Cluster Headache is Still Lurking in the Shadows

Health equity, care access and quality in headache - part 2

BACKGROUND

Headache disorders are a global public health concern affecting diverse populations. This review examines headache service organizations in low-, middle-, and high-income countries. It addresses global challenges in pharmacological headache treatment, with a focus on safety, tolerability, reproductive and child health, and outlines disparities in accessing innovative treatments worldwide.

MAIN BODY

Organized headache services are essential due to the wide prevalence and varying severity of headache disorders. The tiered headache service model is globally recognized, although its implementation varies based on financial and workforce considerations. Headache burden affects well-being, causing disability, economic challenges, and work limitations, irrespective of location or income. All nations still require improved diagnosis and treatment, and the majority of countries face obstacles including limited access, awareness, economic barriers, and inadequate health policies. Provided adequate internet availability, telemedicine could help improve health equity by expanding access to headache care, since it can offer patients access to services without lengthy waiting times or extensive travel and can provide healthcare unavailable in underserved areas due to staff shortages. Numerous health disparities restrict global access to many headache medications, especially impacting individuals historically excluded from randomized controlled trials, such as those with cardiovascular and cerebrovascular conditions, as well as pregnant women. Furthermore, despite advancements in researching migraine treatments for young patients, the options for treatment remain limited. Access to headache treatment relies on factors like medication availability, approval, financial coverage, and healthcare provider expertise. Inadequate public awareness leads to neglect by policymakers and undertreatment by patients and healthcare providers. Global access discrepancies are exacerbated by the introduction of novel disease-specific medications, particularly impacting Asian, African, and Latin American nations excluded from clinical trials. While North America and Europe experience broad availability of migraine treatments, the majority of countries worldwide lack access to these therapies.

CONCLUSIONS

Healthcare disparities, treatment access, and medication availability are concerning issues in headache medicine. Variations in national healthcare systems impact headache management, and costly innovative drugs are widening these gaps. Healthcare practitioners and experts should acknowledge these challenges and work towards minimizing access barriers for equitable global headache care in the future.

Cluster headache: state of the art in treatment

Cluster headache (CH) is the most common and devastating autonomic headache with multiple and recent advances in treatment. However, it usually goes unrecognized and is found to have a delayed and inappropriate treatment. This paper aims to review the current therapeutic options for patients with CH. We conducted a narrative literature review on the treatments available for this condition using the American Academy of Neurology (AAN) classification of therapeutic evidence. We found effective and safe pharmacological and non-pharmacological therapies with heterogeneity of clinical trial designs for patients with CH, and they are divided into three phases, namely, transitional, acute, and preventive interventions. Prednisone (A) is the most studied treatment in the transitional phase; acute attacks are treated using triptans (A), oxygen (A), and non-invasive transcutaneous vagal nerve stimulation (A). Verapamil (A) and monoclonal antibodies (possible A) are considered the first options in preventive treatments, followed by multiple pharmacological and non-pharmacological options in prophylactic treatments. In conclusion, numerous effective and safe treatments are available in treating patients with episodic, chronic, and pharmacoresistant CH according to the clinical profile of each patient.

Fremanezumab and Non-High-Dose Galcanezumab for Comorbid Cluster Headache in Patients with Migraine: Three Cases

A new treatment option for cluster headache (CH) prevention is needed. Monoclonal antibodies (mABs) against calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) ligands are used as a preventative treatment for migraine. Considering the CGRP’s role in the CH attack’s ignition and upkeep, fremanezumab and galcanezumab have been evaluated for CH preventative treatment. However, only high-dose (300 mg) galcanezumab has been approved for episodic CH prevention. We herein report three cases of migraine and comorbid CH with previous failures of preventive treatments. Two cases were treated with fremanezumab and one with non-high-dose galcanezumab. All three cases showed good results, not only for migraine, but also for CH attacks. This report suggests the efficacy of CGRP-mABs for CH prevention. Our cases differed from cases in the phase 3 trials of CGRP-mABs for CH prevention in two ways: first, our patients had both migraine and comorbid CH, and second, we used a combination of CGRP-mABs with preventative drugs, such as verapamil and/or prednisolone, to treat CH. Future accumulation of real-world data may prove the efficacy of CGRP-mABs for CH prevention.

Patient-identified burden and unmet needs in patients with cluster headache: An evidence-based qualitative literature review

Objectives:

To qualitatively identify evidence-based literature related to the daily burden and unmet treatment and psychosocial needs of patients with cluster headache (CH).

Methods:

A literature search was conducted through October 20, 2020 across MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and PsychInfo databases exploring quality of life (QoL) and disease burden in adults with CH. The search was restricted to full-text reports in peer-reviewed journals. Methodologic quality was assessed using the Critical Skills Appraisal Program.

Results:

From 11 identified publications, QoL was reduced in persons living with CH, with significant psychological, social, and socio-economic burdens, and work-related disability. The CH disease trajectory is complex, with patients experiencing the impact of their disease across multiple domains beyond the biological manifestation of the disease including stigma, employment limitations, and suicidal ideation, and with a lack of effective treatment from the patient perspective.

Discussion:

These findings strengthen comprehension of the CH patient experience, enabling a deeper understanding of the patients’ perspective and experience of their disease andunmet needs, providing a basis for future research into this debilitating condition. Minor limitations of this study include data extraction and study selection biases.