacologic Treatments in Outpatient Settings: A Clinical Guideline From the American College of Physicians

Type:

Meta-analyses, Reviews, and Guidelines

Format:

Article

DOI (1):

10.7326/ANNALS-24-01052

Keywords

Episodic Migraine Headache

migraine

headache

PMID (1):

39899861

MeSH

Migraine Disorders

headache

Guidance from the ACP regarding use of medications to prevent episodic migraines in adults. James W. Mold, MD, MPH

Free full text

View

The American College of Physicians (ACP) developed this clinical guideline for clinicians caring for adults with episodic migraine headache (defined as 1 to 14 headache days per month) in outpatient settings.

Methods: ACP based these recommendations on systematic reviews of the comparative benefits and harms of pharmacologic treatments to prevent episodic migraine, patients' values and preferences, and economic evidence. ACP evaluated the comparative effectiveness of the following interventions: angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (lisinopril), angiotensin II-receptor blockers (candesartan and telmisartan), antiseizure medications (valproate and topiramate), β-blockers (metoprolol and propranolol), calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) antagonist-gepants (atogepant or rimegepant), CGRP monoclonal antibodies (eptinezumab, erenumab, fremanezumab, or galcanezumab), selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (fluoxetine and venlafaxine), and a tricyclic antidepressant (amitriptyline). ACP used the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach to analyze the effects of pharmacologic treatment on the following outcomes: migraine frequency and duration, number of days medication was taken for acute treatment of migraine, frequency of migraine-related emergency department visits, migraine-related disability, quality of life and physical functioning, and discontinuations due to adverse events. In addition, adverse events were captured through U.S. Food and Drug Administration medication labels and eligible studies.

Recommendations: In this guideline, ACP makes recommendations for clinicians to initiate monotherapy for episodic migraine prevention in nonpregnant adults in the outpatient setting as well as alternative approaches if initial treatments are not tolerated or result in an inadequate response. All 3 ACP recommendations have conditional strength and low-certainty evidence. Clinical considerations provide additional context for physicians and other clinicians.

Author/s:

Amir Qaseem, Thomas G Cooney, Itziar Etxeandia-Ikobaltzeta, Timothy J Wilt

Incidence, co-occurrence, and evolution of long-COVID features: A 6-month retrospective cohort study of 273,618 survivors of COVID-19

Bethie Seay — Tue, 05 Oct 2021 05:00:00 +0000

Date Added:

October 5, 2021

Journal/Publication:

PLOS Medicine

Publication Date:

September 28, 2021

Issue:

Volume:

Type:

Clinical Research Results

DOI (1):

10.1371/journal.pmed.1003773

An assessment of the epidemiology and characteristics of long COVID syndrome from nearly 275,000 linked electronic records.

View

Background
Long-COVID refers to a variety of symptoms affecting different organs reported by people following Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection. To date, there have been no robust estimates of the incidence and co-occurrence of long-COVID features, their relationship to age, sex, or severity of infection, and the extent to which they are specific to COVID-19. The aim of this study is to address these issues.

Methods and findings
We conducted a retrospective cohort study based on linked electronic health records (EHRs) data from 81 million patients including 273,618 COVID-19 survivors. The incidence and co-occurrence within 6 months and in the 3 to 6 months after COVID-19 diagnosis were calculated for 9 core features of long-COVID (breathing difficulties/breathlessness, fatigue/malaise, chest/throat pain, headache, abdominal symptoms, myalgia, other pain, cognitive symptoms, and anxiety/depression). Their co-occurrence network was also analyzed. Comparison with a propensity score–matched cohort of patients diagnosed with influenza during the same time period was achieved using Kaplan–Meier analysis and the Cox proportional hazard model. The incidence of atopic dermatitis was used as a negative control.

