Towards a definition of intractable headache for use in clinical practice and trials

Implantable Neurostimulation for Headache Disorders: Effect on Healthcare Utilization and Expenditures

OBJECTIVES

Chronic daily headache is a considerable source of morbidity for patients and also carries an enormous economic burden. Patients who fail standard medication regimens lack well-defined therapies, and neurostimulation is an emerging option for these patients. The purpose of this study was to analyze the cost utility of implantable neurostimulation for treatment of headache.

METHODS

We utilized the Thompson Reuters Marketscan Data base to identify individuals diagnosed with headache disorders who underwent percutaneous neurostimulation. Healthcare expenditures for individuals who subsequently received permanent, surgically implanted neurostimulatory devices were compared to those who did not. Only individuals who sought implantable neurostimulation were included to account for headache severity. The cohorts were adjusted for comorbidity and prior headache-related expenses. Costs were modeled longitudinally using a generalized estimating equation.

RESULTS

A total of 579 patients who underwent percutaneous trial of neurostimulation were included, of which 324 (55.96%) converted to permanent neurostimulation within one year. Unadjusted expenditures were greater for patients who underwent conversion to the permanent neurostimulation device, as expected. Costs grew at a lower rate for patients who converted to permanent device implantation. Cost neutrality for patients receiving the permanent device was reached in less than five years after the enrollment date. The mean cost of conversion to a permanent implantation was $18,607.53 (SD $26,441.34).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study suggests that implantable neurostimulation reduces healthcare expenditures within a relatively short time period in patients with severe refractory headache.

Update of Inpatient Treatment for Refractory Chronic Daily Headache

Chronic daily headache (CDH) is a group of headache disorders, in which headaches occur daily or near-daily (>15 days per month) and last for more than 3 months. Important CDH subtypes include chronic migraine, chronic tension-type headache, hemicrania continua, and new daily persistent headache. Other headaches with shorter durations (<4 h/day) are usually not included in CDH. Common comorbidities of CDH are medication overuse headache and various psychiatric disorders, such as depression and anxiety. Indications of inpatient treatment for CDH patients include poor responses to outpatient management, need for detoxification for overuse of specific medications (particularly opioids and barbiturates), and severe psychiatric comorbidities. Inpatient treatment usually involves stopping acute pain, preventing future attacks, and detoxifying medication overuse if present. Multidisciplinary integrated care that includes medical staff from different disciplines (e.g., psychiatry, clinical psychology, and physical therapy) has been recommended. The outcomes of inpatient treatment are satisfactory in terms of decreasing headache intensity or frequency, withdrawal from medication overuse, reducing disability, and improving life quality, although long-term relapse is not uncommon. In conclusion, inpatient treatment may be useful for select patients with refractory CDH and should be incorporated in a holistic headache care program.

New therapeutic approaches for the prevention and treatment of migraine

The management of patients with migraine is often unsatisfactory because available acute and preventive therapies are either ineffective or poorly tolerated. The acute treatment of migraine attacks has been limited to the use of analgesics, combinations of analgesics with caffeine, ergotamines, and the triptans. Successful new approaches for the treatment of acute migraine target calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) and serotonin (5-hydroxytryptamine, 5-HT1F) receptors. Other approaches targeting the transient receptor potential vanilloid (TRPV1) receptor, glutamate, GABAA receptors, or a combination of 5-HT1B/1D receptors and neuronal nitric oxide synthesis have been investigated but have not been successful in clinical trials thus far. In migraine prevention, the most promising new approaches are humanised antibodies against CGRP or the CGRP receptor. Non-invasive and invasive neuromodulation approaches also show promise as both acute and preventive therapies, although further studies are needed to define appropriate candidates for these therapies and optimum protocols for their use.

Percutaneous nerve field stimulation (PENS) of the occipital region as a possible predictor for occipital nerve stimulation (ONS) responsiveness in refractory headache disorders? A feasibility study

Background

Occipital nerve stimulation (ONS) has been reported to diminish pain levels in intractable chronic headache syndromes of different origin. No reliable objective markers exist to predict ONS responsiveness. This study investigated the predictive value of occipital percutaneous nerve field stimulation (PENS) prior to ONS.

Methods

This trial included 12 patients (CCH, CM, PTH, CH) with chronic refractory headache syndromes eligible for ONS. Repetitive PENS (3 × /10 days) was performed and the headache severity/frequency monitored over four weeks before ONS implantation. Further assessment of PENS/ONS outcomes were stimulation-related complications, perception/tolerance stimulation threshold, the Migraine Disability Scale (MIDAS) and the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI).

