Background Increased understanding of whether individuals who have recovered from COVID-19 are protected from future SARS-CoV-2 infection is an urgent requirement. We aimed to investigate whether antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 were associated with a decreased risk of symptomatic and asymptomatic reinfection. Methods A large, multicentre, prospective cohort study was done, with participants recruited from publicly funded hospitals in all regions of England. All health-care workers, support staff, and administrative staff working at hospitals who could remain engaged in follow-up for 12 months were eligible to join The SARS-CoV-2 Immunity and Reinfection Evaluation study. Participants were excluded if they had no PCR tests after enrolment, enrolled after Dec 31, 2020, or had insufficient PCR and antibody data for cohort assignment. Participants attended regular SARS-CoV-2 PCR and antibody testing (every 2–4 weeks) and completed questionnaires every 2 weeks on symptoms and exposures. At enrolment, participants were assigned to either the positive cohort (antibody positive, or previous positive PCR or antibody test) or negative cohort (antibody negative, no previous positive PCR or antibody test). The primary outcome was a reinfection in the positive cohort or a primary infection in the negative cohort, determined by PCR tests. Potential reinfections were clinically reviewed and classified according to case definitions (confirmed, probable, or possible) and symptom-status, depending on the hierarchy of evidence. Primary infections in the negative cohort were defined as a first positive PCR test and seroconversions were excluded when not associated with a positive PCR test. A proportional hazards frailty model using a Poisson distribution was used to estimate incidence rate ratios (IRR) to compare infection rates in the two cohorts. Findings From June 18, 2020, to Dec 31, 2020, 30 625 participants were enrolled into the study. 51 participants withdrew from the study, 4913 were excluded, and 25 661 participants (with linked data on antibody and PCR testing) were included in the analysis. Data were extracted from all sources on Feb 5, 2021, and include data up to and including Jan 11, 2021. 155 infections were detected in the baseline positive cohort of 8278 participants, collectively contributing 2 047 113 person-days of follow-up. This compares with 1704 new PCR positive infections in the negative cohort of 17 383 participants, contributing 2 971 436 person-days of follow-up. The incidence density was 7·6 reinfections per 100 000 person-days in the positive cohort, compared with 57·3 primary infections per 100 000 person-days in the negative cohort, between June, 2020, and January, 2021. The adjusted IRR was 0·159 for all reinfections (95% CI 0·13–0·19) compared with PCR-confirmed primary infections. The median interval between primary infection and reinfection was more than 200 days. Interpretation A previous histo...

Background BNT162b2 mRNA and ChAdOx1 nCOV-19 adenoviral vector vaccines have been rapidly rolled out in the UK from December, 2020. We aimed to determine the factors associated with vaccine coverage for both vaccines and documented the vaccine effectiveness of the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine in a cohort of health-care workers undergoing regular asymptomatic testing. MethodsThe SIREN study is a prospective cohort study among staff (aged ≥18 years) working in publicly-funded hospitals in the UK. Participants were assigned into either the positive cohort (antibody positive or history of infection [indicated by previous positivity of antibody or PCR tests]) or the negative cohort (antibody negative with no previous positive test) at the beginning of the follow-up period. Baseline risk factors were collected at enrolment, symptom status was collected every 2 weeks, and vaccination status was collected through linkage to the National Immunisations Management System and questionnaires. Participants had fortnightly asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 PCR testing and monthly antibody testing, and all tests (including symptomatic testing) outside SIREN were captured. Data cutoff for this analysis was Feb 5, 2021. The follow-up period was Dec 7, 2020, to Feb 5, 2021. The primary outcomes were vaccinated participants (binary ever vacinated variable; indicated by at least one vaccine dose recorded by at least one of the two vaccination data sources) for the vaccine coverage analysis and SARS-CoV-2 infection confirmed by a PCR test for the vaccine effectiveness analysis. We did a mixed-effect logistic regression analysis to identify factors associated with vaccine coverage. We used a piecewise exponential hazard mixed-effects model (shared frailty-type model) using a Poisson distribution to calculate hazard ratios to compare time-to-infection in unvaccinated and vaccinated participants and estimate the impact of the BNT162b2 vaccine on all PCR-positive infections (asymptomatic and symptomatic). This study is registered with ISRCTN, number ISRCTN11041050, and is ongoing.Findings 23 324 participants from 104 sites (all in England) met the inclusion criteria for this analysis and were enrolled. Included participants had a median age of 46•1 years (IQR 36•0-54•1) and 19 692 (84%) were female; 8203 (35%) were assigned to the positive cohort at the start of the analysis period, and 15 121 (65%) assigned to the negative cohort. Total follow-up time was 2 calendar months and 1 106 905 person-days (396 318 vaccinated and 710 587 unvaccinated). Vaccine coverage was 89% on Feb 5, 2021, 94% of whom had BNT162b2 vaccine. Significantly lower coverage was associated with previous infection, gender, age, ethnicity, job role, and Index of Multiple Deprivation score. During follow-up, there were 977 new infections in the unvaccinated cohort, an incidence density of 14 infections per 10 000 person-days; the vaccinated cohort had 71 new infections 21 days or more after their first dose (incidence density of eight infections per 10 000 person-days) and nine infecti...

