Non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation for PREVention and Acute treatment of chronic cluster headache (PREVA): A randomised controlled study

nVNS sham significantly affects the trigeminal-autonomic reflex

Objective

To determine whether high placebo effects observed in recently published clinical noninvasive vagal nerve stimulation (nVNS) trials can be attributed to an active modulation of the trigeminal-autonomic reflex by the sham device.

Methods

Twenty-eight healthy participants were investigated in a randomized, controlled, single-blind, within-participant design. The 4 different conditions of no stimulation, regular nVNS of the left cervical vagal nerve, stimulation of the posterior neck with the same device (sham I), and stimulation of the left cervical vagal nerve with a sham device (sham II) were applied in randomized order. Parasympathetic output (lacrimation) was provoked with kinetic oscillation stimulation (KOS) of the nasal mucosa. Lacrimation was quantified with the Schirmer II test, an objective measure of lacrimal secretion after local anesthesia, and the difference between baseline and KOS-induced lacrimation served as a measure of autonomic output.

Results

nVNS treatment resulted in a significant reduction of ipsilateral KOS-induced lacrimation compared to no stimulation (p = 0.003) and sham I (p = 0.02). A similar effect was observed for sham II (p = 0.003, p = 0.001). There was no significant difference between nVNS and sham II.

Conclusion

These results suggest that both the regular nVNS and the sham device used in some of the clinical nVNS trials modulate the trigeminal-autonomic reflex. This could explain the high sham effect in these trials and suggests that stimulation of the posterior neck may be considered as a real sham condition.

Noninvasive peripheral vagal nerve stimulation prevents migraine aura: A case report

We describe a patient affected by migraine with visual and somatosensory aura, whose symptoms were consistently attenuated by noninvasive peripheral vagal nerve stimulation (nVNS) in multiple prospectively recorded attacks. When compared with the current standard of care, nVNS significantly reduced the duration of visual aura in all the attacks ( n = 5) and prevented the somatosensory aura in three of the five attacks. The overall duration of nVNS-treated auras was 19.0 ± 4.2 min, significantly shorter than the duration of aura in attacks treated with standard of care (103.8 ± 10.3 min). This single-case study requires confirmation in a larger sample size, but we believe that this first report is suggestive of likely efficacy given the relatively high number of treated attacks and the consistent effect of nVNS.

Primary headache disorders: Five new things

Purpose of review

To review 5 new areas in primary headache disorders, especially migraine and cluster headache.

Recent findings

Calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor antagonists (gepants-rimegepant and ubrogepant) and serotonin 5-HT_1F receptor agonists (ditans-lasmiditan) have completed phase 3 clinical trials and will soon offer novel, effective, well-tolerated nonvasoconstrictor options to treat acute migraine. CGRP preventive treatment is being revolutionized after the licensing of 3 monoclonal antibodies (MABs), erenumab, fremanezumab, and galcanezumab, with eptinezumab to follow, especially designed for migraine; they are effective and well tolerated. For patients seeking a nondrug therapy, neuromodulation approaches, single-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation, noninvasive vagus nerve stimulation (nVNS), and external trigeminal nerve stimulation, represent licensed, well-tolerated approaches to migraine treatment. For the acute treatment of episodic cluster headache, nVNS is effective, well tolerated, and licensed; nVNS is effective and well tolerated in preventive treatment of cluster headache. The CGRP MAB galcanezumab was effective and well tolerated in a placebo-controlled trial in the preventive treatment of episodic cluster headache. Sphenopalatine ganglion stimulation has been shown to be effective and well tolerated in 2 randomized sham-controlled studies on chronic cluster headache. Understanding the premonitory (prodromal) phase of migraine during which patients experience symptoms such as yawning, tiredness, cognitive dysfunction, and food cravings may help explain apparent migraine triggers in some patients, thus offering better self-management.

Summary

Headache medicine has made remarkable strides, particularly in understanding migraine and cluster headache in the past 5 years. For the most common reason to visit a neurologist, therapeutic advances offer patients reduced disability and neurologists a rewarding, key role in improving the lives of those with migraine and cluster headache.

The Present and Future of Vagus Nerve Stimulation

Epilepsy is one of the major chronic neurological diseases affecting many patients. Resection surgery is the most effective therapy for medically intractable epilepsy, but it is not feasible in all patients. Vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) is an adjunctive neuromodulation therapy that was approved in 1997 for the alleviation of seizures; however, efforts to control epilepsy by stimulating the vagus nerve have been studied for over 100 years. Although its exact mechanism is still under investigation, VNS is thought to affect various brain areas. Hence, VNS has a wide indication for various intractable epileptic syndromes and epilepsyrelated comorbidities. Moreover, recent studies have shown anti-inflammatory effects of VNS, and the indication is expanding beyond epilepsy to rheumatoid arthritis, chronic headaches, and depression. VNS yields a more than 50% reduction in seizures in approximately 60% of recipients, with an increase in reduction rates as the follow-up duration increases. The complication rate of VNS is 3–6%, and infection is the most important complication to consider. However, revision surgery was reported to be feasible and safe with appropriate measures. Recently, noninvasive VNS (nVNS) has been introduced, which can be performed transcutaneously without implantation surgery. Although more clinical trials are being conducted, nVNS can reduce the risk of infection and subsequent device failure. In conclusion, VNS has been demonstrated to be beneficial and effective in the treatment of epilepsy and various diseases, and more development is expected in the future.

