No abstract

ObjectiveTo understand COVID-19 characteristics in people with multiple sclerosis (MS) and identify high-risk individuals due to their immunocompromised state resulting from the use of disease-modifying treatments.MethodsRetrospective and multicenter registry in patients with MS with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis and available disease course (mild = ambulatory; severe = hospitalization; and critical = intensive care unit/death). Cases were analyzed for associations between MS characteristics and COVID-19 course and for identifying risk factors for a fatal outcome.ResultsOf the 326 patients analyzed, 120 were cases confirmed by real-time PCR, 34 by a serologic test, and 205 were suspected. Sixty-nine patients (21.3%) developed severe infection, 10 (3%) critical, and 7 (2.1%) died. Ambulatory patients were higher in relapsing MS forms, treated with injectables and oral first-line agents, whereas more severe cases were observed in patients on pulsed immunosuppressors and critical cases among patients with no therapy. Severe and critical infections were more likely to affect older males with comorbidities, with progressive MS forms, a longer disease course, and higher disability. Fifteen of 33 patients treated with rituximab were hospitalized. Four deceased patients have progressive MS, 5 were not receiving MS therapy, and 2 were treated (natalizumab and rituximab). Multivariate analysis showed age (OR 1.09, 95% CI, 1.04–1.17) as the only independent risk factor for a fatal outcome.ConclusionsThis study has not demonstrated the presumed critical role of MS therapy in the course of COVID-19 but evidenced that people with MS with advanced age and disease, in progressive course, and those who are more disabled have a higher probability of severe and even fatal disease.

ObjectiveTo assess the quality of the therapeutic approach in Specialized Headache Units in Spain.MethodsAn observational (prospective) study was conducted. Anonymized data of 313 consecutive patients during a defined period of time were analyzed and a comparison of performance in 13 consensual quality indicators between Specialized Headache Units and neurology consultations was calculated. Specialized Units and neurology consultations represented the type of provision that Spaniards receive in hospitals.ResultsThe consensus benchmark standard was reached for 8/13 (61%) indicators. Specialized Headache Units performed better in the indicators, specifically in relation to accessibility, equity, safety, and patient satisfaction. Patients attended in Specialized Headache Units had more complex conditions.ConclusionAlthough there is variability among Specialized Headache Units, the overall quality was generally better than in traditional neurology consultations in Spain.

No abstract