Among COVID-19 survivors (mean [SD] age: 46.3 [19.8], 55.6% female), 57.00% had one or more long-COVID feature recorded during the whole 6-month period (i.e., including the acute phase), and 36.55% between 3 and 6 months. The incidence of each feature was: abnormal breathing (18.71% in the 1- to 180-day period; 7.94% in the 90- to180-day period), fatigue/malaise (12.82%; 5.87%), chest/throat pain (12.60%; 5.71%), headache (8.67%; 4.63%), other pain (11.60%; 7.19%), abdominal symptoms (15.58%; 8.29%), myalgia (3.24%; 1.54%), cognitive symptoms (7.88%; 3.95%), and anxiety/depression (22.82%; 15.49%). All 9 features were more frequently reported after COVID-19 than after influenza (with an overall excess incidence of 16.60% and hazard ratios between 1.44 and 2.04, all p < 0.001), co-occurred more commonly, and formed a more interconnected network. Significant differences in incidence and co-occurrence were associated with sex, age, and illness severity. Besides the limitations inherent to EHR data, limitations of this study include that (i) the findings do not generalize to patients who have had COVID-19 but were not diagnosed, nor to patients who do not seek or receive medical attention when experiencing symptoms of long-COVID; (ii) the findings say nothing about the persistence of the clinical features; and (iii) the difference between cohorts might be affected by one cohort seeking or receiving more medical attention for their symptoms.

Conclusions
Long-COVID clinical features occurred and co-occurred frequently and showed some specificity to COVID-19, though they were also observed after influenza. Different long-COVID clinical profiles were observed based on demographics and illness severity.

Author summary
Why was this study done?
Long-COVID has been described in recent studies. But we do not know the risk of developing features of this condition and how it is affected by factors such as age, sex, or severity of infection.
We do not know if the risk of having features of long-COVID is more likely after Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) than after influenza.
We do not know about the extent to which different features of long-COVID co-occur.
What did the researchers do and find?
This research used data from electronic health records of 273,618 patients diagnosed with COVID-19 and estimated the risk of having long-COVID features in the 6 months after a diagnosis of COVID-19. It compared the risk of long-COVID features in different groups within the population and also compared the risk to that after influenza.
The research found that over 1 in 3 patients had one or more features of long-COVID recorded between 3 and 6 months after a diagnosis of COVID-19. This was significantly higher than after influenza.
For 2 in 5 of the patients who had long-COVID features in the 3- to 6-month period, they had no record of any such feature in the previous 3 months.
The risk of long-COVID features was higher in patients who had more severe COVID-19 illness, and slightly higher among females and young adults. White and non-white patients were equally affected.
What do these findings mean?
Knowing the risk of long-COVID features helps in planning the relevant healthcare service provision.
The fact that the risk is higher after COVID-19 than after influenza suggests that their origin might, in part, directly involve infection with SARS-CoV-2 and is not just a general consequence of viral infection. This might help in developing effective treatments against long-COVID.
The findings in the subgroups, and the fact that the majority of patients who have features of long-COVID in the 3- to 6-month period already had symptoms in the first 3 months, may help in identifying those at greatest risk.

Author/s:

Taquet, M., Dercon, Q., Luciano, S., Geddes, J. R., Husain, M., Harrison, P. J.

Unhealthy alcohol use in a 65-year-old man awaiting surgery

Bethie Seay — Tue, 17 Aug 2021 05:00:00 +0000

Date Added:

August 17, 2021

Type:

Meta-analyses, Reviews, and Guidelines

DOI (1):

10.1503/cmaj.202128

MeSH

substance withdrawal syndrome

Not surprisingly, unhealthy levels of alcohol use is associated with surgical complications. Adressing it through screening and clinical management could improve outcomes.

View

Three months before elective hip arthroplasty, a 65-yearold man with osteoarthritis presents to his family physician to discuss his alcohol consumption. His surgeon had expressed concern and advised him to speak to his family physician about decreasing his drinking before surgery. He reports drinking around 6 to 10 ounces of whiskey daily for the past 5 years. His alcohol intake increased gradually after retirement, and he now has cravings daily. He recently abstained from alcohol for 4 days while visiting family and developed irritability, tremor, nausea and headache. He has never had withdrawal seizures or delirium tremens, and he does not use any other substances. He is otherwise healthy, apart from hypertension that is controlled with perindopril. He is alarmed by his cravings, withdrawal symptoms and surgeon’s concerns, and is considering decreasing his alcohol use.

