The aim of this study was to estimate the 1-year prevalence of migraine and the degree of the association of migraine with some sociodemographic characteristics of a representative sample of the adult population of Brazil. This was a cross-sectional, population-based study. Telephone interviews were conducted on 3848 people, aged 18-79 years, randomly selected from the 27 States of Brazil. The estimated 1-year gender- and age-adjusted prevalence of migraine was 15.2%. Migraine was 2.2 times more prevalent in women, 1.5 times more in subjects with > 11 years of education, 1.59 times more in subjects with income of < 5 Brazilian Minimum Wages per month, and 1.43 times more in those who do not do any physical exercise. The overall prevalence of migraine in Brazil is 15.2%. Migraine is significantly more prevalent in women, subjects with higher education, with lower income, and those who do not exercise regularly, independently of their body mass index.

The objectives of this study were to estimate the 1-year prevalence of chronic daily headache (CDH) and the degree of the association of CDH with some sociodemographic characteristics of the adult population of Brazil. This was a cross-sectional, population-based study. We conducted telephone interviews with 3848 people, aged 18-79 years, randomly selected from the 27 States of Brazil. The degree of the association was calculated through prevalence ratios, adjusted with Poisson regression by gender, age and some sociodemographic factors. The estimated 1-year gender- and age-adjusted prevalence of CDH was 6.9%. CDH was 2.4 times more prevalent in women, 1.72 times more in unemployed, 1.63 times more in subjects with high household income and two times greater in those who did not exercise. The overall prevalence of CDH in Brazil is high. CDH is significantly more prevalent in women, the unemployed, subjects with higher income, and in those who do not exercise.

Chronic migraine is a condition with significant prevalence all around the world and high socioeconomic impact, and its handling has been challenging neurologists. Developments for understanding its mechanisms and associated conditions, as well as that of new therapies, have been quick and important, a fact which has motivated the Latin American and Brazilian Headache Societies to prepare the present consensus. The treatment of chronic migraine should always be preceded by a careful diagnosis review; the detection of possible worsening factors and associated conditions; the stratification of seriousness/impossibility to treat; and monitoring establishment, with a pain diary. The present consensus deals with pharmacological and nonpharmacological forms of treatment to be used in chronic migraine.

The objective of the present study was to assess the presence of cognitive deficits in patients with chronic migraine, and to assess the main factors that trigger cognitive disorders, such as comorbidities or the use of medications. Methods: Chronic migraine and control groups were interviewed in a case-control study. The frequency and intensity of the headache, medication used and associated comorbidities were determined. All patients were submitted to an extended neuropsychological assessment. Results: The chronic migraine group (n = 30) had a worse performance in the Montreal Cognitive Assessment Test (p = 0.00), Verbal Fluency (p = 0.00), Stroop (p = 0.00), Clock Drawing Test (p = 0.00), Digit Span (p = 0.00) and Matrix Reasoning (p = 0.01). After statistical adjustment by linear regression, migraine continued to be the only relevant factor in the poorer performance in the Montreal Cognitive Assessment, Verbal Fluency, Clock Drawing and Stroop tests. Conclusion: Patients with chronic migraine have cognitive deficits in multiple tasks, regardless of the presence of comorbidities or the use of medications.

In this article, a group of experts in headache management of the Brazilian Headache Society developed through a consensus strategic measurements to treat a migraine attack in both the child and the adult. Particular emphasis was laid on the treatment of migraine in women, including at pregnancy, lactation and perimenstrual period.

We applied the second edition of the International Classification of Headache Disorders (ICHD-II) in 417 children (age range, 2–12 years) with chronic headaches attending a pediatric headache clinic. The initial diagnosis was made according to the ICHD-II while the final diagnosis was, based on the longitudinal intuitive clinical diagnosis (LICD), deemed to be the gold standard. The diagnosis of migraine without aura had a sensitivity of 52%, a specificity of 100% and a positive predictive value of 100%; for the diagnosis of migraine (at the one-digit level) these values were 87%, 100% and 100%, respectively. The ICHD-II criteria for migraine without aura have high specificity but low sensitivity in childhood, even considering the minimal duration of the attacks to be 1 hour. Other factors, such as the existence of subgroup 2.4 (probable tension-type headache), are responsible for the low sensitivity of ICHD-II criteria for the diagnosis of migraine without aura in patients of this age group.

