Occipital nerve stimulation for drug-resistant chronic cluster headache: a prospective pilot study

Deep brain stimulation of the hypothalamic region: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Deep brain stimulation (DBS) has been successfully used for the treatment of circuitopathies including movement, anxiety, and behavioral disorders. The hypothalamus is a crucial integration center for many peripheral and central pathways relating to cardiovascular, metabolic, and behavioral functions and constitutes a potential target for neuromodulation in treatment-refractory conditions. To conduct a systematic review, investigating hypothalamic targets in DBS, their indications, and the primary clinical findings.

METHODS

PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were searched in accordance with the PRISMA guideline to identify papers published in English studying DBS of the hypothalamus in humans.

RESULTS

After screening 3,148 papers, 34 studies consisting of 412 patients published over two decades were included in the final review. Hypothalamic DBS was indicated in refractory headaches (n = 238, 57.8%), aggressive behavior (n = 100, 24.3%), mild Alzheimer's disease (n = 58, 14.1%), trigeminal neuralgia in multiple sclerosis (n = 5, 1.2%), Prader-Willi syndrome (n = 4, 0.97%), and atypical facial pain (n = 3, 0.73%). The posterior hypothalamus was the most common DBS target site across 30 studies (88.2%). 262 (63.6%) participants were males, and 110 (26.7%) were females. 303 (73.5%) patients were adults whereas 33 (8.0%) were pediatrics. The lowest mean age of participants was 15.25 ± 4.6 years for chronic refractory aggressiveness, and the highest was 68.5 ± 7.9 years in Alzheimer's disease patients. The mean duration of the disease ranged from 2.2 ± 1.7 (mild Alzheimer's disease) to 19.8 ± 10.1 years (refractory headaches). 213 (51.7%) patients across 29 studies (85.3%) reported symptom improvements which ranged from 23.1% to 100%. 25 (73.5%) studies reported complications, most of which were associated with higher voltage stimulations.

CONCLUSIONS

DBS of the hypothalamus is feasible in selected patients with various refractory conditions ranging from headaches to aggression in both pediatric and adult populations. Future large-scale studies with long-term follow-up are required to validate the safety and efficacy data and extend these findings.

Peripheral nerve stimulation for lower-limb postoperative recovery: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Patients undergoing lower-limb orthopedic surgery may experience multiple postoperative complications. Although peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) is a promising non-pharmacological approach that has been used in lower-limb postoperative recovery, the clinical efficacy of PNS remains inconclusive. This study systematically searched three databases (PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library) for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that examined the treatment effects of PNSs in patients who underwent lower-limb orthopedic surgery up to September 29, 2023. Two investigators independently identified studies, extracted data, and conducted meta-analyses with Review Manager 5.4. The outcomes were pain relief (measured by reductions in pain intensity and analgesic consumption) and functional improvements (range of motion [ROM] and length of hospitalization [LOH]). A total of 633 patients including 321 in the experimental groups and 312 in the control groups from eight RCTs were included. PNS showed no significant effect on pain intensity, while analgesic consumption was marginally significantly reduced in the experimental group. Furthermore, no significant differences were observed regarding functional improvements in ROM or LOH after the intervention. Although PNS had no significant effect on pain relief or functional improvements, the intervention exhibited a marginally significant reduction in analgesic consumption. Future trials should be conducted with larger sample sizes, longer follow-up periods, and more varied stimulation parameters.

Current and Novel Therapies for Cluster Headache: A Narrative Review

Cluster headache (CH) is an excruciating and debilitating primary headache disorder. The prevalence is up to 1.3%, and the typical onset is around age 30. Often misdiagnosed as migraine, particularly in children, the diagnosis rate of CH has been increasing among women. CH is characterized by intense unilateral pain and autonomic symptoms, significantly impacting patients' quality of life, mental health, and productivity.Genetic associations suggest a familial risk for developing CH, with lifestyle factors also potentially playing a role. The pathophysiology involves alterations in both central and peripheral nervous system, with the hypothalamus, trigeminocervical complex, and neuropeptides such as calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) being implicated.Nonpharmacological treatments focus on patient education and lifestyle modifications, while pharmacological treatments include acute therapies such as oxygen and subcutaneous or nasal sumatriptan, as well as preventive therapies like verapamil, lithium, and CGRP monoclonal antibodies. Transitional options include oral corticosteroids and greater occipital nerve injections. Emerging interventional procedures offer new avenues for managing refractory cases. Noninvasive vagal nerve stimulation and occipital nerve stimulation show promise for both acute and preventive treatment. Careful consideration of safety profiles is crucial in specific populations such as pregnant patients and children.Current treatments still leave patients highly burdened by limited efficacy and side effects. Future research continues to explore novel pharmacological targets, interventional procedures, and the potential role of psychedelics in CH management. Comprehensive, multifaceted treatment strategies are essential to improve the daily functioning and quality of life for individuals with CH.

Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation of the occipital nerves as treatment for chronic cluster headache

BACKGROUND

Chronic cluster headache (CCH) is an excruciatingly painful condition that can be difficult to treat sufficiently with the available medical treatment options. The greater occipital nerves (GON) are of major interest in treating CCH, and various invasive treatment modalities, such as stimulating or blocking the nerves, have been applied. Because the terminal segment of the GON has a superficial course, the nerve is also accessible for non-invasive transcutaneous stimulation. Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) has been suggested as a treatment for different chronic headaches, but evidence of the efficacy in patients with CCH is scarce. Additionally, no consensus exists on the optimal placement of the transcutaneous stimulation electrodes or the treatment usage pattern.

METHODS

In this explorative open-label clinical study, 36 patients with CCH were treated with TENS of the GON for 8-12 consecutive weeks between August 2021 and October 2023 as a separate part of the study protocol for a trial on stimulation of the GON (Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT05023460). After a baseline period, TENS was used primarily as a preventive treatment, stimulating for 30 min twice daily at a minimum. The primary outcome was a change in attack frequency and safety with TENS treatment. Secondary outcomes were change in attack duration and pain intensity on the numeric rating scale, abortive treatments, and the Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) with TENS treatment. The change in attack frequency, duration, pain intensity, and use of abortive treatment was analyzed by comparing the baseline data with 4-weekly data from TENS treatment. The study aimed to systematically investigate the effect of TENS of the GON as a preventive treatment for CCH.

RESULTS

Weekly attack frequency decreased from a median of 15.7 (95% confidence interval [CI] 11.2-22.1) at baseline to 11.0 (95% CI 7.4-16.4) with TENS. In all, 13 of the 36 (36%) patients had a minimum 30% reduction in attack frequency. In the group of 30% responders, the number of weekly attacks decreased from 15.8 (95% CI 9.8-24.5) at baseline to 5.8 (95% CI 3.3-10.5) attacks with TENS. Five patients became entirely or nearly attack-free. For the entire cohort, attack duration and pain intensity were also significantly reduced with TENS. The use of oxygen was reduced by 42%, and triptan injections decreased by 55%. Overall, 15 (42%) patients reported a clinically important improvement with TENS treatment, rated on the PGIC scale. The 100 Hz stimulation programs were preferred over 10 Hz. No serious adverse events were registered.

CONCLUSION

Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation of the GON significantly reduced the frequency, intensity, and duration of weekly headache attacks in patients with severe CCH. Not all patients benefitted from TENS, but the treatment responders had a substantial improvement in their cluster headache. TENS treatment was well-tolerated with little or no side effects and could be a relevant supplement to conventional preventive treatment. A standard TENS apparatus is low cost, making the treatment accessible to most patients. This paper includes a detailed, comprehensive description of our clinical application of the therapy.

Headache management in traumatic brain injury

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is estimated to rank as the third most important disease burden worldwide. About 60% of the survivors develop chronic headaches and visual symptoms, and the long-term management of headaches in these patients is controversial. Importantly, the care pathway of most patients is fragmented, complicating conclusive headache management. Here we review the epidemiology and aetiology of post traumatic headaches (PTH), discuss the diagnostic work up and summarise the acute and long-term management.

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.

A prospective open label 2-8 year extension of the randomised controlled ICON trial on the long-term efficacy and safety of occipital nerve stimulation in medically intractable chronic cluster headache

BACKGROUND

We demonstrated in the randomised controlled ICON study that 48-week treatment of medically intractable chronic cluster headache (MICCH) with occipital nerve stimulation (ONS) is safe and effective. In L-ICON we prospectively evaluate its long-term effectiveness and safety.

