The Fototest, the Memory Impairment Screen (MIS) and the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) are the preferred options in primary care; other BCT (Clock Drawing Test [CDT], test of verbal fluency [TVF]) may also be administered in cases of negative results with persistent suspected CI or concern (stepwise approach). In the specialised care setting, a systematic assessment of the different cognitive domains should be conducted using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment, the MMSE, the Rowland Universal Dementia Assessment, the Addenbrooke's Cognitive Examination, or by means of a stepwise or combined approach involving more simple tests (CDT, TVF, Fototest, MIS, Memory Alteration Test, Eurotest). Associating an informant questionnaire (IQ) with the BCT is superior to the BCT alone for the detection of CI. The choice of instruments will depend on the patient's characteristics, the clinician's experience, and available time. The BCT and IQ must reinforce - but never substitute - clinical judgment, patient-doctor communication, and inter-professional dialogue.

Introduction: Brief cognitive tests (BCT) may help detect cognitive impairment (CI) in the clinical setting. Several BCT have been developed and/or validated in our country, but we lack specific recommendations for use. Development: Review of studies on the diagnostic accuracy of BCT for CI, using studies conducted in Spain with BCT which take less than 20 minutes. We provide recommendations of use based on expert consensus and established on the basis of BCT characteristics and study results. Conclusion: The Fototest, the Memory Impairment Screen (MIS) and the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) are the preferred options in primary care; other BCT (Clock Drawing Test [CDT], test of verbal fluency [TVF]) may also be administered in cases of negative results with

Background Nummular headache (NH) is defined by the presence of localized pain circumscribed to a round or elliptical area of the scalp, with a well‐defined contour and a diameter of 1–6 cm. Although some evidence supports a peripheral mechanism, its etiopathogenesis remains unclear. Case We report the case of a 64‐year‐old man with high‐frequency episodic migraine who has used topiramate, beta‐blockers, flunarizine, and amitriptyline without effect. In the last 8 years he also had continuous pain in an oval area of the scalp, consistent with NH. Triptans were ineffective for this new pain, and preventive therapy with gabapentin and onabotulinumtoxinA in the painful area had no effect. NH remitted when the patient received monthly treatment with subcutaneous galcanezumab for his migraine. Conclusions Monoclonal antibodies against calcitonin gene‐related peptide (CGRP), in particular galcanezumab, might be an effective therapy in some patients with NH. CGRP may have a role in the etiopathogenesis of this headache, which warrants further investigation.

Background To evaluate treatment satisfaction with galcanezumab as a patient‐reported outcome measure (PROM) in migraine. Methods Patients with ≥8 headache days/month that had failed at ≥3 medications were included. Demographic and medical history were collected. Patient´s satisfaction (effectiveness, safety, convenience, and global satisfaction [GS]) was assessed by the Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication version 1.4 (TSQM‐1.4©). Results We included 30 patients with migraine (76.7% chronic migraine). After 12 weeks of galcanezumab treatment, median monthly headache days (MHDs) decreased 11.5 (IQR 14.0) and median monthly migraine days (MMDs) 9.0 (IQR 7.5); at 24 weeks, the change was 15.0 (IQR 12.0) and 8.0 days (IQR 6.0). HIT‐6 score decreased from 68.0 (IQR 7.5) to 54.0 (IQR 9.5) at 12 weeks (p < .001) and to 52.0 (IQR12.0) at 24 weeks (p < .001) and MIDAS from 60.0 (IQR 62.7) to 25.5 (IQR 41.2, p = .004) and 7.0 (IQR 18.5, p < .001), respectively. TSQM‐1.4© at 12 weeks was higher compared to other preventive therapy in effectiveness (80.6/50.4, p < .001), convenience (83.3/66.7, p = .001), and GS (78.6/50.0, p < .001). These rates of satisfaction were similar at 24 weeks of galcanezumab treatment. Reductions in HIT‐6 (r = −.444, p = .014), MIDAS (r = −.423, p = .020), MMDs (r = −.515, p = .004), and MHDs (r = −.477, p = .008) were associated significantly with GS at 12 weeks. This correlation was significantly associated with changes in HIT‐6 and MHDs at 24 weeks. Conclusions The results of this study suggest that migraine patients receiving galcanezumab are significantly more satisfied compared to other preventive therapies, associating treatment GS with meaningful reductions in frequency, impact, and disability caused by migraine.