Preventive treatment of refractory chronic cluster headache: systematic review and meta-analysis

Somatosensory Profiling of Patients With Cluster Headache: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

The objectives were 1) to synthesize quantitative sensory testing results in cluster headache (CH) patients and to identify somatosensory differences from healthy subjects (HS), and 2) between symptomatic and asymptomatic sides in CH patients. Two independent reviewers conducted a literature search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and CINAHL databases. Studies with observational designs were included. Methodological quality and risk of bias were assessed with the Newcastle Ottawa Scale. The selected studies underwent qualitative and quantitative analyses. The qualitative analysis showed inconsistent findings among multiple studies. Meta-analysis showed lower pressure pain thresholds (PPTs) on the symptomatic side of CH patients than HS in V2 (standardized mean difference [SMD] -1.01 [95% confidence interval (CI) -1.79, -.23], P = .01, I2 = 73%, n = 114), V3 (SMD -1 [95% CI -1.54, .45], P < .01, I2 = 82%, n = 354), and cervical region (SMD -1.25 [95% CI -2.07, -.44], P < .01, I2 = 84%, n = 194). Furthermore, lower PPTs than those detected in HS were found on the asymptomatic side in V3 (SMD -.77 [95% CI -1.27, -.27], P < .01, I2 = 79%, n = 354) and in the cervical region (SMD -1.13 [95% CI -1.97, -.3], P < .01, I2 = 85%, n = 194). However, no differences were found in V1 or the extratrigeminal points between these groups. No significant changes were found between symptomatic and asymptomatic sides in trigeminal and extratrigeminal regions. Mechanical hyperalgesia in the trigemino-cervical region of patients with CH could suggest the presence of central pain mechanisms. These results are of clinical relevance because their presence could be associated with a poorer prognosis, chronification, and treatment response. PERSPECTIVE: This study provides consistent findings on the somatosensory profile characterizing patients with CH. Clinicians should assess PPTs and other quantitative sensory testing variables in the trigeminal and extratrigeminal (cervical) regions.

The profile of refractory chronic cluster headache

INTRODUCTION

Chronic cluster headache (CCH) is a relatively rare primary headache disorder whose management is often challenging. The prevalence of refractory CCH (rCCH) is unknown. Our aim is to describe the frequency of rCCH within a population of CCH, define the clinical profile of the refractory patients and the treatments they underwent.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional study through a review of the medical records of CCH patients in six hospitals in Madrid, Spain. Data on epidemiological, clinical presentation, treatment and disease activity at the moment were collected. The European Headache Federation diagnostic criteria were used for rCCH definition. High disease activity was defined as having at least 3 severe attacks per week that impact quality of life despite treatment. Non-rCCH and rCCH groups were compared.

RESULTS

88 CCH patients were analyzed, 68.2% (60/88) met rCCH criteria at some point in their evolution. A longer diagnostic delay (4.6 ± 7.1 vs. 3.2 ± 3.7 years, p = 0.017) was observed in rCCH. All rCCH patients tried therapies without established evidence from randomized clinical trials. OnabotulinumtoxinA and galcanezumab were initiated in 77.3% (68/88) and 5.7% (5/88), but discontinued in 52.9% (36/68) and 60.0% (3/5), respectively. Occipital nerve stimulation (ONS) was implanted in 29.6% (26/88), with 50.0% (13/26) still active. Other treatment options are described and discussed. Despite treatment, 60.2% (53/88) still have high disease activity.

CONCLUSION

CCH is a disorder with poor prognosis, meeting refractoriness criteria in more than half. OnabotulinumtoxinA and ONS could be the effective in refractory patients.

Clinical predictors of therapeutic failure of occipital nerve stimulation in refractory chronic cluster headache

BACKGROUND

Occipital nerve stimulation (ONS) is a treatment with evidence in refractory chronic cluster headache (CCH). However, the variable response rate and cost make it necessary to investigate predictors of response.

METHODS

This is a cross-sectional study conducted through the review of medical records of CCH patients from six hospitals in Madrid. Epidemiological and clinical variables were compared between patients with ONS failure and the rest. ONS failure was defined as the need for device withdrawal or switch off because of lack of response or adverse events.

