Primary headache is a very common and burdensome functional headache worldwide, which can be classified as migraine, tension-type headache (TTH), trigeminal autonomic cephalalgia (TAC), and other primary headaches. Managing and treating these different categories require distinct approaches, and accurate diagnosis is crucial. Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) has become a research hotspot to explore primary headache. By examining the interrelationships between activated brain regions and improving temporal and spatial resolution, fMRI can distinguish between primary headaches and their subtypes. Currently the most commonly used is the cortical brain mapping technique, which is based on blood oxygen level-dependent functional magnetic resonance imaging (BOLD-fMRI). This review sheds light on the state-of-the-art advancements in data analysis based on fMRI technology for primary headaches along with their subtypes. It encompasses not only the conventional analysis methodologies employed to unravel pathophysiological mechanisms, but also deep-learning approaches that integrate these techniques with advanced statistical modeling and machine learning. The aim is to highlight cutting-edge fMRI technologies and provide new insights into the diagnosis of primary headaches.

OBJECTIVE: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we critically evaluate available evidence regarding the association between primary headaches and subsequent decline of cognitive function and dementia.
BACKGROUND: Recent studies suggested that headache disorders may increase the risk for dementia. However, available studies are conflicting.
METHODS: To identify qualifying studies, we searched scientific databases, including Pubmed, Scopus, Web of Science, Science Direct and BMC, screening for relevant papers. In order to reduce the heterogeneity between different studies, the analyses were further subdivided according to the clinical diagnoses and the study methodologies.
RESULTS: We identified 23 studies investigating the association between primary headaches and the risk of dementia. Of these, 18 met our inclusion criteria for meta-analysis (covering 924.140 individuals). Overall effect-size shows that primary headaches were associated with a small increase in dementia risk (OR = 1,15; CI 95%: 1,03-1,28; p = 0,02). Analyzing subgroups, we found that migraine was associated with both a moderate increased risk of all-cause dementia (OR = 1,26; p = 0,00; 95% CI: 1,13-1,40) as well as a moderate increased risk of Alzheimer\'s disease (OR = 2,00; p = 0,00; 95% CI: 1,46-2,75). This association was significant in both case-control and retrospective cohort studies but not in prospective studies.
CONCLUSIONS: Our study supports the presence of a link between primary headaches and dementia. However, in the subgroup analysis, only patients with migraine showed a moderate increase risk for all-cause dementia and for Alzheimer\'s disease. Additional rigorous studies are needed to elucidate the possible role of primary headaches on the risk of developing cognitive impairment and dementia.

This systematic review aims to summarise the evidence from studies that examined morphometric alterations of the deep neck muscles using diagnostic imaging (ultrasound imaging, magnetic resonance imaging, and computed tomography) in patients diagnosed with primary headache disorders (PHD). No previous reviews have focused on documenting morphometric changes in this population. We searched five databases (up to 12 November 2022) to identify the studies. The risk of bias (RoB) was assessed using the Quality in Prognostic Studies (QUIPS) tool and the overall quality of the evidence was assessed using The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system. A total of 1246 studies were screened and five were finally included; most were at high RoB, and the overall level of confidence in results was very low. Only two studies showed a significant association between morphometric alterations of the deep neck muscles and PHD (p < 0.001); nevertheless, their RoB was high. Contradictory and mixed results were obtained. The overall evidence did not show a clear association between morphometric alterations of the deep neck muscles in patients diagnosed with PHD. However, due to the limited number of studies and low confidence in the evidence, it is necessary to carry out more studies, with higher methodological quality to better answer our question.

As the globe continues to grapple and scuffle with new emerging strains of COVID every day, a set of recovered patients continue to show persistent enervating symptoms. Many patients never fully recovered after COVID and had neurological and psychiatric symptoms for weeks or months. The emphasis of our study is on these long haulers, particularly on the two critical organ systems of the body, i.e., the central nervous system and the muscular system. Depending upon the severity of the disease, many signs and symptoms continue to linger, ranging from weeks to months. A total of 29 studies are included in our review after thorough screening, application of inclusion and exclusion criteria, and quality appraisals. The total number of patients included is 6012. We found many long-term effects, but the emphasis of our study continued to remain on the two main organ systems that resulted in prolonged COVID with debilitating symptoms and thus affected the quality of life of these patients. Various factors and underlying pathophysiologic manifestations result in the predominance of these signs and symptoms. Furthermore, the patient\'s underlying medical conditions and other environmental factors may add to it. More focus is required on the quality of life post-COVID, and this requires a team of specialists. There are still many unanswered questions like which ethnicity is affected more, why females are more prone to the long symptoms, and the effects of various treatments on the long-term signs and symptoms.

Nummular headaches are a rare and relatively newly characterized primary headache disorder. The epidemiology is largely unknown due to likely underdiagnosis and a small population of all headache patients in outpatient presentation. Though our understanding of nummular headaches continues to evolve, they remain a diagnostic challenge for physicians and the underlying pathophysiology is poorly understood. Hypotheses consider neuralgia stemming from epicranial tissues as well as undergoing observation of varying prevalence of autoimmune markers. Peripheral nociception versus central sensitization needs to be evaluated as well, with cases not having consistent direction. Selecting treatment options can be challenging due to limited efficacy, the vague nature of reported symptoms, the rarity of the diagnosis, and the range of presentations. Several treatment modalities have been utilized including non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), beta-blockers, botulinum toxin injection, transcutaneous nerve stimulation, or even simple reassurance. A case-by-case analysis must be undertaken to best develop treatment options for affected individuals as high-quality randomized quality trials for nummular headaches are very few. We detail two novel cases of patients presenting with nummular headaches that highlight the challenges and importance of making the diagnosis and weighing treatment options for improved levels of patient care, which is followed by a literature review.