Primary headaches during lifespan

Primary headaches are one of the most prevalent neurological disorders and can occur during a wide range of lifespan. Primary headaches, especially migraine, are cyclic disorders with a complex sequence of symptoms within every headache attack. There is no systematic review of whether these symptoms changes during lifespan. Indeed, the clinical presentation of migraine shows an age-dependent change with a significantly shorter duration of the attacks and occurrence of different paroxysmal symptoms, such as vomiting, abdominal pain or vertigo, in childhood and, in contrast, largely an absence of autonomic signs and a more often bilateral headache in the elderly. The age-dependent differences in the clinical presentation are less distinct in cluster headache and, especially, in tension-type headache. The differences in the clinical presentation are in agreement with the idea that the connectivity of hypothalamic areas with different brainstem areas, especially the central parasympathetic areas, is important for the clinical manifestation of migraine, as well as, the change during lifespan.

Noninvasive vagus nerve stimulation alters neural response and physiological autonomic tone to noxious thermal challenge

The mechanisms by which noninvasive vagal nerve stimulation (nVNS) affect central and peripheral neural circuits that subserve pain and autonomic physiology are not clear, and thus remain an area of intense investigation. Effects of nVNS vs sham stimulation on subject responses to five noxious thermal stimuli (applied to left lower extremity), were measured in 30 healthy subjects (n = 15 sham and n = 15 nVNS), with fMRI and physiological galvanic skin response (GSR). With repeated noxious thermal stimuli a group × time analysis showed a significantly (p < .001) decreased response with nVNS in bilateral primary and secondary somatosensory cortices (SI and SII), left dorsoposterior insular cortex, bilateral paracentral lobule, bilateral medial dorsal thalamus, right anterior cingulate cortex, and right orbitofrontal cortex. A group × time × GSR analysis showed a significantly decreased response in the nVNS group (p < .0005) bilaterally in SI, lower and mid medullary brainstem, and inferior occipital cortex. Finally, nVNS treatment showed decreased activity in pronociceptive brainstem nuclei (e.g. the reticular nucleus and rostral ventromedial medulla) and key autonomic integration nuclei (e.g. the rostroventrolateral medulla, nucleus ambiguous, and dorsal motor nucleus of the vagus nerve). In aggregate, noninvasive vagal nerve stimulation reduced the physiological response to noxious thermal stimuli and impacted neural circuits important for pain processing and autonomic output.

Treatment of migraine attacks and prevention of migraine: Guidelines by the German Migraine and Headache Society and the German Society of Neurology

In collaboration with some of the leading headache centres in Germany, Switzerland and Austria, we have established new guidelines for the treatment of migraine attacks and the prevention of migraine. A thorough literature research of the last 10 years has been the basis of the current recommendations. At the beginning, we present therapeutic novelties, followed by a summary of all recommendations. After an introduction, we cover topics like drug therapy and practical experience, non-effective medication, migraine prevention, interventional methods, non-medicational and psychological methods for prevention and therapies without proof of efficacy.

Neurostimulation for the treatment of chronic migraine and cluster headache

Small subsets of patients who fail to respond to pharmacological treatment may benefit from alternative treatment methods. In the last decade, neurostimulation is being explored as a potential treatment option for the patients with chronic, severely disabling refractory primary headaches. To alleviate pain, specific nerves and brain areas have been stimulated, and various methods have been explored: deep brain stimulation, occipital nerve stimulation, and sphenopalatine ganglion stimulation are among the more invasive ones, whereas transcranial magnetic stimulation and supraorbital nerve stimulation are noninvasive. Vagal nerve stimulation can be invasive or noninvasive, though this review included only data for noninvasive VNS. Most of these methods have been tested in small open-label patient series; recently, more data from randomized, controlled, and blinded studies are available. Although neurostimulation treatments have demonstrated good efficacy in many studies, it still has not been established as a standard treatment in refractory patients. This review analyzes the available evidence regarding efficacy and safety of different neurostimulation modalities for the treatment of chronic migraine and cluster headache.

Vagus nerve stimulation modulates the cranial trigeminal autonomic reflex

OBJECTIVE

The trigeminal autonomic reflex plays an important role in primary headache syndromes. Noninvasive vagal nerve stimulation (nVNS) may be an effective modulator of this reflex.

METHODS

Twenty-two healthy volunteers underwent kinetic oscillation stimulation (KOS) of the left nostril as a reliable trigger of the trigeminal autonomic reflex. Previous to KOS, left cervical nVNS, sham simulation, or no stimulation was applied. Lacrimation was quantified using the standardized Schirmer ll test.

RESULTS

Treatment with cervical nVNS significantly reduced lacrimation between no stimulation and nVNS on the ipsilateral side (minute 5: p = 0.026, ηp² = 0.85, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.39-18.04; no stimulation: minute 5, 14.4 ± 9.3 mm; nVNS: minute 5, 4.7 ± 8.6 mm, mean ± standard deviation) as well as between sham stimulation and nVNS (minute 5: p = 0.030, ηp² = 0.85, 95% CI = 1.04-17.24; sham: minute 5, 13.9 ± 6.4 mm). On the contralateral side, no significant increase between baseline and KOS was observed for nVNS (minute 5: p = 0.614, d = 0.12, 95% CI = -7.09 to 4.31; minute 5, 1.4 ± 11.5 mm) compared to both sham stimulation (minute 5: p = 0.023, d = 0.57, 95% CI = -11.46 to -0.96; minute 5, 6.2 ± 10.9 mm) and no stimulation (minute 5: p < 0.030, d = 0.62, 95% CI = -13.45 to -0.81; minute 5, 7.1 ± 11.4 mm).

INTERPRETATION

Cervical nVNS resulted in a robust bilateral reduction of provoked lacrimation. This effect could be mediated either by direct bilateral activation of structures such as the nucleus of the solitary tract or by a top-down modulation via the hypothalamus. Ann Neurol 2018;84:886-892.

