Evidence Hub

Headache Phenotypes in Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension and Its Short-Term Outcomes: A Retrospective Case Series Study

M. Serôdio, Gonçalo Cabral, Bruna Meira, A. Caetano, Miguel Viana-Baptista

Journal of Clinical Medicine Research, 2024

28 participants · 3 citations

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Idiopathic intracranial hypertension (IIH) presents a complex physiopathology, leading into diverse manifestations, notably variable headache phenotypes. Furthermore, its frequent overlap with migraine complicates the evaluation of treatment benefit for IIH-related headache. Our aim was to investigate if there is any relationship between demographic factors, clinical patterns of headache, treatment response, and headache short-term outcome with the headache phenotype of IIH.

METHODS: This study was a retrospective analysis of demographic, clinical, and treatment features of patients with idiopathic intracranial hypertension presenting with headache and evaluation of headache outcomes in the first 12 months following treatment.

RESULTS: Thirty-two patients were included (median age of onset 29.0 years (interquartile range 25.0 - 38.5), 90% females, median body mass index 32.5 kg/m2; 87.5% (n = 28) with papilledema; median cerebrospinal fluid opening pressure 36.5 cm H2O). Patients presented with migraine (n = 11, 34.4%), tension-type (n = 9, 28.1%), or a not-classifiable headache (n = 12, 37.5%). Regarding treatment and short-term follow-up (12 months), there was a failure of medical treatment in 43.8% (n = 14) and a reduction of headaches (≥ 50%) in 62.5% (n = 20) of the patients. Among headache phenotypes, there were no significant differences regarding demographics, clinical features, clinical patterns, or treatment response at baseline. Also, there were no…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a case series, done in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health. Reported size: 28 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free