BACKGROUND: While transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) has been studied for the treatment of psychiatric disorders, emerging evidence supports its use for pain and headache by stimulating either motor cortex (M1) or dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC). However, its clinical implementation is hindered due to a lack of consensus in the quality of clinical evidence and treatment recommendation/guideline(s). Thus, working collaboratively, this multinational multidisciplinary expert panel aims to: 1) assess and rate the existing outcome evidence of TMS in various pain/headache conditions; 2) provide TMS treatment recommendation/guidelines for the evaluated conditions and comorbid depression; and 3) assess the cost-effectiveness and technical issues relevant to the long-term clinical implementation of TMS for pain and headache.
METHODS: Seven task groups were formed under the guidance of a 5-member steering committee with four task groups assessing the utilization of TMS in the treatment of Neuropathic Pain (NP), Acute Pain, Primary Headache Disorders, and Posttraumatic Brain Injury related Headaches (PTBI-HA), and remaining three assessing the treatment for both pain and comorbid depression, and the cost-effectiveness and technological issues relevant to the treatment.
RESULTS: The panel rated the overall level of evidence and recommendability for clinical implementation of TMS as: 1) high and extremely/strongly for both NP and PTBI-HA respectively; 2) moderate for postoperative pain and migraine prevention, and recommendable for migraine prevention. While the use of TMS for treating both pain and depression in one setting is clinically and financially sound, more studies are required to fully assess the long-term benefit of the treatment for the two highly comorbid conditions, especially with neuronavigation.
CONCLUSIONS: After extensive literature review, the panel provided recommendations and treatment guidelines for TMS in managing neuropathic pain and headaches. In addition, the panel also recommended more outcome and cost-effectiveness studies to assess the feasibility of the long-term clinical implementation of the treatment.

BACKGROUND: Primary headache are prevalent and debilitating disorders. Acute pain cessation is one of the key points in their treatment. Many drugs have been studied but the design of the trials is not usually homogeneous. Efficacy of the trial is determined depending on the selected primary endpoint and usually other different outcomes are measured. We aim to critically appraise which were the employed outcomes through a systematic review.
METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of literature focusing on studies on primary headache evaluating acute relief of pain, following the PRISMA guideline. The study population included patients participating in a controlled study about symptomatic treatment. The comparator could be placebo or the standard of care. The collected information was the primary outcome of the study and all secondary outcomes. We evaluated the studied drug, the year of publication and the type of journal. We performed a search and we screened all the potential papers and reviewed them considering inclusion/exclusion criteria.
RESULTS: The search showed 4288 clinical trials that were screened and 794 full articles were assessed for eligibility for a final inclusion of 495 papers. The studies were published in headache specific journals (58%), general journals (21.6%) and neuroscience journals (20.4%). Migraine was the most studied headache, in 87.8% studies, followed by tension type headache in 4.7%. Regarding the most evaluated drug, triptans represented 68.6% of all studies, followed by non-steroidal anti-inflammatories (25.1%). Only 4.6% of the papers evaluated ergots and 1.6% analyzed opioids. The most frequent primary endpoint was the relief of the headache at a determinate moment, in 54.1%. Primary endpoint was evaluated at 2-h in 69.9% of the studies. Concerning other endpoints, tolerance was the most frequently addressed (83%), followed by headache relief (71.1%), improvement of other symptoms (62.5%) and presence of relapse (54%). The number of secondary endpoints increased from 4.2 (SD = 2.0) before 1991 to 6.39 after 2013 (p = 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: Headache relief has been the most employed primary endpoint but headache disappearance starts to be firmly considered. The number of secondary endpoints increases over time and other outcomes such as disability, quality of life and patients\' preference are receiving attention.

Background Osmophobia (Os) has been reported to be much more prevalent in migraine (M) than in other primary headaches, and its high specificity in the differential diagnosis between M and tension-type headache (TTH) has been reported. Os was included in the ICHD II Appendix as a diagnostic criterion of M. It disappeared in ICHD-3 beta. To understand this choice, we reviewed the literature after 2004. Methods This was a systematic review. We searched in PubMed, MEDLINE and Cochrane library for \"osmophobia\", \"odour/odorphobia AND headache\", \"odour/odor hypersensitivity AND headache\" and \"olfactory hypersensitivity AND headache\". Results 112 papers cited Os as an accompanying symptom of headache; 16 focused on Os in M diagnosis. With the data from 40 articles, we calculated the pooled prevalence of Os in 14,360 patients (2281 pediatric) affected by M (n = 12,496) and TTH (n = 1864). In M, the prevalence was 48.5% (CI 95% 41.4 to 55.8%) in adults and 23.4% (CI 95% 15.7 to 33.4%) in pediatric patients; in TTH, the prevalence was 8.9% (CI 95% 4.6 to 13.5%) in adults and 7.9% (CI 95% 3.3 to 18.1%) in pediatric patients. Ten of these papers allowed us to calculate the sensibility and specificity of Os in differential diagnosis between M and TTH. In adults, the value of specificity was 94.1% (CI 95% 88.9 to 96.9%), and sensitivity was 51.4% (CI 95% 38.4 to 64.2%). In pediatric patients, specificity was 92.0% (CI 95% 81.9 to 96.7%), and sensitivity was 22.1% (CI 95% 10.1 to 41.8%). Conclusion The literature endorses the inclusion of Os among M diagnostic criteria. On this ground, the decision to remove Os from ICHD 3 beta appears unjustified and a revision of this choice is recommended.