Results

All PENS responders benefited from ONS. Of the seven PENS-nonresponders with VAS 6.1(±1.1), six experienced significant pain relief from ONS after three months and one patient failed the PENS/ONS trial (VAS 3.7 (±1.6)); (95% CI 3.6 to 5.7, p < 0.001). The VAS baseline was 8.4 (±0.5) and decreased significantly (50% reduction in severity/frequency) in five patients after PENS, while seven failed to improve (VAS 4.9 (±1.1); (95% CI 2.5 to 4.5, p < 0.001). BDI baseline (from 22.6 (±4.2) to 10.6 (±5.9) (95% CI 7.4 to 16.6, p < 0.001)) and MIDAS baseline (from 143.9 (±14.5) to 72.8 (±28.7) (95% CI 1.17 to 2.3, p < 0.001)) significantly declined after ONS. No PENS/ONS-related complications occurred.

Conclusions

Presurgical applied occipital PENS failed to identify ONS responders sufficiently according to our study protocol, thus requiring further specific investigations to determine its predictive usefulness.

ASICs as therapeutic targets for migraine

Migraine is the most common neurological disorder and one of the most common chronic pain conditions. Despite its prevalence, the pathophysiology leading to migraine is poorly understood and the identification of new therapeutic targets has been slow. Several processes are currently thought to contribute to migraine including altered activity in the hypothalamus, cortical-spreading depression (CSD), and afferent sensory input from the cranial meninges. Decreased extracellular pH and subsequent activation of acid-sensing ion channels (ASICs) may contribute to each of these processes and may thus play a role in migraine pathophysiology. Although few studies have directly examined a role of ASICs in migraine, studies directly examining a connection have generated promising results including efficacy of ASIC blockers in both preclinical migraine models and in human migraine patients. The purpose of this review is to discuss the pathophysiology thought to contribute to migraine and findings that implicate decreased pH and/or ASICs in these events, as well as propose issues to be resolved in future studies of ASICs and migraine. This article is part of the Special Issue entitled 'Acid-Sensing Ion Channels in the Nervous System'.

The appropriate use of neurostimulation: stimulation of the intracranial and extracranial space and head for chronic pain. Neuromodulation Appropriateness Consensus Committee

INTRODUCTION

The International Neuromodulation Society (INS) has identified a need for evaluation and analysis of the practice of neurostimulation of the brain and extracranial nerves of the head to treat chronic pain.

METHODS

The INS board of directors chose an expert panel, the Neuromodulation Appropriateness Consensus Committee (NACC), to evaluate the peer-reviewed literature, current research, and clinical experience and to give guidance for the appropriate use of these methods. The literature searches involved key word searches in PubMed, EMBASE, and Google Scholar dated 1970-2013, which were graded and evaluated by the authors.

RESULTS

The NACC found that evidence supports extracranial stimulation for facial pain, migraine, and scalp pain but is limited for intracranial neuromodulation. High cervical spinal cord stimulation is an evolving option for facial pain. Intracranial neurostimulation may be an excellent option to treat diseases of the nervous system, such as tremor and Parkinson's disease, and in the future, potentially Alzheimer's disease and traumatic brain injury, but current use of intracranial stimulation for pain should be seen as investigational.

CONCLUSIONS

The NACC concludes that extracranial nerve stimulation should be considered in the algorithmic treatment of migraine and other disorders of the head. We should strive to perfect targets outside the cranium when treating pain, if at all possible.

Targeting pericranial nerve branches to treat migraine: Current approaches and perspectives

BACKGROUND

Migraine is a highly prevalent neurological disorders and a major individual and societal burden. Migraine is not curable at the present time, but it is amenable to acute symptomatic and preventive pharmacotherapies.

SUMMARY

Since the latter are frequently unsatisfactory, other treatment strategies have been used or are being explored. In particular, interventions targeting pericranial nerves are now part of the migraine armamentarium. We will critically review some of them, such as invasive and noninvasive neurostimulation, therapeutic blocks and surgical decompressions.

CONCLUSIONS

Although current knowledge on migraine pathophysiology suggests a central nervous system dysfunction, there is some evidence that interventions targeting peripheral nerves are able to modulate neuronal circuits involved in pain control and that they could be useful in some selected patients. Larger, well-designed and comparative trials are needed to appraise the respective advantages, disadvantages and indications of most interventions discussed here.