Objective.-To provide evidence-based treatment recommendations for adults with acute migraine who require treatment with injectable medication in an emergency department (ED). We addressed two clinically relevant questions: (1) Which injectable medications should be considered first-line treatment for adults who present to an ED with acute migraine? (2) Do parenteral corticosteroids prevent recurrence of migraine in adults discharged from an ED?Methods.-The American Headache Society convened an expert panel of authors who defined a search strategy and then performed a search of Medline, Embase, the Cochrane database and clinical trial registries from inception through 2015. Identified articles were rated using the American Academy of Neurology's risk of bias tool. For each medication, the expert panel determined likelihood of efficacy. Recommendations were created accounting for efficacy, adverse events, availability of alternate therapies, and principles of medication action.Results/Conclusions.-The search identified 68 unique randomized controlled trials utilizing 28 injectable medications. Of these, 19 were rated class 1 (low risk of bias), 21 were rated class 2 (higher risk of bias), and 28 were rated class 3 (highest risk of bias). Metoclopramide, prochlorperazine, and sumatriptan each had multiple class 1 studies supporting acute efficacy, as did dexamethasone for prevention of headache recurrence. All other medications had lower levels of evidence.Recommendations.-Intravenous metoclopramide and prochlorperazine, and subcutaneous sumatriptan should be offered to eligible adults who present to an ED with acute migraine (Should offer-Level B). Dexamethasone should be offered to these patients to prevent recurrence of headache (Should offer-Level B). Because of lack of evidence demonstrating efficacy and concern about sub-acute or long-term sequelae, injectable morphine and hydromorphone are best avoided as first-line therapy (May avoid-Level C).

We strongly recommend the use of prochlorperazine based on a high level of evidence, lysine acetylsalicylic acid, metoclopramide and sumatriptan, based on a moderate level of evidence, and ketorolac, based on a low level of evidence. We weakly recommend the use of chlorpromazine based on a moderate level of evidence, and ergotamine, dihydroergotamine, lidocaine intranasal and meperidine, based on a low level of evidence. We found evidence to recommend strongly against the use of dexamethasone, based on a moderate level of evidence, and granisetron, haloperidol and trimethobenzamide based on a low level of evidence. Based on moderate-quality evidence, we recommend weakly against the use of acetaminophen and magnesium sulfate. Based on low-quality evidence, we recommend weakly against the use of diclofenac, droperidol, lidocaine intravenous, lysine clonixinate, morphine, propofol, sodium valproate and tramadol.

ImportanceThough it is presumed that children and adolescents with migraine are at risk of internalizing symptoms and disorders, high-level summative evidence to support this clinical belief is lacking.ObjectiveTo determine if there is an association between internalizing symptoms and disorders and migraine in children and adolescents.Data SourcesA librarian-led, peer-reviewed search was performed using MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL databases (inception to March 28, 2022).Study SelectionCase-control, cohort, and cross-sectional studies on the association between internalizing symptoms and disorders and migraine in children and adolescents 18 years or younger were eligible.Data Extraction and SynthesisTwo investigators independently completed abstract and full-text screening, data extraction, and quality appraisal using the Newcastle-Ottawa scales. Studies were pooled with random-effects meta-analyses using standardized mean differences (SMD) or odds ratios (OR) with 95% CIs. Where sufficient data for pooling were unavailable, studies were described qualitatively.Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe primary outcome was migraine diagnosis; additional outcomes included migraine outcomes and incidence. Associations between these outcomes and internalizing symptoms and disorders were evaluated.ResultsThe study team screened 4946 studies and included 80 studies in the systematic review. Seventy-four studies reported on the association between internalizing symptoms and disorders and migraine, and 51 studies were amenable to pooling. Meta-analyses comparing children and adolescents with migraine with healthy controls showed: (1) an association between migraine and anxiety symptoms (SMD, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.64-1.63); (2) an association between migraine and depressive symptoms (SMD, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.46-0.87); and (3) significantly higher odds of anxiety disorders (OR, 1.93, 95% CI, 1.49-2.50) and depressive disorders (OR, 2.01, 95% CI, 1.46-2.78) in those with, vs without, migraine. Stratification of results did not reveal differences between clinical vs community/population-based samples and there was no evidence of publication bias. Twenty studies assessing the association between internalizing symptoms or disorders and migraine outcomes (n = 18) or incident migraine (n = 2) were summarized descriptively given significant heterogeneity, with minimal conclusions drawn.Conclusions and RelevanceIn this study, children and adolescents with migraine were at higher risk of anxiety and depression symptoms and disorders compared with healthy controls. It may be beneficial to routinely screen children and adolescents with migraine for anxiety and depression in clinical practice. It is unclear whether having anxiety and depressive symptoms or disorders has an affect on migraine outcomes or incidence.

No abstract

Posttraumatic headache is one of the most common and disabling symptoms after traumatic brain injury. However, evidence for treating posttraumatic headache is sparse, especially in the pediatric literature. This retrospective chart review evaluated the use of occipital nerve blocks in adolescents treated for posttraumatic headache following mild traumatic brain injury, presenting to the Complex Concussion and Traumatic Brain Injury clinic. Fifteen patients (mean age 15.47; range: 13-17) received occipital nerve block for posttraumatic headache. Follow-up was obtained in 14 patients at 5.57 (standard deviation = 3.52) months postinjury. The headache burden was high, with all except one having headaches 15 or more days per month (median 30, range 10-30). Sixty-four percent reported long-term response to the occipital nerve blocks, with associated improved quality of life and decreased postconcussion symptom scores (P < .05). One patient reported transient allopecia. Occipital nerve blocks are well tolerated and can be helpful in posttraumatic headache.

Overall, the quality of the evidence for the use of nutraceuticals in pediatric migraine prophylaxis is poor. Further research needs to be done in order to study the efficacy of nutraceuticals for the prophylaxis of pediatric migraine.