Author/s:

Brothers, T. D., Kaulbach, J., Tran, A.

More than 50 long‑term effects of COVID‑19: a systematic review and meta‑analysis

Saige Blanchard — Fri, 13 Aug 2021 18:17:11 +0000

Date Added:

August 13, 2021

Journal/Publication:

Nature Portfolio

Publisher:

Springer Nature

URL:

More than 50 long‑term effects of COVID‑19: a systematic review and meta‑analysis

Keywords

MeSH

attention deficit disorder with hyperactivity

COVID-19

headache

Publications

The SARS-2 COVID-19 virus is a nasty little germ. It seems to cause a host of long-lasting symptoms. James W. Mold, MD, MPH

Free full text

View

COVID-19 can involve persistence, sequelae, and other medical complications that last weeks to
months after initial recovery. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to identify studies
assessing the long-term efects of COVID-19. LitCOVID and Embase were searched to identify articles
with original data published before the 1st of January 2021, with a minimum of 100 patients. For
efects reported in two or more studies, meta-analyses using a random-efects model were performed
using the MetaXL software to estimate the pooled prevalence with 95% CI. PRISMA guidelines were
followed. A total of 18,251 publications were identifed, of which 15 met the inclusion criteria. The
prevalence of 55 long-term efects was estimated, 21 meta-analyses were performed, and 47,910
patients were included (age 17–87 years). The included studies defned long-COVID as ranging from 14
to 110 days post-viral infection. It was estimated that 80% of the infected patients with SARS-CoV-2
developed one or more long-term symptoms. The fve most common symptoms were fatigue (58%),
headache (44%), attention disorder (27%), hair loss (25%), and dyspnea (24%). Multi-disciplinary
teams are crucial to developing preventive measures, rehabilitation techniques, and clinical
management strategies with whole-patient perspectives designed to address long COVID-19 care.

Author/s:

S., Wegman-Ostrosky, T., Perelman, C., Sepulveda, R., Rebolledo, P. A., Cuapio, A., Villapol, S.

Clinical Diagnosis of Benign Paroxysmal Positional Vertigo and Vestibular Neuritis

Devin Evans — Thu, 21 Jan 2021 06:00:00 +0000

Date Added:

January 21, 2021

Journal/Publication:

Canadian Medical Association Journal

Publication Date:

February 24, 2020

Issue:

Volume:

192

Pages:

182-186

URL:

Clinical Diagnosis of Benign Paroxysmal Positional Vertigo and Vestibular Neuritis

Type:

Clinical Decision Aids

Format:

Article

DOI (1):

10.1503/cmaj.190334

Keywords

benign paroxysmal positional vertigo

vertigo

vestibular neuritis

PMID (1):

32094268

MeSH

A nice review of how to distinguish BPPV from vestibular neuronitis clinically. James W. Mold, MD, MPH

Free full text

View

• Assess patients with vertigo for focal neurologic signs and symptoms, sustained substantial headache or neck pain, inability to stand and spontaneous vertical nystagmus.

• Perform the Dix–Hallpike test only for patients with episodes of vertigo less than 2 minutes and no nystagmus at rest.

• Perform the head impulse, nystagmus and test of skew (HINTS) plus (plus refers to a test of recent hearing loss) examination only for patients with hours or days of constant, ongoing vertigo and nystagmus at rest.

Author/s:

Johns, Peter, Quinn, James

Clinical diagnosis of benign paroxysmal positional vertigo and vestibular neuritis

John Bayhi — Mon, 24 Feb 2020 20:37:12 +0000

Date Added:

February 24, 2020

Journal/Publication:

Canadian Medical Association Journal

Publisher:

Joule Inc

Publication Date:

February 24, 2020

Issue:

Volume:

192

Pages:

E182-E186

Type:

Meta-analyses, Reviews, and Guidelines

Format:

Article

DOI (1):

10.1503/cmaj.190334

Keywords

vertigo

benign paroxysmal positional vertigo

MeSH

Benign Paroxysmal Positional Vertigo

A nice review of how to differentiate clinically between benign paroxysmal positional vertigo, vestibular neuritis, and central causes of vertigo.