-Fourty-five migraine without aura patients underwent a parallel double-blind trial aiming the comparison of the effects of propranolol 60 mg/day to flunarizine 10 mg/day and to propranolol 60 mg/day plus flunarizine 10 mg/day simultaneously. There were 3 groups, each one with 15 patients. After a 20-day-baseline period, each group received one kind of treatment during 120 days. Migraine index on propranolol was 23.4*. on flunarizine 18.7* and on both drugs 14.4*, mean frequency of attacks on propranolol was 1.26**, on flunarizine 1.2** and on both drugs 1.13** (*p<0.05, ** p < 0.01 compared to baseline) and global evaluation was reduced with all forms of treatment. It was not found statistical differences between groups, nevertheless there was a trend in the group using two drugs reaching lower values in migraine index, frequency of attacks and global evaluation. In individuals using flunarizine (alone or associated with propranolol) the therapeutic effect was largely maintained up to 45 days after drug withdrawal.KEY WORDS: migraine trial, propranolol and migraine, flunarizine and migraine, migraine and polytheraphy.Ensaio duplo-cego comparando propranolol, flunarizina e flunarizina associada ao propranolol na profilaxia da migrânea sem aura RESUMO -Quarenta e cinco pacientes com migrânea sem aura submeteram-se a ensaio paralelo e duplo-cego visando comparar os efeitos de propranolol (PPN), flunarizina (FNZ) e uso associado de propranolol mais flunarizina. Foram divididos em três grupos de 15 indivíduos. Após período preliminar de 20 dias sem a administração de qualquer droga, um grupo recebeu PPN 60 mg/dia, outro grupo FNZ 10 mg/dia, e o terceiro grupo PPN 60 mg/dia associado à FNZ 10 mg/dia. O tempo de tratamento foi 120 dias. O índice de dor no grupo sob PPN passou de 39,3 para 23,4 (p<0,05) no grupo sob FNZ de 33,7 para 18,7 (p<0,05) e no grupo recebendo ambas as drogas de 33,5 para 14,4 (p<0,05). Não houve diferenças entre os índices de dor dos três grupos após o tratamento. A frequência de crises no grupo sob PPN passou de 2,8 para 1,26 (p<0,01) no grupo sob FNZ de 2,6 para 1,2 (p<0,01) e no grupo recebendo ambas as drogas de 2,9 para 1,13 (p<0,01). Não houve diferenças entre as frequências de crises dos três grupos após o tratamento. Foram confirmadas as eficácias dessas drogas na profilaxia da migrânea sem aura. A associação das drogas não logrou benefício ulterior no que concerne à diminuição dos índices de dor ou da frequência de crises. Entretanto, na avaliação global por parte do paciente, os melhores resultados estavam entre os que usaram duas drogas. Nos grupos que usaram FNZ (isolada ou associada ao PPN), as melhoras alcançadas persistiram mesmo após 45 dias da retirada dos fármacos.PALAVRAS CHAVE: migrânea, propranolol na migrânea, flunarizina na migrânea, migrânea e politerapia.

Chronic migraine poses a significant personal, social and economic burden and is characterized by headache present on 15 or more days per month for at least three months, with at least eight days of migrainous headache per month. It is frequently associated with analgesic or acute migraine medication overuse and this should not be overlooked. The present consensus was elaborated upon by a group of members of the Brazilian Headache Society in order to describe current evidence and to provide recommendations related to chronic migraine pharmacological and nonpharmacological treatment. Withdrawal strategies in medication overuse headache are also described, as well as treatment risks during pregnancy and breastfeeding. Oral topiramate and onabotulinum toxin A injections are the only treatments granted Class A recommendation, while valproate, gabapentin, and tizanidine received Class B recommendation, along with acupuncture, biofeedback, and mindfulness. The anti-CGRP or anti-CGRPr monoclonal antibodies, still unavailable in Brazil, are promising new drugs already approved elsewhere for migraine prophylactic treatment, the efficacy of which in chronic migraine is still to be definitively proven.