PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 11734106

Post-traumatic Headache.

Abstract

Headache is the most common symptom after closed head injury, persisting for more than 2 months in 60% of patients. Rarely does headache occur in isolation. Cervical pain is a frequent accompaniment. Post-traumatic headache is often one of several symptoms of the postconcussive syndrome, and therefore may be accompanied by additional cognitive, behavioral, and somatic problems. Acute post-traumatic headaches may begin at the time of injury and continue for up to 2 months post-injury. Although onset proximate to the time of injury is most common, any new headache type occurring within this period of time is referred to as an acute post-traumatic headache. If such headaches persist beyond the first two months post-injury, they are subsequently referred to as chronic post-traumatic headaches. Over time, post-traumatic headaches may take on a pattern of daily occurrence. If aggressive treatment is initiated early, posttraumatic headache is less likely to become a permanent problem. Once "windup" of post-traumatic headaches occurs, the cycle of ongoing headaches is more difficult to interrupt. The mechanism of post-traumatic headache is poorly understood. Trauma-induced headaches are usually heterogeneous in nature, often including both tension-type pain and intermittent migraine-like attacks. Rebound-headaches may develop from overuse of analgesic medications, and the occurrence of such may complicate significantly the diagnosis of post-traumatic headache. Adequate treatment typically requires both "peripheral" and "central" measures. Understanding the general principles of treatment, especially appropriate use of preventive and abortive medications, will most usefully guide treatment. There is scant literature with which to direct treatment selection for post-traumatic headache. Consequently, treatments for post-traumatic headache are based on those prescribed for phenomenologically similar but etiologically distinct headache disorders. Delayed recovery from post-traumatic headache may be a result of inadequately aggressive or ineffective treatment, overuse of analgesic medications resulting in analgesia rebound phenomena, or comorbid psychiatric disorders (eg, post-traumatic stress disorder, insomnia, substance abuse, depression, or anxiety).

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Judy C. Lane, David B. Arciniegas. 2002. Post-traumatic Headache.. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11940-002-0007-3

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Effectiveness of high-dose versus standard-dose influenza vaccines against hospitalisation according to frailty risk: a prespecified analysis of the randomised trial DANFLU-2.

BACKGROUND: Frailty is a major risk factor for influenza-related complications and can influence vaccine effectiveness. We aimed to assess the relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) of high-dose (HD-IIV) versus standard-dose inactivated influenza vaccine (SD-IIV) in older adults aged 65 years or older according to frailty risk. METHODS: This study was a prespecified analysis of DANFLU-2, an open-label, individually randomised trial, conducted in Denmark during three consecutive influenza seasons (2022-23, 2023-24, and 2024-25). Adults aged 65 years or older were randomised (1:1) to the HD-IIV or SD-IIV group. The primary endpoint was hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia. Frailty was defined according to the validated Hospital Frailty Risk Score (HFRS) based on ICD-10 codes within 10 years before randomisation. Participants were stratified into three HFRS categories, namely low (<5 points), intermediate (5-15 points), and high (>15 points) frailty risk. The rVE of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint was assessed across prespecified HFRS categories and treating HFRS as a continuous variable. Pearson's chi-square test was used to compare safety events across frailty risk groups and randomisation groups. FINDINGS: Among 332&#x2009;438 randomised participants (mean age 73&#xb7;7 years [SD 5&#xb7;8]; 161&#x2009;538 [48&#xb7;6%] were female), 276&#x2009;173 (83&#xb7;1%) had low frailty risk, 52&#x2009;395 (15&#xb7;8%) had intermediate frailty risk, and 3861 (1&#xb7;2%) had high frailty risk. The primary endpoint of hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia occurred in 1424 (0&#xb7;5%) of 276&#x2009;173 participants with low frailty risk, 761 (1&#xb7;5%) of 52&#x2009;395 with intermediate frailty risk, and 163 (4&#xb7;2%) of 3861 with high frailty risk (relative risk [RR] for intermediate vs low frailty risk 2&#xb7;8 [95% CI 2&#xb7;6-3&#xb7;1]; RR for high vs low frailty risk 8&#xb7;2 [7&#xb7;0-9&#xb7;6]). HFRS as a continuous variable significantly modified the effect of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint with higher rVE estimates with increasing HFRS (pinteraction=0&#xb7;020). The rVE was 0&#xb7;2% (95% CI -10&#xb7;8 to 10&#xb7;2) among those with low frailty risk, 13&#xb7;1% (-0&#xb7;4 to 24&#xb7;8) among those with intermediate frailty risk, and 19&#xb7;9% (-10&#xb7;3 to 42&#xb7;1) among those with high frailty risk. No significant interaction was observed when HFRS was assessed according to the prespecified categorical frailty groups (pinteraction=0&#xb7;17). The proportion of participants with at least one serious adverse event increased across frailty risk groups (13&#x2009;366 [4&#xb7;8%] of 275&#x2009;795 for low frailty risk, 5475 [10&#xb7;5%] of 52&#x2009;315 for intermediate frailty risk, and 777 [20&#xb7;2%] of 3850 for high frailty risk; p<0&#xb7;0001), with similar proportions of serious adverse events in the HD-IIV and SD-IIV groups for each frailty risk group. INTERPRETATION: Among adults aged 65 years or older in Denmark, frailty risk might modify the effects of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia, with higher rVE estimates with increasing frailty risk. These findings might support considering high-dose influenza vaccines for frail older adults. However, effect modification was not evident when frailty was assessed using prespecified categorical subgroups, and subgroup-specific estimates were imprecise, with 95% CIs crossing the null. These results should be considered exploratory, warranting further investigation. FUNDING: The DANFLU-2 trial was funded by Sanofi.

Journal Article↗