Free full text

View

KEY POINTS

• Assess patients with vertigo for focal neurologic signs and symptoms, sustained substantial headache or neck pain, inability to stand and spontaneous vertical nystagmus.

• Perform the Dix–Hallpike test only for patients with episodes of vertigo less than 2 minutes and no nystagmus at rest.

Author/s:

Johns, P, Quinn, J

Epidemiological and clinical characteristics of 99 cases of 2019 novel coronavirus pneumonia in Wuhan, China: a descriptive study

John Bayhi — Fri, 14 Feb 2020 17:29:39 +0000

Date Added:

February 14, 2020

Journal/Publication:

Lancet

Publisher:

Elsevier Ltd.

Publication Date:

February 15, 2020

Issue:

10223

Volume:

395

Pages:

507-513

URL:

Epidemiological and clinical characteristics of 99 cases of 2019 novel coronavirus pneumonia in Wuhan, China: a descriptive study

Type:

Clinical Research Results

Format:

Article

DOI (1):

10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30211-7

Keywords

coronavirus

2019-nCOV

2019 novel coronavirus

pneumonia

China

PMID (1):

32007143

I thought you might want to see this information regarding the presentations of patients with the novel coronavirus. James W. Mold, MD, MPH

Free full text

View

BACKGROUND:

In December, 2019, a pneumonia associated with the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) emerged in Wuhan, China. We aimed to further clarify the epidemiological and clinical characteristics of 2019-nCoV pneumonia.

METHODS:

In this retrospective, single-centre study, we included all confirmed cases of 2019-nCoV in Wuhan Jinyintan Hospital from Jan 1 to Jan 20, 2020. Cases were confirmed by real-time RT-PCR and were analysed for epidemiological, demographic, clinical, and radiological features and laboratory data. Outcomes were followed up until Jan 25, 2020.

FINDINGS:

Of the 99 patients with 2019-nCoV pneumonia, 49 (49%) had a history of exposure to the Huanan seafood market. The average age of the patients was 55·5 years (SD 13·1), including 67 men and 32 women. 2019-nCoV was detected in all patients by real-time RT-PCR. 50 (51%) patients had chronic diseases. Patients had clinical manifestations of fever (82 [83%] patients), cough (81 [82%] patients), shortness of breath (31 [31%] patients), muscle ache (11 [11%] patients), confusion (nine [9%] patients), headache (eight [8%] patients), sore throat (five [5%] patients), rhinorrhoea (four [4%] patients), chest pain (two [2%] patients), diarrhoea (two [2%] patients), and nausea and vomiting (one [1%] patient). According to imaging examination, 74 (75%) patients showed bilateral pneumonia, 14 (14%) patients showed multiple mottling and ground-glass opacity, and one (1%) patient had pneumothorax. 17 (17%) patients developed acute respiratory distress syndrome and, among them, 11 (11%) patients worsened in a short period of time and died of multiple organ failure.

INTERPRETATION:

The 2019-nCoV infection was of clustering onset, is more likely to affect older males with comorbidities, and can result in severe and even fatal respiratory diseases such as acute respiratory distress syndrome. In general, characteristics of patients who died were in line with the MuLBSTA score, an early warning model for predicting mortality in viral pneumonia. Further investigation is needed to explore the applicability of the MuLBSTA score in predicting the risk of mortality in 2019-nCoV infection.

FUNDING:

National Key R&D Program of China.

Author/s:

Chen, N, Zhou, M, Dong, X, Qu, J, Gong, F, Han, Y, Qiu, Y, Wang, J, Liu, Y, Wei, Y, Xia, J, Yu, T, Zhang, X, Zhang, L

Oseltamivir plus usual care versus usual care for influenza-like illness in primary care: an open-label, pragmatic, randomised controlled trial

John Bayhi — Thu, 02 Jan 2020 19:26:04 +0000

Date Added:

January 2, 2020

Journal/Publication:

Lancet

Publisher:

Elsevier Inc.

