IntroductionNon-traumatic headaches account for 0.5 to 4.5% at the emergency department (ED). Although primary headaches represent the most common causes, the likelihood of ominous etiology has to be considered by clinicians in order to avoid diagnostic and therapeutic pitfalls. Due to the absence of biological or imaging findings to diagnose primary headaches we hypothesize ICHD 3(International Headache criteria 3) criteria as a useful tool at the moment to identify and to establish a difference between those patients who are undergoing primary headaches and those who will need advanced diagnostic strategies.ObjectivesTo determine the usefulness of ICHD 3 criteria to differentiate primary from non-primary headaches at the emergency department (ED).MethodsDuring five weeks all the patients complaining of headache attended at the triage unit at the ED were interviewed, examined and classified as having primary or non-primary headaches by means of ICHD 3 criteria. Those patients with primary headaches were treated according to standard of care protocols and followed up by means of phone call communication after 48 hours to assure satisfactory outcome. Those patients classified as having non-primary headaches (secondary headaches and neuralgias) were admitted for additional diagnostic and therapeutic interventions. Between both groups we compared the prevalence of fulfilled criteria for primary headaches and the proportion of traditional red flags such as age, sleep headache onset, associated symptoms, abnormal neurological exam, sudden onset, and nonresponse to analgesics in addition to previous consultation before this evaluation.ResultsHeadache was responsible for 244 (2.3%) out of 10450 admissions at the ED, 77.8% were females. Primary, non-primary (secondary plus neuralgias) and unclassified headaches were 59.4%, 32% and 8.6% respectively. Migraine and cervical myofascial pain were the most frequent etiologies for primary and non-primary causes respectively. Factors associated to non-primary etiologies were immunosuppression (OR: 2.7 IC 95% 2.3–3.3) and age older than 50 (OR: 2.7 IC 95% 2.01–3.62). Abnormal neurological exam, sudden and sleep headache onset were not statistically significant.Factors found to be associated with primary headaches were: fulfilling ICHD 3 criteria (OR: 18.7, IC95% 7.1–48.6), history of migraine (OR: 2.9 IC 95% 2.1–3.9), and history of similar episodes (OR: 2.7 IC 95% 2.3–3.3).ConclusionThis data suggests that fulfilling ICHD 3 criteria could be useful to differentiate primary from non-primary headaches. This observation is also valid for immunosuppression, age older than 50, history of migraine and history of similar episodes.

INTRODUCCIÓN: El síndrome de burnout es una condición de prevalência creciente que afecta la calidad de vida y los resultados laborales de quienes lo padecen. OBJETIVO: Describir la prevalencia y factores asociados del síndrome de burnout en neurólogos colombianos. METODOLOGÍA: Mediante encuesta autoadministrada se obtuvo información de 119 neurólogos laboralmente activos en Colombia. Se incluyeron datos correspondientes a variables sociodemográficas junto con la escala Maslasch Burnout Inventory. Para calcular la correlación estadística de variables se utilizó regresión logística. RESULTADOS: El síndrome de burnout se determinó en el 49,6 % de los entrevistados (afectación de 2 o más dimensiones). Esta condición se correlacionó con el sexo femenino (P=0,036), el número de horas trabajadas por semana (P=0,040) y la frecuencia de satisfacción con el trabajo (P<0,001). La práctica de actividades de esparcimiento fue estadísticamente significativa (P=0,024) como factor protector. CONCLUSIÓN: El síndrome de burnout es una condición prevalente en los neurólogos en Colombia. Esta información es útil para la creación de políticas encaminadas a mejorar las condiciones del ejercicio de esta especialidad en nuestro país.

BackgroundMultiple sclerosis is an inflammatory and neurodegenerative demyelinating disease. Current treatment of multiple sclerosis focuses on the use of immunomodulatory, immunosuppressant, and selective immunosuppressant agents. Some of these medications may result in high risk of opportunistic infections including tuberculosis.ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to obtain consensus from a panel of neurologists, pulmonologists, infectious disease specialists, and epidemiology experts regarding the diagnosis, treatment, and monitoring of latent tuberculosis in patients with multiple sclerosis.MethodsA panel of experts in multiple sclerosis and tuberculosis was established. The methodological process was performed in three phases: definition of questions, answer using Delphi methodology, and the discussion of questions not agreed.ResultsTuberculosis screening is suggested when multiple sclerosis drugs are prescribed. The recommended tests for latent tuberculosis are tuberculin and interferon gamma release test. When an anti-tuberculosis treatment is indicated, monitoring should be performed to determine liver enzyme values with consideration of age as well as comorbid conditions such as a history of alcoholism, age, obesity, concomitant hepatotoxic drugs, and history of liver disease.ConclusionLatent tuberculosis should be considered in patients with multiple sclerosis who are going to be treated with immunomodulatory and immunosuppressant medications. Transaminase level monitoring is required on a periodic basis depending on clinical and laboratory characteristics. In addition to the liver impairment, other side effects should be considered when Isoniazid is prescribed.

No abstract