Non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation for treatment of cluster headache: early UK clinical experience

Background

Evidence supports the use of non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation (nVNS; gammaCore®) as a promising therapeutic option for patients with cluster headache (CH). We conducted this audit of real-world data from patients with CH, the majority of whom were treatment refractory, to explore early UK clinical experience with nVNS used acutely, preventively, or both.

Methods

We retrospectively analysed data from 30 patients with CH (29 chronic, 1 episodic) who submitted individual funding requests for nVNS to the National Health Service. All patients had responded to adjunctive nVNS therapy during an evaluation period (typical duration, 3–6 months). Data collected from patient interviews, treatment diaries, and physician notes were summarised with descriptive statistics. Paired t tests were used to examine statistical significance.

Results

The mean (SD) CH attack frequency decreased from 26.6 (17.1) attacks/wk. before initiation of nVNS therapy to 9.5 (11.0) attacks/wk. (P < 0.01) afterward. Mean (SD) attack duration decreased from 51.9 (36.7) minutes to 29.4 (28.5) minutes (P < 0.01), and mean (SD) attack severity (rated on a 10-point scale) decreased from 7.8 (2.3) to 6.0 (2.6) (P < 0.01). Use of abortive treatments also decreased. Favourable changes in the use of preventive medication were also observed. No serious device-related adverse events were reported.

Conclusions

Significant decreases in attack frequency, severity, and duration were observed in these patients with CH who did not respond to or were intolerant of multiple preventive and/or acute treatments. These real-world findings complement evidence from clinical trials demonstrating the efficacy and safety of nVNS in CH.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s10194-018-0936-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Consistent effects of non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation (nVNS) for the acute treatment of migraine: additional findings from the randomized, sham-controlled, double-blind PRESTO trial

BACKGROUND

Non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation (nVNS) has been shown to be practical, safe, and well tolerated for treating primary headache disorders. The recent multicenter, randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled PRESTO trial provided Class I evidence that for patients with episodic migraine, nVNS significantly increases the probability of having mild pain or being pain-free 2 h post stimulation. We report additional pre-defined secondary and other end points from PRESTO that demonstrate the consistency and durability of nVNS efficacy across a broad range of outcomes.

METHODS

After a 4-week observation period, 248 patients with episodic migraine with/without aura were randomly assigned to acute treatment of migraine attacks with nVNS (n = 122) or a sham device (n = 126) during a double-blind period lasting 4 weeks (or until the patient had treated 5 attacks). All patients received nVNS therapy during the subsequent 4-week/5-attack open-label period.

RESULTS

The intent-to-treat population consisted of 243 patients. The nVNS group (n = 120) had a significantly greater percentage of attacks treated during the double-blind period that were pain-free at 60 (P = 0.005) and 120 min (P = 0.026) than the sham group (n = 123) did. Similar results were seen for attacks with pain relief at 60 (P = 0.025) and 120 min (P = 0.018). For the first attack and all attacks, the nVNS group had significantly greater decreases (vs sham) in pain score from baseline to 60 min (P = 0.029); the decrease was also significantly greater for nVNS at 120 min for the first attack (P = 0.011). Results during the open-label period were consistent with those of the nVNS group during the double-blind period. The incidence of adverse events (AEs) and adverse device effects was low across all study periods, and no serious AEs occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

These results further demonstrate that nVNS is an effective and reliable acute treatment for multiple migraine attacks, which can be used safely while preserving the patient's option to use traditional acute medications as rescue therapy, possibly decreasing the risk of medication overuse. Together with its practicality and optimal tolerability profile, these findings suggest nVNS has value as a front-line option for acute treatment of migraine.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02686034 .

A new era in headache treatment

Primary headache disorders, such as migraine and cluster headache, are common and often debilitating. When preventive therapy is needed, several oral medications are used. Patients tend to have poor adherence and persistence on their preventive therapy. The introduction of treatments blocking calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) is anticipated to begin a new era in migraine preventive treatment. In addition, non-triptan serotonin receptor agonists, newer delivery systems for older therapies, and innovative devices represent other exciting advances in acute and preventive migraine and cluster treatment and shall also be discussed in this review.

Migraine and cluster headache - the common link

Although clinically distinguishable, migraine and cluster headache share prominent features such as unilateral pain, common pharmacological triggers such glyceryl trinitrate, histamine, calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) and response to triptans and neuromodulation. Recent data also suggest efficacy of anti CGRP monoclonal antibodies in both migraine and cluster headache. While exact mechanisms behind both disorders remain to be fully understood, the trigeminovascular system represents one possible common pathophysiological pathway and network of both disorders. Here, we review past and current literature shedding light on similarities and differences in phenotype, heritability, pathophysiology, imaging findings and treatment options of migraine and cluster headache. A continued focus on their shared pathophysiological pathways may be important in paving future treatment avenues that could benefit both migraine and cluster headache patients.

Spotlight on cervical vagus nerve stimulation for the treatment of primary headache disorders: a review

Objectives

Cervical noninvasive vagus nerve stimulation (nVNS) emerged as an adjunctive neuromodulation approach for primary headache disorders with limited responsiveness to pharmacologic and behavioral treatment. This narrative review evaluates the safety and efficacy of invasive and noninvasive peripheral nerve stimulation of the cervical branch of the vagal nerve (afferent properties) for primary headache disorders (episodic/chronic migraine [EM/CM] and cluster headache [ECH/CCH]) and provides a brief summary of the preclinical data on the possible mechanism of action of cervical vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) and trigemino-nociceptive head pain transmission.