RESULTS

From a series of 88 CCH, 26 (29.6%) underwent ONS surgery, of whom 13/26 (50.0%) failed because lack of response. ONS failure group had an earlier headache onset (mean ± SD) of 27.7 ± 6.9 vs. 36.7 ± 11.8 years, p = 0.026) and a higher smoking rate (100% vs. 42.9%, p = 0.006). Stational fluctuations (58.3% vs. 7.7%, p = 0.007) and nocturnal exacerbations (91.7% vs. 53.9%, p = 0.035) were more frequent in the ONS failure group as well. There was no difference between groups in diagnostic delay, years of evolution prior to surgery, mental illness, comorbidity with other headache disorders or chronic pain conditions or prior response to occipital nerves anesthetic blocks.

CONCLUSIONS

Some clinical features such as an early debut, smoking and seasonal or circadian fluctuations could be related to failure of ONS in refractory CCH.

Neuromodulation Techniques for Headache Management

This narrative review aims to summarize evidence regarding the current utilization and future applications of neuromodulation in patients with headaches, with special attention paid to migraine and chronic cluster headache. A search was conducted in PubMed in August of 2023 to survey the current literature on neuromodulation for the treatment of headache. In total, the search yielded 1989 results, which were further filtered to include only systematic reviews published between 2022 to 2023 to capture the most up-to-date and comprehensive research on this topic. The citation lists of these articles were reviewed to find additional research on neuromodulation and supplement the results presented in this paper with primary literature. Research on the use of neuromodulation for the treatment of headache has predominantly focused on four neuromodulation techniques: peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS), transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), deep brain stimulation (DBS), and spinal cord stimulation (SCS). Outcome measures reported in this article include impact on migraine and headache frequency and/or pain intensity, adverse effects of the neuromodulation technique, and associated costs, when available. We found that neuromodulation has developed utility as an alternative treatment for both chronic cluster headaches and migraines, with a reduction in frequency and intensity of headache most elucidated from the articles mentioned in this review.

Neuromodulation for Craniofacial Pain and Headaches

Headaches and facial pain are highly prevalent diseases but are often difficult to treat. Though there have been significant advances in medical management, many continue to suffer from refractory pain. Neuromodulation has been gaining interest for its therapeutic purposes in many chronic pain conditions, including headaches and facial pain. There are many potential targets of neuromodulation for headache and facial pain, and some have more robust evidence in favor of their use than others. Despite the need for more high-quality research, the available evidence for the use of neuromodulation in treating headaches and facial pain is promising. Considering the suffering that afflicts patients with intractable headache, neuromodulation may be an appropriate tool to improve not only pain but also disability and quality of life.

Ten-Year Durability of Hypothalamic Deep Brain Stimulation in Treatment of Chronic Cluster Headaches: A Case Report and Literature Review

Chronic cluster headache (CCH) is a debilitating primary headache that causes excruciating pain without remission. Various medical and surgical treatments have been implemented over the years, yet many provide only short-term relief. Deep brain stimulation (DBS) is an emerging treatment alternative that has been shown to dramatically reduce the intensity and frequency of headache attacks. However, reports of greater than 10-year outcomes after DBS for CCH are scant. Here, we report the durability of DBS in the posterior inferior hypothalamus after 10 years on a patient with CCH. Our patient experienced an 82% decrease in the frequency of headaches after DBS, which was maintained for over 10 years. The side effects observed included depression, irritability, anxiety, and dizziness, which were alleviated by changing programming settings. In the context of current literature, DBS shows promise for long-term relief of cluster headaches when other treatments fail.

Effects of Non-Invasive Neuromodulation of the Vagus Nerve for the Management of Cluster Headache: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Cluster headache (CH) is a type of headache that has a global prevalence of 0.5-3/1000 people, provokes severe, strictly unilateral pain through the first branch of the trigeminal nerve, and is associated with observable autonomous responses. CH provokes intense pain and decreases quality of life.

OBJECTIVE

In this study, we aimed to carry out a systematic review of the effectiveness of non-invasive neuromodulation of the vagus nerve in patients with cluster headaches, which was registered on PROSPERO No. CRD42021265126.

METHODS

Six databases were used from their date of inception to February 2023 to obtain studies with the group intervention of non-invasive neuromodulation of the vagus nerve for cluster headache, with outcomes based on pain attacks, duration, and disabilities. Data on the subjects, group intervention, main outcomes, and results were collected by two authors.