Diagnosis, pathophysiology and management of chronic migraine: a proposal of the Belgian Headache Society

Chronic migraine (CM) is a disabling neurological condition affecting 0.5-2 % of the population. In the current third edition of the International Classification of Headache Disorders, medication overuse is no longer an exclusion criterion and CM is diagnosed in patients suffering from at least 15 headache days per month of which at least eight are related to migraine. CM is difficult to treat, and preventive treatment options are limited. We provide a pathogenetic model for CM, integrating the latest findings from neurophysiological and neuroimaging studies. On behalf of the Belgian Headache Society, we present a management algorithm for CM based on the international literature and adapted to the Belgian situation. Pharmacological treatment options are discussed, and recent data on transcranial and invasive neuromodulation studies in CM are reviewed. An integrated multimodal treatment programme may be beneficial to refractory patients, but at present, this approach is only supported by a limited number of observational studies and quite variable between centres.

Sleep and chronobiology in cluster headache

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Cluster headache (CH) is the headache disorder with the strongest chronobiological traits. The severe attacks of pain occur with diurnal and annual rhythmicity but the precise rhythm and involvement of potential zeitgebers is unknown. Patients complain of poor sleep quality yet this has never been studied. We investigated triggers, rhythms, sleep quality and chronotypes in CH.

METHODS

Patients and controls completed questionnaires and structured interviews composed of new and previously validated parts including the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) and Morningness-Eveningness Questionnaire (MEQ). Patients were characterized by a CH index, a unified measure of headache burden.

RESULTS

A total of 275 CH patients and 145 matched controls were included. The most common trigger was sleep (80%) and a relationship between clusters and daylight was identified. Of the patients, 82.2% reported diurnal and 56% annual rhythmicity. Patients reported impaired sleep quality (PSQI) (p < 0.0001) and an inverse relationship between time passed since last attack and sleep quality was identified (p < 0.0001). The CH index was positively related to the PSQI (p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

Diurnally, CH exhibits a relationship with night-time and annually with daylight hours. Patients' sleep quality is reduced compared with controls. Results suggest a complex relationship as sleep quality improves between clusters, but remains pathological.

Value of intra- and post-operative cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) for positioning control of a sphenopalatine ganglion neurostimulator in patients with chronic cluster headache

INTRODUCTION

The objective of this study was to determine whether postoperative control of the neurostimulator placement within the pterygopalatine fossa (PPF) by means of 3-dimensional (3D) cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) was of therapeutic relevance compared to intraoperative CBCT imaging alone.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Immediately after implantation of the sphenopalatine ganglion (SPG) neurostimulator, intraoperative CBCT datasets were generated in order to visualize the position of the probe within the PPF. Postoperatively, all patients received a CBCT for comparison with intraoperatively acquired radiographs.

RESULTS

Twenty-four patients with cluster headache (CH) received an SPG neurostimulator. In 4 patients, postoperative CBCT images detected misplacement not found in intraoperative CBCT. In 3 cases, electrode tips were misplaced into the maxillary sinus and in 1 case into the apex of the PPF superior to the suspected location of the SPG. Immediate revision with successful repositioning within 3 days was done in 2 patients and a deferred reimplantation in 1 patient within 6 months. One patient declined revision.

CONCLUSION

We were able to demonstrate the clinical value of postoperative dental CBCT imaging with a wide region of interest (ROI) due to a superior image quality compared with that achieved with intraoperative medical CBCT. Although intraoperative 3D CBCT imaging of electrode placement is helpful in the acute surgical setting, resolution is, at present, too low to safely exclude misplacement, especially in the maxillary sinus. High-resolution postoperative dental CBCT allows rapid detection and revision of electrode misplacement, thereby avoiding readmission and recurrent tissue trauma.

Comment on: Martelletti et al. Refractory chronic migraine: a consensus statement on clinical definition from the European Headache Federation

In this letter, we present the Austrian proposal for diagnostic criteria of refractory chronic migraine and we discuss the consensensus statement of the European Headache Feaderation. We focus in particular on the definition of adequate prophylactic treatment, the management of medication overuse and the requirement for CSF analyses in patients with refractory chronic migraine. In our proposal, the criteria for adequate treatment and recommendations for dealing with medication overuse are more explicit than in the EHF proposal, whereas the requirements for CSF analyses and measurement of CSF pressure are not as strict.

Licit and illicit drug use in cluster headache

Cluster headache patients seem to use more licit and illicit substances than the general population. The epidemiologic data supporting this is growing. We included the licit drugs in this review because their use seems to be driven by the same addiction mechanisms leading to illicit drug abuse. Some drugs may be used in an attempt to treat cluster headache, especially cocaine and hallucinogens. Drug exposure may also play a role in CH pathophysiology, as suggested by interesting data on tobacco use and second-hand smoke exposure. A common factor may contribute both to CH and drug use predisposition. Genetic factors may be at play, and the dopaminergic and orexinergic pathways could be targeted for future studies.

