Background: Onabotulinum toxin A (OnA) is a well-tolerated and effective treatment for chronic migraine (CM). However, based on research indications that incobotulinum toxin A (InA) would be equally effective, a Veterans’ Health Administration Medical Center mandated a 2-year trial of InA as more cost-effective alternative to OnA. Although InA is used for many similar indications as OnA, it is not Food and Drug Administration approved for treating CM, and complications occurred in several patients with CM following this treatment change. We conducted this retrospective analysis to evaluate differences in the efficacy of OnA and InA and identify the reasons for the adverse effects of InA in some of these patients.
Methods: We performed a retrospective review of 42 patients who had been effectively treated with OnA and were then switched to InA. The differences between treatment responses to OnA and InA were assessed through the evaluation of pain on injection, number of headache days, and duration of action. Patients received injections at 10- to 13-week intervals. Those who reported excessive pain on injection of InA were switched back to OnA.
Findings: Severe burning pain on injection was reported by 16 (38%) patients for InA only and by 1 (2%) patient for both InA and OnA. Neither migraine suppression nor the duration of effect was significantly different between OnA and InA.
Conclusions: Reformulation of InA with a pH-buffered solution may eliminate the difference in pain on injection. InA would then be a good alternative to OnA for treating CM.
Background:
Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) is associated with an increased risk for acute ischemic stroke but screening for COVID-19 based on clinical criteria or laboratory testing may be difficult in acute stroke evaluation. Chest computed tomographic (CT) scan may be another time-sensitive option for identification. of COVID-19 in such patients.
Objective:
We report our experience of incorporating chest CT scan in the initial neuroimaging protocol for evaluation of acute stroke patients.
Methods:
All acute stroke patients underwent chest CT scan concurrent to CT head, CT angiogram of head and neck and CT perfusion for 4 months. We identified patients who had chest CT scan findings that were suggestive of COVID-19 including bilateral, multilobar ground glass opacification with a peripheral or posterior distribution, and/or consolidation (mainly in the lower lobes). All patients subsequently underwent polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing of nasopharyngeal swab with contact isolation until COVID-19 could be excluded.
Results:
A total of 224 consecutive patients (mean age 62.12 years±SD; 15.3) underwent acute stroke evaluation with a concurrent chest CT scan. The chest CT identified findings suggestive of COVID-19 in 11 (4.9%) patients. Subsequent PCR testing did not confirm the diagnosis of COVID-19 in any of the patient. Another 99 patients (44%) without any findings suggestive of COVID-19 on chest CT scan underwent PCR testing. PCR testing did not confirm the diagnosis of COVID-19 in any of the patients. Four patients (4.3%) with chest CT scan findings suggestive of COVID-19 were found to have an ischemic stroke while 7 patients (5.9%) with chest CT scan findings suggestive of COVID-19 did not have any ischemic stroke (stroke mimic).
Conclusions:
We found a very low yield for identifying COVID-19 in acute stroke patients by performing chest CT scan concurrent to standard acute stroke neuroimaging protocol.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.