RESULTS

The search provided 1003 articles, with three clinical trials being eligible for inclusion in the review. The methodological quality scores ranged from 6 to 8 points (mean: 7.3, SD: 0.8) out of a maximum of 10 points. The post-treatment results showed some positive effects using n-VNS as a treatment for cluster headache, more specifically regarding cervical neuromodulation of the vagus nerve.

CONCLUSIONS

The systematic review found moderate-to-high-quality evidence supporting that n-VNS and cervical n-VNS may have some positive effects at the end of the treatment being effective to relieve the frequency and intensity of cluster headaches. The poor quantity of studies available and the lack of homogeneity in the study protocols did not allow the pooling of data for a meta-analysis.

Treatment of chronic cluster headache with burst and tonic occipital nerve stimulation: A case series

OBJECTIVES AND BACKGROUND

Chronic cluster headache (CCH) is a rare but severely debilitating primary headache condition. A growing amount of evidence suggests that occipital nerve stimulation (ONS) can offer effective treatment in patients with severe CCH for whom conventional medical therapy does not have a sufficient effect. The paresthesia evoked by conventional (tonic) stimulation can be bothersome and may thus limit therapy. Burst ONS produces paresthesia-free stimulation, but the amount of evidence on the efficacy of burst ONS as a treatment for intractable CCH is scarce.

METHODS

In this case series, we report 15 patients with CCH treated with ONS at Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark, from 2013 to 2020. Nine of these received burst stimulation either as primary treatment or as a supplement to tonic stimulation. The results were assessed in terms of the frequency of headache attacks per week and their intensity on the Numeric Rating Scale, as well as the Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) with ONS treatment.

RESULTS

At a median (range) follow-up of 38 (16-96) months, 12 of the 15 patients (80%) reported a reduction in attack frequency of ≥50% (a reduction from a median of 35 to 1 attack/week, p < 0.001). Seven of these patients were treated with burst ONS. A significant reduction was also seen in maximum pain intensity. Overall, 10 patients stated a clinically important improvement in their headache condition following ONS treatment, rated on the PGIC scale. A total of 16 adverse events (nine of which were in the same patient) were registered.

CONCLUSION

Occipital nerve stimulation significantly reduced the number of weekly headache attacks and their intensity. Burst ONS seems to function well alone or as a supplement to conventional tonic ONS as a preventive treatment for CCH; however, larger prospective studies are needed to determine whether the effect can be confirmed and whether the efficacy of the two stimulation paradigms is even.

An open-label observational study and meta-analysis of non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation in medically refractory chronic cluster headache

Background

Many patients with cluster headache (CH) are inadequately controlled by current treatment options. Non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation (nVNS) is reported to be effective in the management of CH though some studies suggest that it is ineffective.

Objective

To assess the safety and efficacy of nVNS in chronic cluster headache (CCH) patients.

Method

We prospectively analysed data from 40 patients with refractory CCH in this open-label, observational study. Patients were seen in tertiary headache clinics at the National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery and trained to use nVNS as preventative therapy. Patients were reivewed at one month and then three-monthly from onset. The primary endpoint was number of patients achieving ≥50% reduction in attack frequency at 3  months. A meta-analysis of all published studies evaluating the efficacy of nVNS in CCH was also conducted. We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE for all studies investigating the use of nVNS as a preventive or adjunctive treatment for CCH with five or more participants. Combined mean difference and responder proportions with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated from the included studies.

Results

17/40 patients (43%) achieved ≥50% reduction in attack frequency at 3  months. There was a significant reduction in monthly attack frequency from a baseline of 124 (±67) attacks to 79 (±63) attacks in month 3 (mean difference 44.7; 95% CI 25.1 to 64.3; p &lt; 0.001). In month 3, there was also a 1.2-point reduction in average severity from a baseline Verbal Rating Scale of 8/10 (95% CI 0.5 to 1.9; p = 0.001). Four studies, along with the present study, were deemed eligible for meta-analysis, which showed a responder proportion of 0.35 (95% CI 0.07 to 0.69, n = 137) and a mean reduction in headache frequency of 35.3 attacks per month (95% CI 11.0 to 59.6, n = 108), from a baseline of 105 (±22.7) attacks per month.

Conclusion

This study highlights the potential benefit of nVNS in CCH, with significant reductions in headache frequency and severity. To better characterise the effect, randomised sham-controlled trials are needed to confirm the beneficial response of VNS reported in some, but not all, open-label studies.