Refractory chronic migraine: a consensus statement on clinical definition from the European Headache Federation

The debate on the clinical definition of refractory Chronic Migraine (rCM) is still far to be concluded. The importance to create a clinical framing of these rCM patients resides in the complete disability they show, in the high risk of serious adverse events from acute and preventative drugs and in the uncontrolled application of therapeutic techniques not yet validated.

The European Headache Federation Expert Group on rCM presents hereby the updated definition criteria for this harmful subset of headache disorders. This attempt wants to be the first impulse towards the correct identification of these patients, the correct application of innovative therapeutic techniques and lastly aim to be acknowledged as clinical entity in the next definitive version of the International Classification of Headache Disorders 3 (ICHD-3 beta).

The influence of ictal cutaneous allodynia on the response to occipital transcutaneous electrical stimulation in chronic migraine and chronic tension-type headache: a randomized, sham-controlled study

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this article is to determine whether cutaneous allodynia (CA) influences the response to treatment with occipital transcutaneous electrical stimulation (OTES) in chronic migraine (CM) and chronic tension-type headache (CTTH).

METHODS

One hundred and sixty consecutive patients with CM or CTTH were randomized to be treated with real or sham OTES stimulation three times a day for two consecutive weeks. All patients completed the validated 12-item allodynia symptom checklist for assessing the presence and the severity of CA during headache attack. Primary end-point was change (≥50%) in number of monthly headache-free days.

RESULTS

There was a significant difference in the percentage of responders in the real OTES compared with sham OTES group (p <0.001). Importantly, there was not a significant change of monthly headache-free days in the allodynic patients with CM and CTTH treated both with real and sham OTES, while the number of headache-free days per month was significantly reduced in the real (86%) but not in the sham group (7%) of non-allodynic patients with CTTH and CM.

CONCLUSIONS

Severe CA is associated with decreased response to treatment with OTES in patients with CM and CTTH.

Stimulation of the sphenopalatine ganglion in intractable cluster headache: expert consensus on patient selection and standards of care

CONTEXT AND OVERVIEW

Chronic cluster headache (CCH) is a debilitating headache disorder with a significant impairment of the patients' lives. Within the past decade, various invasive neuromodulatory approaches have been proposed for the treatment of CCH refractory to standard preventive drug, but only very few randomized controlled studies exist in the field of neuromodulation for the treatment of drug-refractory headaches. Based on the prominent role of the cranial parasympathetic system in acute cluster headache attacks, high-frequency sphenopalatine ganglion (SPG) stimulation has been shown to abort ongoing attacks in some patients in a first small study. As preventive effects of SPG-stimulation have been suggested and the rate of long-term side effects was moderate, SPG stimulation appears to be a promising new treatment strategy.

AIMS AND CONCLUSION

As SPG stimulation is effective in some patients and the first commercially available CE-marked SPG neurostimulator system has been introduced for cluster headache, patient selection and care should be standardized to ensure maximal efficacy and safety. As only limited data have been published on SPG stimulation, standards of care based on expert consensus are proposed to ensure homogeneous patient selection and treatment across international headache centres. Given that SPG stimulation is still a novel approach, all expert-based consensus on patient selection and standards of care should be re-reviewed when more long-term data are available.

Tackling chronic migraine: current perspectives

In the last decade, several diagnostic criteria and definitions have been proposed for chronic migraine (CM). The third edition of the International Classification of Headache Disorders–3 beta, published in 2013, has revised CM diagnostic criteria. CM is defined as “headache occurring on 15 or more days per month for more than 3 months, which has the features of migraine headache on at least 8 days per month.” Patients who meet the criteria for CM and for medication-overuse headache should be given both diagnoses. Worldwide, CM prevalence ranges 1%–3%, and its incidence has been estimated to be 2.5% per year. CM is associated with disability and poor quality of life. Modifiable risk factors include (among others): migraine progression (defined as an increase in frequency and severity of migraine attacks); medication and caffeine overuse; obesity; stressful life events; and snoring. CM patients have a significantly higher frequency of some comorbid conditions, including chronic pain, psychiatric disorders, respiratory illness, and some vascular risk factors. Management includes identification and control of comorbidities and risk factors that predispose to CM; treatment and prevention for medication overuse; early treatment for migraine attacks; and an adequate preventive therapy for CM. Several randomized controlled clinical trials have shown the efficacy of topiramate, amitriptyline, onabotulinumtoxinA, and cognitive-behavioral therapy in CM.