Publication Date:

December 12, 2019

URL:

Oseltamivir plus usual care versus usual care for influenza-like illness in primary care: an open-label, pragmatic, randomised controlled trial

Type:

Clinical Research Results

Format:

Article

DOI (1):

10.1016/S0140-6736(19)32982-4

Keywords

PMID (1):

31839279

MeSH

Polymerase Chain Reaction

Europe

Large pragmatic clinical trial from Europe documenting impacts of treatment of influenza with Tamiflu. James W. Mold, MD, MPH

Commercial full text (fees may apply)

View

BACKGROUND:

Antivirals are infrequently prescribed in European primary care for influenza-like illness, mostly because of perceived ineffectiveness in real world primary care and because individuals who will especially benefit have not been identified in independent trials. We aimed to determine whether adding antiviral treatment to usual primary care for patients with influenza-like illness reduces time to recovery overall and in key subgroups.

METHODS:

We did an open-label, pragmatic, adaptive, randomised controlled trial of adding oseltamivir to usual care in patients aged 1 year and older presenting with influenza-like illness in primary care. The primary endpoint was time to recovery, defined as return to usual activities, with fever, headache, and muscle ache minor or absent. The trial was designed and powered to assess oseltamivir benefit overall and in 36 prespecified subgroups defined by age, comorbidity, previous symptom duration, and symptom severity, using a Bayesian piece-wise exponential primary analysis model. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN Registry, number ISRCTN 27908921.

FINDINGS:

Between Jan 15, 2016, and April 12, 2018, we recruited 3266 participants in 15 European countries during three seasonal influenza seasons, allocated 1629 to usual care plus oseltamivir and 1637 to usual care, and ascertained the primary outcome in 1533 (94%) and 1526 (93%). 1590 (52%) of 3059 participants had PCR-confirmed influenza infection. Time to recovery was shorter in participants randomly assigned to oseltamivir (hazard ratio 1·29, 95% Bayesian credible interval [BCrI] 1·20-1·39) overall and in 30 of the 36 prespecified subgroups, with estimated hazard ratios ranging from 1·13 to 1·72. The estimated absolute mean benefit from oseltamivir was 1·02 days (95% [BCrI] 0·74-1·31) overall, and in the prespecified subgroups, ranged from 0·70 (95% BCrI 0·30-1·20) in patients younger than 12 years, with less severe symptoms, no comorbidities, and shorter previous illness duration to 3·20 (95% BCrI 1·00-5·50) in patients aged 65 years or older who had more severe illness, comorbidities, and longer previous illness duration. Regarding harms, an increased burden of vomiting or nausea was observed in the oseltamivir group.

INTERPRETATION:

Primary care patients with influenza-like illness treated with oseltamivir recovered one day sooner on average than those managed by usual care alone. Older, sicker patients with comorbidities and longer previous symptom duration recovered 2-3 days sooner.

FUNDING:

European Commission's Seventh Framework Programme.

Author/s:

Butler, CC, van der Velden, AW, Bongard, E, Saville, BR, Holmes, J, Coenen, S, Cook, J, Francis, NA, Lewis, RJ, Godycki-Cwirko, M, Llor, C, Chlabicz, S, Lionis, C, Seifert, B, Sundvall, PD, Colliers, A, Aabenhus, R, Bjerrum, L, Jonassen Harbin, N, Lindbæk M, Glinz, D, Bucher, HC, Kovacs, B, Radzeviciene Jurgute, R, Touboul Lundgren, P, Little, P, Murphy, AW, De Sutter, A, Openshaw, P, de Jong, MD, Connor, JT, Matheeussen, V, Ieven, M, Goossens, H, Verheij, TJ

Aspirin in the Treatment and Prevention of Migraine Headaches: Possible Additional Clinical Options for Primary Healthcare Providers

Brian Desmarais — Mon, 11 Nov 2019 15:09:25 +0000

Date Added:

November 11, 2019

Journal/Publication:

