Kissoon, Narayan

Objective To summarize the current literature on non‐steroidal anti‐inflammatory drug and corticosteroid use during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic, recognizing that these are commonly used treatments in the field of headache medicine. Background The use of non‐steroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs and corticosteroids in patients during the COVID‐19 pandemic has been a controversial topic within the medical community and international and national health organizations. Lay press and social media outlets have circulated opinions on this topic despite the fact that the evidence for or against the use of these medications is sparse. In the field of headache medicine, these medications are used commonly and both patients and clinicians may have questions or hesitations pertaining to their use during the COVID‐19 pandemic. Methods A detailed search of the scientific and popular literature was performed. Results There is limited literature pertaining to the safety of non‐steroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs and corticosteroids during the COVID‐19 pandemic. To date, there are no clear scientific data that preclude the use of non‐steroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs in the general population who may acquire COVID‐19 or in those acutely infected with the virus. Several health organizations have concluded that treatment with corticosteroids during active infection should be avoided due to concerns of prolonged viral shedding in the respiratory tract and the lack of survival benefit based on the data from past coronaviruses and influenza virus; specific exceptions exist including treatment for underlying asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, septic shock, and acute respiratory distress syndrome. Conclusion Scientific information regarding the COVID‐19 pandemic is constantly evolving, and limited or contradictory information can lead to confusion for both patients and clinicians. It is recommended that prior to prescribing non‐steroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs and steroids for the treatment of headache, clinicians have open discussions with their patients about the potential risks and benefits of using these medications during the COVID‐19 pandemic. This manuscript summarizes the currently available evidence and understanding about these risks and benefits to help clinicians navigate such discussions.

Background/Objective The great auricular nerve (GAN) arises from C2‐C3 and provides innervation over the skin in the pre‐auricular region, jaw angle, posteroinferior pinna, and mastoid. Although damage to the GAN has been reported following trauma or procedures nearby this nerve course, neuralgia of this nerve is uncommon with knowledge based on a handful of case reports in literature. The objective of this study is to describe the presentation, treatment, and outcome of 13 cases of GAN neuralgia. Methods Case series . Retrospecive review of charts from 1994 to 2018 with diagnoses: “auricular neuralgia,” “auricular neuritis,” or “auricular neuropathy.” We included subjects with neuralgic pain within the distribution of the GAN, and excluded patients with atypical facial pain, GAN neuropathy, or unclear etiology. Results Of 79 charts, 13 patients met criteria (age at onset 11‐59; 11 women, 2 men). Pain was most often described as paroxysmal stabbing provoked by: turning the head (n = 7), touching the neck (n = 5), neck position during sleep (n = 2), jaw movement (n = 2), and other (n = 2). Seven patients received GAN blocks: all noted dramatic improvement in pain, including 3 who continued to receive serial blocks at our institution successfully for the next 2 to 5 years. Two patients successfully transitioned from GAN blocks to GAN stimulators. One patient with GAN lymphoma had resolution of pain following GAN resection. Conclusion GAN neuralgia should be considered in the differential for periauricular pain. GAN blocks or stimulators may be helpful for pain management.

Background The association of trigeminal neuralgia with pontine lesions has been well documented in multiple sclerosis, and we tested the hypothesis that occipital neuralgia in multiple sclerosis is associated with high cervical spinal cord lesions. Methods We retrospectively reviewed the records of 29 patients diagnosed with both occipital neuralgia and demyelinating disease by a neurologist from January 2001 to December 2014. We collected data on demographics, clinical findings, presence of C2-3 demyelinating lesions, and treatment responses. Results The patients with both occipital neuralgia and multiple sclerosis were typically female (76%) and had a later onset (age > 40) of occipital neuralgia (72%). Eighteen patients (64%) had the presence of C2-3 lesions and the majority had unilateral symptoms (83%) or episodic pain (78%). All patients with documented sensory loss (3/3) had C2-3 lesions. Most patients with progressive multiple sclerosis (6/8) had C2-3 lesions. Of the eight patients with C2-3 lesions and imaging at onset of occipital neuralgia, five (62.5%) had evidence of active demyelination. None of the patients with progressive multiple sclerosis (3/3) responded to occipital nerve blocks or high dose intravenous steroids, whereas all of the other phenotypes with long term follow-up (eight patients) had good responses. Conclusions A cervical spine MRI should be considered in all patients presenting with occipital neuralgia. In patients with multiple sclerosis, clinical features in occipital neuralgia that were predictive of the presence of a C2-3 lesion were unilateral episodic symptoms, sensory loss, later onset of occipital neuralgia, and progressive multiple sclerosis phenotype. Clinical phenotype predicted response to treatment.

Premise Migraine can present with a wide range of neurological symptoms. Problem Based on currently available data, the symptoms of typical migraine aura are most likely related to cortical spreading depression (CSD), and evidence supports that CSD can lead to trigeminovascular activation resulting in the headache phase of migraine. Potential Solution An alternative diagnosis to migraine aura should be considered if migrainous headaches present with transient neurological symptoms that have features inconsistent with aura.

AbstractBackgroundNew advances in spinal cord stimulation have led to improved treatment of patients suffering from chronic pain. While the overall safety of newer stimulation devices has been established, no published reports exist regarding safety considerations when these devices are implanted in patients with a preexisting cardiac device.Case ReportAn 83‐year‐old man with a history of out‐of‐hospital cardiac arrest secondary to an episode of ventricular fibrillation underwent automated implantable cardiac defibrillator placement. Concomitantly, he suffered from intractable chronic low axial back pain and was deemed a candidate for high‐frequency (10 kHz) spinal cord stimulation (SCS). Cardiac monitoring during SCS trial and implantation was performed with no interference noted. Following high‐frequency SCS implantation, the patient was observed to have significant pain relief with functional improvement.DiscussionWhile others have reported safety during traditional SCS in patients with implanted cardiac devices, this is the first case report to describe safe and effective use of high‐frequency SCS in a patient with an implanted cardiac device.