4.4 Article

Prevalence of cranial autonomic parasympathetic symptoms in chronic migraine: Usefulness of a new scale

期刊

CEPHALALGIA
卷 36, 期 4, 页码 346-350

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/0333102415593087

关键词

Chronic migraine; cranial autonomic symptoms; migraine

资金

  1. Plan Nacional I+D+I, Fondos Feder, ISCIII, Ministry of Economy, Spain [PI11/00889, PI14/00020 FISSS]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Cranial autonomic symptoms (CAS) seem to appear in around half of migraine patients. Objective Our aim was to analyse the prevalence and profile of CAS, mainly of cranial autonomic parasympathetic symptoms (CAPS), in a series of patients with chronic migraine (CM) according the new criteria for autonomic symptoms in the current IHS classification. Patients and methods We recruited consecutive CM patients attending our headache clinic. Five CPAS were surveyed: lacrimation, conjunctival injection, eyelid oedema, ear fullness and nasal congestion. They were graded as 0 (absent), 1 (present and mild) and 2 (present and conspicuous); therefore the score in this CAPS scale ranges from 0 to 10 points. As a cranial autonomic sympathetic symptom (CSAS), we also asked about the presence of ptosis. Results We interviewed 100 CM patients. Their mean age was 45 years (18-63 years); 93 were females. Eighteen had no CAPS, while 82 reported at least one CAPS. There were only six patients with scores higher than 5, the mean and median CAPS being 2.1 and 2, respectively. Prevalence of CAPS was lacrimation (49%), conjunctival injection (44%), eyelid oedema (39%), ear fullness (30%) and nasal congestion (20%). Ptosis was reported by 42. Conclusion These results, by using for the first time an easy quantitative scale, confirm that (mild) CAPS are not the exception but the rule in CM patients. The score in this CAPS scale could be of help as a further endpoint in clinical trials or to be correlated with potential biomarkers of parasympathetic activation in primary headaches.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据