Materials and methods

A systematic search of published data was performed in PubMed for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective cohort clinical studies assessing the efficacy/safety and cost-effectiveness of cervical VNS in primary headache disorders and related preclinical studies.

Results

Three RCTs were identified for ECH/CCH (ACT-1, ACT-2 and PREVA), one RCT for migraine (EVENT) and several prospective cohort studies and retrospective analyses for both headache disorders. In ACT-1, a significantly higher response rate, a higher pain-free rate and a decrease in mean attack duration were found in nVNS-treated ECH/CCH patients compared to sham stimulation. ACT-2 confirmed these findings (e.g., significantly higher pain-free attacks, pain severity decline and increased responder-rate [defined as ≥50% reduction]). The PREVA study demonstrated the superiority of adjunctive nVNS to standard care alone and observed a significantly higher attack reduction (p=0.02) and responder rate (defined as ≥50% reduction). For CM, the EVENT study assessed a significantly higher frequency of decline in the open-label phase. Mostly transient mild/moderate adverse events were recorded, and no severe device-related adverse events occurred.

Conclusion

Cervical nVNS represents a novel, safe and efficient adjunctive treatment option for primary headache disorders. In particular, preliminary observations suggest enhanced nVNS responsiveness in favor of episodic subtypes (EM and ECH). However, preclinical studies are urgently warranted to dissect the mechanism of action.

Anodal frontal tDCS for chronic cluster headache treatment: a proof-of-concept trial targeting the anterior cingulate cortex and searching for nociceptive correlates

BACKGROUND

Percutaneous occipital nerve stimulation (ONS) is effective in refractory chronic cluster headache (rCCH) patients. Responders to ONS differ from non-responders by greater glucose metabolism in subgenual anterior cingulate cortex (sgACC). We reasoned that transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), a non-invasive approach, might be able to activate this area and thus improve rCCH patients. Our objective was to explore in a pilot trial the therapeutic potential of tDCS (anode at Fz, cathode over C7) and its possible effects on pain perception, frontal executive functions and mood in rCCH patients.

METHODS

Thirty-one patients were asked to apply daily 20-min sessions of 2 mA tDCS for 4 or 8 weeks after a 1-month baseline. CH attacks were monitored with paper diaries. The primary outcome measure was change in weekly attacks between baseline and the last week of tDCS. Twenty-three patients were available for a modified ITT analysis, 21 for per-protocol analysis. We also explored treatment-related changes in thermal pain thresholds and nociceptive blink reflexes (nBR), frontal lobe function and mood scales.

RESULTS

In the per-protocol analysis there was a mean 35% decrease of attack frequency (p = 0.0001) with 41% of patients having a ≥ 50% decrease. Attack duration and intensity were also significantly reduced. After 8 weeks (n = 10), the 50% responder rate was 45%, but at follow-up 2 weeks after tDCS (n = 16) mean attack frequency had returned to baseline levels. The treatment effect was significant in patients with high baseline thermal pain thresholds in the forehead (n = 12), but not in those with low thresholds (n = 9). The Frontal Assessment Battery score increased after tDCS (p = 0.01), while there was no change in depression scores or nBR.

CONCLUSION

tDCS with a Fz-C7 montage may have a preventive effect in rCCH patients, especially those with low pain sensitivity, suggesting that a sham-controlled trial in cluster headache is worthwhile. Whether the therapeutic effect is due to activation of the sgACC that can in theory be reached by the electrical field, or of other prefrontal cortical areas remains to be determined.

New strategies for the treatment and prevention of primary headache disorders

The primary headache disorders, which include migraine, cluster headache and tension-type headache, are among the most common diseases and leading causes of disability worldwide. The available treatment options for primary headache disorders have unsatisfactory rates of efficacy, tolerability and patient adherence. In this Review, we discuss promising new approaches for the prevention of primary headache disorders, such as monoclonal antibodies targeting calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) or its receptor, and small-molecule CGRP receptor antagonists. Neuromodulation approaches employing noninvasive or implantable devices also show promise for treating primary headache disorders. Noninvasive treatments, such as transcranial magnetic stimulation and transcutaneous peripheral nerve stimulation, are delivered by devices that patients can self-administer. Implantable devices targeting the occipital nerves, sphenopalatine ganglion or high cervical spinal cord are placed using percutaneous and/or surgical procedures, and are powered either wirelessly or by surgically implanted batteries. These new and emerging treatments have the potential to address unmet patient needs and reduce headache-associated disability.

Noninvasive vagus nerve stimulation as acute therapy for migraine: The randomized PRESTO study

Objective

To evaluate the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of noninvasive vagus nerve stimulation (nVNS; gammaCore; electroCore, LLC, Basking Ridge, NJ) for the acute treatment of migraine in a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, sham-controlled trial.

Methods

A total of 248 participants with episodic migraine with/without aura were randomized to receive nVNS or sham within 20 minutes from pain onset. Participants were to repeat treatment if pain had not improved in 15 minutes.

Results

nVNS (n = 120) was superior to sham (n = 123) for pain freedom at 30 minutes (12.7% vs 4.2%; p = 0.012) and 60 minutes (21.0% vs 10.0%; p = 0.023) but not at 120 minutes (30.4% vs 19.7%; p = 0.067; primary endpoint; logistic regression) after the first treated attack. A post hoc repeated-measures test provided further insight into the therapeutic benefit of nVNS through 30, 60, and 120 minutes (odds ratio 2.3; 95% confidence interval 1.2, 4.4; p = 0.012). nVNS demonstrated benefits across other endpoints including pain relief at 120 minutes and was safe and well-tolerated.