Supraorbital and supratrochlear stimulation for trigeminal autonomic cephalalgias

Trigeminal autonomic cephalalgias (TAC) is a rare primary headache disorder with challenging and limited treatment options for those unfortunate patients with severe and refractory pain. This article will review the conventional pharmacologic treatments as well as the new neuromodulation techniques designed to offer alternative and less invasive treatments. These techniques have evolved from the treatment of migraine headache, a much more common headache syndrome, and expanded towards application in patients with TAC. Specifically, the article will discuss the targeting of the supratrochlear and supraorbital nerves, both terminal branches of the trigeminal nerve.

Pearls and pitfalls: neurostimulation in headache

CONTEXT

A variety of neuromodulatory approaches available today has broadened our therapeutic options significantly especially in drug refractory patients with chronic cluster headache and chronic migraine.

OVERVIEW

It is a dynamic field with a current trend to non-invasive transcutaneous stimulation approaches. However, sound studies providing evidence for the widespread use of these novel approaches are sparse. For invasive approaches, occipital nerve stimulation is now widely considered the treatment of first choice in chronic trigeminal autonomic cephalgias and - with limitations - chronic migraine. Although equally effective, deep brain stimulation is considered second-line treatment in cluster headache because of its potentially life-threatening side effects. Most recently, stimulation of the sphenopalatine ganglion has also been shown to effectively abort acute cluster headache attacks. Interesting other upcoming approaches include transcutaneous supraorbital nerve stimulation and transcutaneous vagal nerve stimulation.

CONCLUSION

Pearls and pitfalls of common invasive and non-invasive neuromodulatory approaches and open questions are summarised in this review along with recommendations for future studies.

Neuromodulation of chronic headaches: position statement from the European Headache Federation

The medical treatment of patients with chronic primary headache syndromes (chronic migraine, chronic tension-type headache, chronic cluster headache, hemicrania continua) is challenging as serious side effects frequently complicate the course of medical treatment and some patients may be even medically intractable. When a definitive lack of responsiveness to conservative treatments is ascertained and medication overuse headache is excluded, neuromodulation options can be considered in selected cases. Here, the various invasive and non-invasive approaches, such as hypothalamic deep brain stimulation, occipital nerve stimulation, stimulation of sphenopalatine ganglion, cervical spinal cord stimulation, vagus nerve stimulation, transcranial direct current stimulation, repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation are extensively published although proper RCT-based evidence is limited. The European Headache Federation herewith provides a consensus statement on the clinical use of neuromodulation in headache, based on theoretical background, clinical data, and side effect of each method. This international consensus further gives recommendations for future studies on these new approaches. In spite of a growing field of stimulation devices in headaches treatment, further controlled studies to validate, strengthen and disseminate the use of neurostimulation are clearly warranted. Consequently, until these data are available any neurostimulation device should only be used in patients with medically intractable syndromes from tertiary headache centers either as part of a valid study or have shown to be effective in such controlled studies with an acceptable side effect profile.

A six year retrospective review of occipital nerve stimulation practice--controversies and challenges of an emerging technique for treating refractory headache syndromes

Background

A retrospective review of patients treated with Occipital Nerve Stimulation (ONS) at two large tertiary referral centres has been audited in order to optimise future treatment pathways.

Methods

Patient’s medical records were retrospectively reviewed, and each patient was contacted by a trained headache expert to confirm clinical diagnosis and system efficacy. Results were compared to reported outcomes in current literature on ONS for primary headaches.

Results

Twenty-five patients underwent a trial of ONS between January 2007 and December 2012, and 23 patients went on to have permanent implantation of ONS. All 23 patients reached one-year follow/up, and 14 of them (61%) exceeded two years of follow-up. Seventeen of the 23 had refractory chronic migraine (rCM), and 3 refractory occipital neuralgia (ON). 11 of the 19 rCM patients had been referred with an incorrect headache diagnosis. Nine of the rCM patients (53%) reported 50% or more reduction in headache pain intensity and or frequency at long term follow-up (11–77 months). All 3 ON patients reported more than 50% reduction in pain intensity and/or frequency at 28–31 months. Ten (43%) subjects underwent surgical revision after an average of 11 ± 7 months from permanent implantation - in 90% of cases due to lead problems. Seven patients attended a specifically designed, multi-disciplinary, two-week pre-implant programme and showed improved scores across all measured psychological and functional parameters independent of response to subsequent ONS.

