<b><i>Background:</i></b> Topical 15% resorcinol is commonly used in clinical practice for the treatment of nodules and abscesses in patients with hidradenitis suppurativa (HS). It has been shown to be clinically effective in some small studies, but data on satisfaction perceived by patients are lacking. The Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication (TSQM) version 1.4 is a validated measure of patient satisfaction, evaluating four domains: effectiveness, side effects, convenience, and global satisfaction. Our objective was to obtain data from HS patients regarding resorcinol treatment satisfaction and its relationship with clinical and epidemiological variables. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> We performed a cross-sectional study providing TSQM version 1.4 questionnaires to HS patients who had been prescribed topical resorcinol during the previous 24 months. <b><i>Results:</i></b> Ninety-two patients answered the questionnaire. Eighty-five out of 92 (92.4%) were Hurley II and 7 Hurley I. The mean total score was 317.5 out of 400 (71.0 points in effectiveness, 93.6 in side effects, 79.3 in convenience, and 73.2 in global satisfaction). Total score was higher in men than in women (329.7 vs. 311.6, <i>p</i> = 0.026) and higher scores on convenience were seen in patients who were not overweight or obese (86.9 vs. 77.1, <i>p</i> = 0.016). Most patients (65, 70.6%) denied having any side effect. 78 (84.8%) of the patients would recommend the treatment. <b><i>Conclusion:</i></b> The results of this study suggest that HS patients treated with resorcinol 15% are very satisfied with this treatment.

Aim and Methods: Erenumab and galcanezumab have shown great results for migraine prevention in several clinical trials. However, strict inclusion criteria, absence of concomitant medication and selective outcome report may sometimes be barely representative of the real-world daily practice. Therefore, this observational, retrospective, non-comparative study was aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of erenumab 140 mg and galcanezumab 120 mg in real-world patients with difficult-to-treat episodic or chronic migraine, who previously did not respond to up to three well-stablished pharmacological alternatives for migraine prevention. A combination of objective well-defined tools and vastly used patient reported outcome measurements were evaluated at baseline and after the administration of 3 and 6 doses. Results: from 180 patients, 142 matched inclusion criteria for the present study. Data here reported shows that erenumab and galcanezumab reduced mean headache days, acute migraine specific medication days, Headache Impact Test score, Migraine Disability Assessment Test score and Visual Analogue Scale score after 3 and 6 doses in real-world patients diagnosed with difficult to treat chronic or episodic migraine (p<0.01). Moreover, acute migraine specific medication days were reduced by a half in, at least, a 50% of the patients enrolled in each of the groups of the study. Both treatments exhibited a great safety profile, rarely leading to discontinuation because of poor tolerance. Conclusions: Erenumab and galcanezumab seem effective and well tolerated for migraine prevention in real-world patients with episodic or chronic migraine who previously failed to oral preventive therapies.