Conclusion

This randomized sham-controlled trial supports the abortive efficacy of nVNS as early as 30 minutes and up to 60 minutes after an attack. Findings also suggest effective pain relief, tolerability, and practicality of nVNS for the acute treatment of episodic migraine.

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier

NCT02686034.

Classification of evidence

This study provides Class I evidence that for patients with an episodic migraine, nVNS significantly increases the probability of having mild pain or being pain-free 2 hours poststimulation (absolute difference 13.2%).

Effectiveness of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation for the treatment of migraine: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

Migraine is now ranked as the second most disabling disorder worldwide reported by the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016. As a noninvasive neurostimulation technique, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation(TENS) has been applied as an abortive and prophylactic treatment for migraine recently. We conduct this meta-analysis to analyze the effectiveness and safety of TENS on migraineurs.

Methods

We searched Medline (via PubMed), Embase, the Cochrane Library and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to identify randomized controlled trials, which compared the effect of TENS with sham TENS on migraineurs. Data were extracted and methodological quality assessed independently by two reviewers. Change in the number of monthly headache days, responder rate, painkiller intake, adverse events and satisfaction were extracted as outcome.

Results

Four studies were included in the quantitative analysis with 161 migraine patients in real TENS group and 115 in sham TENS group. We found significant reduction of monthly headache days (SMD: -0.48; 95% CI: -0.73 to − 0.23; P < 0.001) and painkiller intake (SMD: -0.78; 95% CI: -1.14 to − 0.42; P < 0.001). Responder rate (RR: 4.05; 95% CI: 2.06 to 7.97; P < 0.001) and satisfaction (RR: 1.85; 95% CI: 1.31 to 2,61; P < 0.001) were significantly increased compared with sham TENS.

Conclusion

This meta-analysis suggests that TENS may serve as an effective and well-tolerated alternative for migraineurs. However, low quality of evidence prevents us from reaching definitive conclusions. Future well-designed RCTs are necessary to confirm and update the findings of this analysis.

Systematic review registration

Our PROSPERO protocol registration number: CRD42018085984. Registered 30 January 2018.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s10194-018-0868-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Improvement of Olfactory Function With High Frequency Non-invasive Auricular Electrostimulation in Healthy Humans

In past literature on animal models, invasive vagal nerve stimulation using high frequencies has shown to be effective at modulating the activity of the olfactory bulb (OB). Recent advances in invasive vagal nerve stimulation in humans, despite previous findings in animal models, used low frequency stimulation and found no effect on the olfactory functioning. The present article aimed to test potential effects of non-invasive, high and low frequency vagal nerve stimulation in humans, with supplementary exploration of the orbitofrontal cortex using near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS). Healthy, male adult participants (n = 18) performed two olfactory tests [odor threshold test (OTT) and supra-threshold test (STT)] before and after receiving high-, low frequency vagal nerve stimulation and placebo (no stimulation). Participant's olfactory functioning was monitored using NIRS, and assessed with two behavioral olfactory tests. NIRS data of separate stimulation parameters were statistically analyzed using repeated-measures ANOVA across different stages. Data from olfactory tests were analyzed using paired parametric and non-parametric statistical tests. Only high frequency, non-invasive vagal nerve stimulation was able to positively modulate the performance of the healthy participants in the STT (p = 0.021, Wilcoxon sign-ranked test), with significant differences in NIRS (p = 0.014, post-hoc with Bonferroni correction) recordings of the right hemispheric, orbitofrontal cortex. The results from the current article implore further exploration of the neurocircuitry involved under vagal nerve stimulation and the effects of non-invasive, high frequency, vagal nerve stimulation toward olfactory dysfunction which showcase in Parkinson's and Alzheimer's Diseases. Despite the sufficient effect size (moderate effect, correlation coefficient (r): 0.39 for the STT) of the current study, future research should replicate the current findings with a larger cohort.

Cluster headache: new targets and options for treatment

Cluster headache is a severe headache disorder with considerable impact on quality of life. The pathophysiology of the disease remains poorly understood. With few specific targets for treatment, current guidelines mainly include off-label treatment with medication. However, new targets for possible treatment options are emerging. Calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP)-targeted medication could become the first (cluster) headache-specific treatment option. Other exciting new treatment options include invasive and non-invasive neuromodulation techniques. Here, we provide a short overview of new targets and treatment options that are being investigated for cluster headache.

Treatment of Cluster Headache

Cluster headache (CH) is a debilitating primary headache disorder. Although uncommon, affecting only 0.1% of population, it is one of the most painful conditions known to humankind. Three strategies are employed for effective treatment of CH, namely, abortive therapy, transitional therapy, and preventive therapy. Being an uncommon condition, there is a paucity of large-scale controlled trials and evidence of various therapies are based on smaller studies. This review primarily focuses on therapies with highest quality of evidence and also on the emerging therapies for CH.

High-Resolution Multi-Scale Computational Model for Non-Invasive Cervical Vagus Nerve Stimulation

OBJECTIVES

To develop the first high-resolution, multi-scale model of cervical non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation (nVNS) and to predict vagus fiber type activation, given clinically relevant rheobase thresholds.

METHODS

An MRI-derived Finite Element Method (FEM) model was developed to accurately simulate key macroscopic (e.g., skin, soft tissue, muscle) and mesoscopic (cervical enlargement, vertebral arch and foramen, cerebral spinal fluid [CSF], nerve sheath) tissue components to predict extracellular potential, electric field (E-Field), and activating function along the vagus nerve. Microscopic scale biophysical models of axons were developed to compare axons of varying size (Aα-, Aβ- and Aδ-, B-, and C-fibers). Rheobase threshold estimates were based on a step function waveform.