Conclusions

Our retrospective review: 1) confirms the long-term ONS success rate in refractory chronic headaches, consistent with previously published studies; 2) suggests that some headaches types may respond better to ONS than others (ON vs CM); 3) calls into question the role of trial stimulation in ONS; 4) confirms the high rate of complications related to the equipment not originally designed for ONS; 5) emphasises the need for specialist multidisciplinary care in these patients.

Occipital nerve stimulation in medically intractable, chronic cluster headache. The ICON study: Rationale and protocol of a randomised trial

Background

About 10% of cluster headache patients have the chronic form. At least 10% of this chronic group is intractable to or cannot tolerate medical treatment. Open pilot studies suggest that occipital nerve stimulation (ONS) might offer effective prevention in these patients. Controlled neuromodulation studies in treatments inducing paraesthesias have a general problem in blinding. We have introduced a new design in pain neuromodulation by which we think we can overcome this problem.

Methods/design

We propose a prospective, randomised, double-blind, parallel-group international clinical study in medically intractable, chronic cluster headache patients of high- versus low-amplitude ONS. Primary outcome measure is the mean number of attacks over the last four weeks. After a study period of six months there is an open extension phase of six months. Alongside the randomised trial an economic evaluation study is performed.

Discussion

The ICON study will show if ONS is an effective preventive therapy for patients suffering medically intractable chronic cluster headache and if there is a difference between high- and low-amplitude stimulation. The innovative design of the study will, for the first time, assess efficacy of ONS in a blinded way.

Refractory migraine: the role of the physician in assessment and treatment of a problematic disease

Patients affected by chronic forms of headache are often very difficult to treat. Refractory patients are so defined when adequate trials of specific drugs (for acute or prophylactic treatment) failed both to reduce the burden of disease and to improve headache-related quality of life. An escalating approach is suggested to test different kinds of therapies. All comorbid factors should be addressed. More invasive modalities (such as neurostimulation) or promising approaches such as repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) could be a future major step as third line therapies.

Neurostimulation in cluster headache: A review of current progress

Purpose of review

Neurostimulation has emerged as a viable treatment for intractable chronic cluster headache. Several therapeutic strategies are being investigated including stimulation of the hypothalamus, occipital nerves and sphenopalatine ganglion. The aim of this review is to provide an overview of the rationale, methods and progress for each of these.

Latest findings

Results from a randomized, controlled trial investigating sphenopalatine ganglion stimulation have just been published. Reportedly the surgery is relatively simple and it is apparently the only therapy that provides relief acutely.

Summary

The rationale behind these therapies is based on growing evidence from clinical, hormonal and neuroimaging studies. The overall results are encouraging, but unfortunately not all patients have benefited. All the mentioned therapies require weeks to months of stimulation for a prophylactic effect to occur, suggesting brain plasticity as a possible mechanism, and only stimulation of the sphenopalatine ganglion has demonstrated an acute, abortive effect. Predictors of effect for all modes of neurostimulation still need to be identified and in the future, the least invasive and most effective strategy must be preferred as first-line therapy for intractable chronic cluster headache.

Neuromodulation for cephalgias

Headaches (cephalgias) are a common reason for patients to seek medical care. There are groups of patients with recurrent headache and craniofacial pain presenting with malignant course of their disease that becomes refractory to pharmacotherapy and other medical management options. Neuromodulation can be a viable treatment modality for at least some of these patients. We review the available evidence related to the use of neuromodulation modalities for the treatment of medically refractory craniofacial pain of different nosology based on the International Classification of Headache Disorders, 2(nd) edition (ICHD-II) classification. This article also reviews the scientific rationale of neuromodulation application in management of cephalgias.

Peripheral neuromodulation in chronic migraine

Patients with chronic migraines are often refractory to medical treatment. Therefore, they might need other strategies to modulate their pain, according to their level of disability. Neuromodulation can be achieved with several tools: meditation, biofeedback, physical therapy, drugs and electric neurostimulation (ENS). ENS can be applied to the central nervous system (brain and spinal cord), either invasively (cortical or deep brain) or non-invasively [cranial electrotherapy stimulation, transcranial direct current stimulation and transcranial magnetic stimulation]. Among chronic primary headaches, cluster headaches are most often treated either through deep brain stimulation or occipital nerve stimulation because there is a high level of disability related to this condition. ENS, employed through several modalities such as transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, interferential currents and pulsed radiofrequency, has been applied to the peripheral nervous system at several sites. We briefly review the indications for the use of peripheral ENS at the site of the occipital nerves for the treatment of chronic migraine.