The American Journal of Medicine

Publication Date:

October 12, 2019

URL:

Aspirin in the Treatment and Prevention of Migraine Headaches: Possible Additional Clinical Options for Primary Healthcare Providers

Type:

Meta-analyses, Reviews, and Guidelines

Format:

Article

DOI (1):

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjmed.2019.10.023

Keywords

MeSH

While the full article is not available for free, I though the abstract might be of interest and value. James W. Mold, MD, MPH

Commercial full text (fees may apply)

View

Migraine headaches are among the most common and potentially debilitating disorders encountered by primary healthcare providers. In the treatment of acute migraine as well as prevention of recurrent attacks there are prescription drugs of proven benefit. For those without health insurance or high co-pays, however, they may be neither available nor affordable and, for all patients, they may be either poorly tolerated or contraindicated.

The totality of evidence, which includes data from randomized trials, suggests that high-dose aspirin, in doses from 900 to 1300 milligrams, taken at the onset of symptoms, is an effective and safe treatment option for acute migraine headaches. In addition, the totality of evidence, including some, but not all, randomized trials, suggests the possibility that daily aspirin in doses from 81 to 325 milligrams, may be an effective and safe treatment option for the prevention of recurrent migraine headaches.

The relatively favorable side effect profile of aspirin and extremely low costs compared with other prescription drug therapies may provide additional options for primary healthcare providers treating acute as well as recurrent migraine headaches.

Author/s:

Biglione, B., Gitin, A., Gorelick, P., Hennekens, C.

Proton pump inhibitor-related headaches: A nationwide population-based case-crossover study in Taiwan

Tracy Ashby — Mon, 11 Mar 2019 05:00:00 +0000

Date Added:

March 11, 2019

Journal/Publication:

Cephalalgia : An International Journal of Headache

Publisher:

International Headache Society

Publication Date:

May 22, 2014

Issue:

Volume:

Pages:

203-210

URL:

Proton pump inhibitor-related headaches: A nationwide population-based case-crossover study in Taiwan

Type:

Clinical Research Results

Format:

Article

DOI (1):

10.1177/0333102414535114

Keywords

headache

proton pump inhibitor

incidence

risk

Taiwan

PMID (1):

24853165

MeSH

headache

proton pump inhibitors

tension-type headache

incidence

PPIs are known to increase headaches. The mechanism is likely to be a lowered migraine threshold.

Free full text

View

Background

Headaches resulting from proton pump inhibitor (PPI) use could cause discontinuation of PPI in as many as 40% of patients who experience such headaches. Previous studies focusing on acute headache risk from PPI use are rare and limited to clinical trials of a single PPI.

Objectives

To investigate the association between PPI use and headache with a nationwide population-based case-crossover study.

Methods

Records containing the first diagnosis of any headache, including migraine and tension-type headaches, were retrieved from Taiwan National Health Insurance Database (1998–2010). We compared the rates of PPI use for cases and controls during time windows of 7, 14, and 28 days. The adjusted self-matched odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) from a conditional logistic regression model were used to determine the association between PPI use and headache.

Results

Overall, 314,210 patients with an initial diagnosis of any headache during the study period were enrolled. The adjusted ORs for headache risk after PPI exposure were calculated for three time periods (within 7 days = 1.41, p = 0.002, 95% CI 1.14–1.74; within 14 days = 1.36, p < 0.001, 95% CI 1.16–1.59; within 28 days = 1.20, p = 0.002, 95% CI 1.07–1.35). Subgroup analyses showed female patients had an increased risk of headache. Among PPIs, lansoprazole and esomeprazole had the highest risks of headache incidence, which were similar to that of nitrates.

Conclusion

PPI usage is associated with an increased risk for acute headache. Female patients and use of lansoprazole or esomeprazole present the greatest risks of headache.

Author/s:

Liang, Jen-Feng, Chen, Yung-Tai, Fuh, Jong-Ling, Li, Szu-Yuan, Chen, Tzeng-Ji, Tang, Chao-Hsiun, Wang, Shuu-Jiun