RESULTS

Macro-scale accuracy was found to determine E-Field magnitudes around the vagus nerve, while meso-scale precision determined E-field changes (activating function). Mesoscopic anatomical details that capture vagus nerve passage through a changing tissue environment (e.g., bone to soft tissue) profoundly enhanced predicted axon sensitivity while encapsulation in homogenous tissue (e.g., nerve sheath) dulled axon sensitivity to nVNS.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings indicate that realistic and precise modeling at both macroscopic and mesoscopic scales are needed for quantitative predictions of vagus nerve activation. Based on this approach, we predict conventional cervical nVNS protocols can activate A- and B- but not C-fibers. Our state-of-the-art implementation across scales is equally valuable for models of spinal cord stimulation, cortex/deep brain stimulation, and other peripheral/cranial nerve models.

Non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation for the acute treatment of episodic and chronic cluster headache: A randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled ACT2 study

Background Clinical observations and results from recent studies support the use of non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation (nVNS) for treating cluster headache (CH) attacks. This study compared nVNS with a sham device for acute treatment in patients with episodic or chronic CH (eCH, cCH). Methods After completing a 1-week run-in period, subjects were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive nVNS or sham therapy during a 2-week double-blind period. The primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of all treated attacks that achieved pain-free status within 15 minutes after treatment initiation, without rescue treatment. Results The Full Analysis Set comprised 48 nVNS-treated (14 eCH, 34 cCH) and 44 sham-treated (13 eCH, 31 cCH) subjects. For the primary endpoint, nVNS (14%) and sham (12%) treatments were not significantly different for the total cohort. In the eCH subgroup, nVNS (48%) was superior to sham (6%; p < 0.01). No significant differences between nVNS (5%) and sham (13%) were seen in the cCH subgroup. Conclusions Combing both eCH and cCH patients, nVNS was no different to sham. For the treatment of CH attacks, nVNS was superior to sham therapy in eCH but not in cCH. These results confirm and extend previous findings regarding the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of nVNS for the acute treatment of eCH.

Therapeutic Approaches for the Management of Trigeminal Autonomic Cephalalgias

Trigeminal autonomic cephalalgia (TAC) encompasses 4 unique primary headache types: cluster headache, paroxysmal hemicrania, hemicrania continua, and short-lasting unilateral neuralgiform headache attacks with conjunctival injection and tearing and short-lasting unilateral neuralgiform headache attacks with cranial autonomic symptoms. They are grouped on the basis of their shared clinical features of unilateral headache of varying durations and ipsilateral cranial autonomic symptoms. The shared clinical features reflect the underlying activation of the trigeminal-autonomic reflex. The treatment for TACs has been limited and not specific to the underlying pathogenesis. There is a proportion of patients who are refractory or intolerant to the current standard medical treatment. From instrumental bench work research and neuroimaging studies, there are new therapeutic targets identified in TACs. Treatment has become more targeted and aimed towards the pathogenesis of the conditions. The therapeutic targets range from the macroscopic and structural level down to the molecular and receptor level. The structural targets for surgical and noninvasive neuromodulation include central neuromodulation targets: posterior hypothalamus and, high cervical nerves, and peripheral neuromodulation targets: occipital nerves, sphenopalatine ganglion, and vagus nerve. In this review, we will also discuss the neuropeptide and molecular targets, in particular, calcitonin gene-related peptide, somatostatin, transient receptor potential vanilloid-1 receptor, nitric oxide, melatonin, orexin, pituitary adenylate cyclase-activating polypeptide, and glutamate.

Migraine

Migraine is a chronic paroxysmal neurological disorder characterised by multiphase attacks of head pain and a myriad of neurological symptoms. The underlying genetic and biological underpinnings and neural networks involved are coming sharply into focus. This progress in the fundamental understanding of migraine has led to novel, mechanism-based and disease-specific therapeutics. In this Seminar, the clinical features and neurobiology of migraine are reviewed, evidence to support available treatment options is provided, and emerging drug, device, and biological therapies are discussed.

Cluster headache

Cluster headache is an excruciating, strictly one-sided pain syndrome with attacks that last between 15 minutes and 180 minutes and that are accompanied by marked ipsilateral cranial autonomic symptoms, such as lacrimation and conjunctival injection. The pain is so severe that female patients describe each attack as worse than childbirth. The past decade has seen remarkable progress in the understanding of the pathophysiological background of cluster headache and has implicated the brain, particularly the hypothalamus, as the generator of both the pain and the autonomic symptoms. Anatomical connections between the hypothalamus and the trigeminovascular system, as well as the parasympathetic nervous system, have also been implicated in cluster headache pathophysiology. The diagnosis of cluster headache involves excluding other primary headaches and secondary headaches and is based primarily on the patient's symptoms. Remarkable progress has been achieved in developing effective treatment options for single cluster attacks and in developing preventive measures, which include pharmacological therapies and neuromodulation.

A Short Review of the Non-invasive Transcutaneous Pericranial Electrical Stimulation Techniques and their Application in Headache

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

In this short review, the most common non-invasive neuromodulatory techniques will be described, along with their advantages and disadvantages and their application in headache. Available preventive treatments can be unhelpful or may have unpleasant side effects; moreover, the rate of response to preventive drugs does not exceed 50%, lower in chronic migraine; alternative options would be welcome. Though the concept of neuromodulation was originally developed with invasive methods, newer non-invasive techniques are appearing.