Refractory migraine - a review

Refractory migraine has long been a challenge to all headache specialists. This subgroup of migraine patients experience disability and impaired quality of life, despite optimal treatment. This article reviews the proposed definitions and epidemiology of refractory migraine, as well as the pathophysiology that may contribute to the genesis of this disorder. Aspects of treatment, including pharmacological, complementary/adjunct, and invasive approaches, are reviewed. Comorbid factors, medication overuse, potential pitfalls to treatment, and areas for future investigation are highlighted.

Neurostimulation for chronic cluster headache

Neurostimulation techniques for the treatment of primary headache syndromes, particularly of chronic cluster headache, have received much interest in recent years. Occipital nerve stimulation (ONS) has yielded favourable clinical results and, despite the limited numbers of published cases, is becoming a routine treatment for refractory chronic cluster headache in specialized centres. Meanwhile, other promising techniques such as spinal cord stimulation (SCS) or sphenopalate ganglion stimulation have emerged. In this article the current state of clinical research for neurostimulation techniques for chronic cluster headache is reviewed.

Advances and challenges in neurostimulation for headaches

Many people who suffer from primary headache (ie, headache without an identifiable cause) are resistant or intolerant to available drugs. During the past decade, central and peripheral neurostimulation procedures have been investigated in such individuals--up to now, about 1200 worldwide. Techniques used range from invasive methods such as deep brain stimulation of the posterior hypothalamus, to minimally invasive percutaneous electrode implantation used in occipital nerve stimulation, or non-invasive methods such as transcranial magnetic stimulation. Although some of these procedures have been studied extensively, sham-controlled trials are sparse and the precise mode of action of such stimulation remains largely unknown. Nonetheless, occipital nerve stimulation and deep brain stimulation of the posterior hypothalamus seem to be effective in people with chronic cluster headache, and occipital nerve stimulation is promising in chronic migraine. Trial data for other techniques are scarce, but external and minimally invasive approaches should be privileged in future studies.

Trigeminal autonomic cephalalgias: A review of recent diagnostic, therapeutic and pathophysiological developments

The trigeminal autonomic cephalalgias (TACs) are a group of primary headache disorders that are characterized by strictly unilateral trigeminal distribution pain occurring in association with ipsilateral cranial autonomic symptoms. This group includes cluster headache, paroxysmal hemicrania and short-lasting unilateral neuralgiform headache attacks with conjunctival injection and tearing. These disorders are very painful, often considered to be some of the most painful conditions known to mankind, and consequently are highly disabling. They are distinguished by the frequency of attacks of pain, the length of the attacks and very characteristic responses to medical therapy, such that the diagnosis can usually be made clinically, which is important because it dictates therapy. The management of TACs can be very rewarding for physicians and highly beneficial to patients.

Occipital nerve stimulation in primary headache syndromes

Chronic daily headache is a major worldwide health problem that affects 3-5% of the population and results in substantial disability. Advances in the management of headache disorders have meant that a substantial proportion of patients can be effectively treated with medical treatments. However, a significant minority of these patients are intractable to conventional medical treatments. Occipital nerve stimulation (ONS) is emerging as a promising treatment for patients with medically intractable, highly disabling chronic headache disorders, including migraine, cluster headache and other less common headache syndromes. Open-label studies have suggested that this treatment modality is effective and recent controlled trial data are also encouraging. The procedure is performed using several technical variations that have been reviewed along with the complications, which are usually minor and tolerable. The mechanism of action is poorly understood, though recent data suggest that ONS could restore the balance within the impaired central pain system through slow neuromodulatory processes in the pain neuromatrix. While the available data are very encouraging, the ultimate confirmation of the utility of a new therapeutic modality should come from controlled trials before widespread use can be advocated; more controlled data are still needed to properly assess the role of ONS in the management of medically intractable headache disorders. Future studies also need to address the variables that are predictors of response, including clinical phenotypes, surgical techniques and stimulation parameters.

Chronic daily headaches

Chronic Daily Headache is a descriptive term that includes disorders with headaches on more days than not and affects 4% of the general population. The condition has a debilitating effect on individuals and society through direct cost to healthcare and indirectly to the economy in general. To successfully manage chronic daily headache syndromes it is important to exclude secondary causes with comprehensive history and relevant investigations; identify risk factors that predict its development and recognise its sub-types to appropriately manage the condition. Chronic migraine, chronic tension-type headache, new daily persistent headache and medication overuse headache accounts for the vast majority of chronic daily headaches. The scope of this article is to review the primary headache disorders. Secondary headaches are not discussed except medication overuse headache that often accompanies primary headache disorders. The article critically reviews the literature on the current understanding of daily headache disorders focusing in particular on recent developments in the treatment of frequent headaches.

[Neurostimulation for treatment of headaches]

Only a small portion of patients with primary headaches are refractory to treatment concerning relief of headache episodes and prophylactic therapy of headaches. New methods of central and peripheral neurostimulation have been developed for these patients during the last few years and experience was mostly gained in small case series. The following overview gives a description of new stimulation methods, such as deep brain stimulation, occipital nerve stimulation, vagal nerve stimulation, neurostimulation of the sphenopalatine ganglion and transcranial magnetic stimulation.

Management of cluster headache

The prevalence of cluster headache is 0.1% and cluster headache is often not diagnosed or misdiagnosed as migraine or sinusitis. In cluster headache there is often a considerable diagnostic delay - an average of 7 years in a population-based survey. Cluster headache is characterized by very severe or severe orbital or periorbital pain with a duration of 15-180 minutes. The cluster headache attacks are accompanied by characteristic associated unilateral symptoms such as tearing, nasal congestion and/or rhinorrhoea, eyelid oedema, miosis and/or ptosis. In addition, there is a sense of restlessness and agitation. Patients may have up to eight attacks per day. Episodic cluster headache (ECH) occurs in clusters of weeks to months duration, whereas chronic cluster headache (CCH) attacks occur for more than 1 year without remissions. Management of cluster headache is divided into acute attack treatment and prophylactic treatment. In ECH and CCH the attacks can be treated with oxygen (12 L/min) or subcutaneous sumatriptan 6 mg. For both oxygen and sumatriptan there are two randomized, placebo-controlled trials demonstrating efficacy. In both ECH and CCH, verapamil is the prophylactic drug of choice. Verapamil 360 mg/day was found to be superior to placebo in one clinical trial. In clinical practice, daily doses of 480-720 mg are mostly used. Thus, the dose of verapamil used in cluster headache treatment may be double the dose used in cardiology, and with the higher doses the PR interval should be checked with an ECG. At the start of a cluster, transitional preventive treatment such as corticosteroids or greater occipital nerve blockade can be given. In CCH and in long-standing clusters of ECH, lithium, methysergide, topiramate, valproic acid and ergotamine tartrate can be used as add-on prophylactic treatment. In drug-resistant CCH, neuromodulation with either occipital nerve stimulation or deep brain stimulation of the hypothalamus is an alternative treatment strategy. For most cluster headache patients there are fairly good treatment options both for acute attacks and for prophylaxis. The big problem is the diagnosis of cluster headache as demonstrated by the diagnostic delay of 7 years. However, the relatively short-lasting attack of pain in one eye with typical associated symptoms should lead the family doctor to suspect cluster headache resulting in a referral to a neurologist or a headache centre with experience in the treatment of cluster headache.

Neuromodulation of the posterolateral hypothalamus for the treatment of chronic refractory cluster headache: Experience in five patients with a modified anatomical target

INTRODUCTION

Deep brain stimulation (DBS) of the posterior hypothalamus has been found to be effective in the treatment of refractory chronic cluster headache (CCH).

METHODS

We report the long-term outcomes of five patients with refractory CCH on whom stimulation of a modified target of approximately 3 mm in radius, which included the posterolateral hypothalamus, the fasciculus mammillotegmentalis, the fasciculus mammillothalamicus and the fasciculus medialis telencephali, was performed. The stereotaxic coordinates were 4 mm from the third ventricle wall, 2 mm from behind the mid-intercommissural point and 5 mm from under the intercommissural line.

RESULTS

All patients became pain-free for 1-2 weeks after the procedure, but then needed an average of 54 days to optimize stimulation parameters. After a mean follow-up of 33 months, two remain pain-free, two have an excellent response (>90% decrease in attack frequency) and in one the attacks have been reduced by half. There were no serious adverse events. Permanent myosis and euphoria/well-being feeling were seen in three patients. Other adverse events, such as diplopia, dizziness, global headache of cervical dystonia, were seen transiently related to an increase in stimulation parameters. Attacks reappeared transiently in two patients as a result of cable rupture and when the stimulator was disconnected.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results supports the efficacy of DBS in very refractory CCH with a slightly modified hypothalamic target conceived to avoid the lateral ventricle wall so as to extend the stimulated brain area and to decrease the morbidity of potential haemorrhagic complications.