RECENT FINDINGS

The novel neuromodulatory techniques have been developed with encouraging results: compared with traditional pharmacotherapy, advantages of non-invasive neuromodulation include reduced incidence of adverse effects, improved adherence, and safety and ease of use. The results are encouraging for acute or preventive treatment of different kinds of headache. A variety of neuromodulatory approaches is expanding fastly and has opened new possibilities for treatment of patients suffering from many forms of headache, especially those who have failed traditional pharmacotherapy. The non-invasive treatments can be seen as supplementing traditional management in refractory patients. Current study results are encouraging but preliminary and larger and more rigorous trials are needed to clarify benefit and mode of action.

Diagnosis, pathophysiology, and management of cluster headache

Cluster headache is a trigeminal autonomic cephalalgia characterised by extremely painful, strictly unilateral, short-lasting headache attacks accompanied by ipsilateral autonomic symptoms or the sense of restlessness and agitation, or both. The severity of the disorder has major effects on the patient's quality of life and, in some cases, might lead to suicidal ideation. Cluster headache is now thought to involve a synchronised abnormal activity in the hypothalamus, the trigeminovascular system, and the autonomic nervous system. The hypothalamus appears to play a fundamental role in the generation of a permissive state that allows the initiation of an episode, whereas the attacks are likely to require the involvement of the peripheral nervous system. Triptans are the most effective drugs to treat an acute cluster headache attack. Monoclonal antibodies against calcitonin gene-related peptide, a crucial neurotransmitter of the trigeminal system, are under investigation for the preventive treatment of cluster headache. These studies will increase our understanding of the disorder and perhaps reveal other therapeutic targets.

Peripheral vagal nerve stimulation modulates the nociceptive withdrawal reflex in healthy subjects: A randomized, cross-over, sham-controlled study

Introduction The mechanism of action of non-invasive vagal nerve stimulation in the treatment of migraine is elusive. We studied its effect in a human model of pain, the nociceptive withdrawal reflex. Methods We enrolled 10 healthy subjects who underwent active non-invasive vagal nerve stimulation and sham treatment in a randomized, cross-over, sham-controlled study. Non-invasive vagal nerve stimulation was delivered with gammaCore®. The assessment of the nociceptive withdrawal reflex was performed at baseline (T0) and at 5 (T5) and 30 (T30) minutes after stimulation. Results Non-invasive vagal nerve stimulation significantly increased the reflex threshold to single stimulus at both T5 and T30 and the temporal summation threshold at T30. Sham treatment did not modify any parameters. Discussion These findings are consistent with a modulation of central descending pathways for pain control. An altered spinal and supraspinal control of pain has been described in primary headache, so this effect may partially explain the therapeutic effect of non-invasive vagal nerve stimulation.

Evidence of activation of vagal afferents by non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation: An electrophysiological study in healthy volunteers

Background Benefits of cervical non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation (nVNS) devices have been shown in episodic cluster headache and preliminarily suggested in migraine, but direct evidence of vagus nerve activation using such devices is lacking. Vagal somatosensory evoked potentials (vSEPs) associated with vagal afferent activation have been reported for invasive vagus nerve stimulation (iVNS) and non-invasive auricular vagal stimulation. Here, we aimed to show and characterise vSEPs for cervical nVNS. Methods vSEPs were recorded for 12 healthy volunteers who received nVNS over the cervical vagus nerve, bipolar electrode/DS7A stimulation over the inner tragus, and nVNS over the sternocleidomastoid (SCM) muscle. We measured peak-to-peak amplitudes (P1-N1), wave latencies, and N1 area under the curve. Results P1-N1 vSEPs were observed for cervical nVNS (11/12) and auricular stimulation (9/12), with latencies similar to those described previously, whereas SCM stimulation revealed only a muscle artefact with a much longer latency. A dose-response analysis showed that cervical nVNS elicited a clear vSEP response in more than 80% of the participants using an intensity of 15 V. Conclusion Cervical nVNS can activate vagal afferent fibres, as evidenced by the recording of far-field vSEPs similar to those seen with iVNS and non-invasive auricular stimulation.

Non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation for the management of refractory primary chronic headaches: A real-world experience

Background

Non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation has initial evidence of efficacy in migraine and cluster headache. However, little is known about its role in the management of refractory chronic headaches.

Methods

We evaluated the preventive and abortive effects of non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation in 41 consecutive patients with refractory primary chronic headaches in an open-label prospective clinical audit. Headache diaries were used to collect clinical information. Those who obtained at least 30% reduction in headache days/episodes after three months of treatment were considered responders and were offered treatment continuation.

Results

Twenty-three patients with chronic migraine, 12 with chronic cluster headache, four with hemicrania continua and two with short-lasting unilateral neuralgiform headache attacks with autonomic symptoms (SUNA) were treated. Two of 23 chronic migraine patients, one of 12 chronic cluster headache patients, and two of four hemicrania continua patients were considered responders. None of the patients with SUNA benefited from the therapy. Two chronic migraine patients were able to reduce the pain severity of moderate migraines with non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation.

Conclusion

Non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation may not constitute an effective acute nor preventive treatment in refractory chronic primary headaches. The encouraging effect in hemicrania continua warrants further evaluation in larger studies.

Treatment of Cluster Headache: The American Headache Society Evidence-Based Guidelines

BACKGROUND

Cluster headache (CH), the most common trigeminal autonomic cephalalgia, is an extremely debilitating primary headache disorder that is often not optimally treated. New evidence-based treatment guidelines for CH will assist clinicians with identifying and choosing among current treatment options.

OBJECTIVES

In this systematic review we appraise the available evidence for the acute and prophylactic treatment of CH, and provide an update of the 2010 American Academy of Neurology (AAN) endorsed systematic review.

METHODS

Medline, PubMed, and EMBASE databases were searched for double-blind, randomized controlled trials that investigated treatments of CH in adults. Exclusion and inclusion criteria were identical to those utilized in the 2010 AAN systematic review.

RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

For acute treatment, sumatriptan subcutaneous, zolmitriptan nasal spray, and high flow oxygen remain the treatments with a Level A recommendation. Since the 2010 review, a study of sphenopalatine ganglion stimulation was added to the current guideline and has been administered a Level B recommendation for acute treatment. For prophylactic therapy, previously there were no treatments that were administered a Level A recommendation. For the current guidelines, suboccipital steroid injections have emerged as the only treatment to receive a Level A recommendation with the addition of a second Class I study. Other newly evaluated treatments since the 2010 guidelines have been given a Level B recommendation (negative study: deep brain stimulation), a Level C recommendation (positive study: warfarin; negative studies: cimetidine/chlorpheniramine, candesartan), or a Level U recommendation (frovatriptan).

CONCLUSIONS

This AHS guideline can be utilized for understanding which therapies have superiority to placebo or sham treatment in the management of CH. In clinical practice, these recommendations should be considered in concert with other variables including safety, side effects, patient preferences, clinician experience, cost, and the invasiveness of the intervention. Given the lack of Class I evidence and Level A recommendations, particularly for a number of commonly used preventive therapies, further studies are warranted to demonstrate safety and efficacy for established and emerging therapies.

External Trigeminal Nerve Stimulation for the Acute Treatment of Migraine: Open-Label Trial on Safety and Efficacy

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the current study is to assess the safety and efficacy of external trigeminal nerve stimulation (e-TNS) via a transcutaneous supraorbital stimulator as an acute treatment for migraine attacks.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a prospective, open-labeled clinical trial conducted at the Columbia University Headache Center (NY, USA). Thirty patients who were experiencing an acute migraine attack with or without aura were treated with a one-hour session of e-TNS (CEFALY Technology) at the clinic. Pain intensity was scored using a visual analogue scale (VAS) before the treatment, after the one-hour treatment session, and at two hours after treatment initiation. Rescue migraine medication intake was recorded at 2 and 24 hours.

RESULTS

Thirty patients were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. Mean pain intensity was significantly reduced by 57.1% after the one-hour e-TNS treatment (-3.22 ± 2.40; p < 0.001) and by 52.8% at two hours (-2.98 ± 2.31; p < 0.001). No patients took rescue medication within the two-hour observation phase. Within the 24-hour follow-up, 34.6% of patients used a rescue medication. No adverse events or subjective complaints were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings from this open-labeled study suggest that transcutaneous supraorbital neurostimulation may be a safe and effective acute treatment for migraine attacks, and merits further study with a double-blind, randomized, sham-controlled trial.

Non-Invasive Vagus Nerve Stimulation for the ACute Treatment of Cluster Headache: Findings From the Randomized, Double-Blind, Sham-Controlled ACT1 Study

Objective

To evaluate non‐invasive vagus nerve stimulation (nVNS) as an acute cluster headache (CH) treatment.

Background

Many patients with CH experience excruciating attacks at a frequency that is not sufficiently addressed by current symptomatic treatments.

Methods

One hundred fifty subjects were enrolled and randomized (1:1) to receive nVNS or sham treatment for ≤1 month during a double‐blind phase; completers could enter a 3‐month nVNS open‐label phase. The primary end point was response rate, defined as the proportion of subjects who achieved pain relief (pain intensity of 0 or 1) at 15 minutes after treatment initiation for the first CH attack without rescue medication use through 60 minutes. Secondary end points included the sustained response rate (15‐60 minutes). Subanalyses of episodic cluster headache (eCH) and chronic cluster headache (cCH) cohorts were prespecified.

Results

The intent‐to‐treat population comprised 133 subjects: 60 nVNS‐treated (eCH, n = 38; cCH, n = 22) and 73 sham‐treated (eCH, n = 47; cCH, n = 26). A response was achieved in 26.7% of nVNS‐treated subjects and 15.1% of sham‐treated subjects (P = .1). Response rates were significantly higher with nVNS than with sham for the eCH cohort (nVNS, 34.2%; sham, 10.6%; P = .008) but not the cCH cohort (nVNS, 13.6%; sham, 23.1%; P = .48). Sustained response rates were significantly higher with nVNS for the eCH cohort (P = .008) and total population (P = .04). Adverse device effects (ADEs) were reported by 35/150 (nVNS, 11; sham, 24) subjects in the double‐blind phase and 18/128 subjects in the open‐label phase. No serious ADEs occurred.

Conclusions

In one of the largest randomized sham‐controlled studies for acute CH treatment, the response rate was not significantly different (vs sham) for the total population; nVNS provided significant, clinically meaningful, rapid, and sustained benefits for eCH but not for cCH, which affected results in the total population. This safe and well‐tolerated treatment represents a novel and promising option for eCH. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01792817.

[Botulinum toxin type A in headache treatment : Established and experimental indications]

In recent years botulinum toxin type A has been used increasingly more in the treatment of specific headache disorders. Especially regarding chronic migraine with and without combined medication overuse, convincing randomized studies have proven the efficacy of this treatment option and have led to approval for this indication. Regarding other headache entities, such as episodic migraine, tension-type headache, trigeminal autonomic cephalalgia (TAC), neuralgic, neuropathic and myofascial pain, currently available scientific data on the efficacy of botulinum toxin type A are scarce and often ambiguous. The exact underlying mechanisms of the influence of botulinum toxin type A on the pathophysiology of headache are not completely clear but an influence on the release of calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) seems to play a crucial role. This article summarizes the most important studies as well as experiences of treatment with botulinum toxin type A regarding different headache entities.