METHODS

ICON participants were enrolled in L-ICON immediately after completing ICON. Therefore, earlier ICON participants could be followed longer than later ones. L-ICON inclusion was stopped after the last ICON participant was enrolled in L-ICON and followed for ≥2 years by completing six-monthly questionnaires on attack frequency, side effects, subjective improvement and whether they would recommend ONS to others. Primary outcome was the change in mean weekly attack frequency 2 years after completion of the ICON study compared to baseline. Missing values for log-transformed attack-frequency were imputed for up to 5 years of follow-up. Descriptive analyses are presented as (pooled) geometric or arithmetic means and 95% confidence intervals.

FINDINGS

Of 103 eligible participants, 88 (85%) gave informed consent and 73 (83%) were followed for ≥2 year, 61 (69%) ≥ 3 year, 33 (38%) ≥ 5 years and 3 (3%) ≥ 8.5 years. Mean (±SD) follow-up was 4.2 ± 2.2 years for a total of 370 person years (84% of potentially 442 years). The pooled geometric mean (95% CI) weekly attack frequency remained considerably lower after one (4.2; 2.8-6.3), two (5.1; 3.5-7.6) and five years (4.1; 3.0-5.5) compared to baseline (16.2; 14.4-18.3). Of the 49/88 (56%) ICON ≥50% responders, 35/49 (71%) retained this response and 15/39 (38%) ICON non-responders still became a ≥50% responder for at least half the follow-up period. Most participants (69/88; 78% [0.68-0.86]) reported a subjective improvement from baseline at last follow-up and 70/88 (81% [0.70-0.87]) would recommend ONS to others. Hardware-related surgery was required in 44/88 (50%) participants in 112/122 (92%) events (0.35 person-year-1 [0.28-0.41]). We didn't find predictive factors for effectiveness.

INTERPRETATION

ONS is a safe, well-tolerated and long-term effective treatment for MICCH.

FUNDING

The Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research, the Dutch Ministry of Health, the NutsOhra Foundation from the Dutch Health Insurance Companies, and Medtronic.

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.

European Academy of Neurology guidelines on the treatment of cluster headache

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Cluster headache is a relatively rare, disabling primary headache disorder with a major impact on patients' quality of life. This work presents evidence-based recommendations for the treatment of cluster headache derived from a systematic review of the literature and consensus among a panel of experts.

METHODS

The databases PubMed (Medline), Science Citation Index, and Cochrane Library were screened for studies on the efficacy of interventions (last access July 2022). The findings in these studies were evaluated according to the recommendations of the European Academy of Neurology, and the level of evidence was established using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation).

RECOMMENDATIONS

For the acute treatment of cluster headache attacks, there is a strong recommendation for oxygen (100%) with a flow of at least 12 L/min over 15 min and 6 mg subcutaneous sumatriptan. Prophylaxis of cluster headache attacks with verapamil at a daily dose of at least 240 mg (maximum dose depends on efficacy and tolerability) is recommended. Corticosteroids are efficacious in cluster headache. To reach an effect, the use of at least 100 mg prednisone (or equivalent corticosteroid) given orally or at up to 500 mg iv per day over 5 days is recommended. Lithium, topiramate, and galcanezumab (only for episodic cluster headache) are recommended as alternative treatments. Noninvasive vagus nerve stimulation is efficacious in episodic but not chronic cluster headache. Greater occipital nerve block is recommended, but electrical stimulation of the greater occipital nerve is not recommended due to the side effect profile.

Current treatment options for cluster headache: limitations and the unmet need for better and specific treatments-a consensus article

AIM

Treatment for cluster headache is currently based on a trial-and-error approach. The available preventive treatment is unspecific and based on few and small studies not adhering to modern standards. Therefore, the authors collaborated to discuss acute and preventive treatment in cluster headache, addressing the unmet need of safe and tolerable preventive medication from the perspectives of people with cluster headache and society, headache specialist and cardiologist.

FINDINGS

The impact of cluster headache on personal life is substantial. Mean annual direct and indirect costs of cluster headache are more than 11,000 Euros per patient. For acute treatment, the main problems are treatment response, availability, costs and, for triptans, contraindications and the maximum use allowed. Intermediate treatment with steroids and greater occipital nerve blocks are effective but cannot be used continuously. Preventive treatment is sparsely studied and overall limited by relatively low efficacy and side effects. Neurostimulation is a relevant option for treatment-refractory chronic patients. From a cardiologist's perspective use of verapamil and triptans may be worrisome and regular follow-up is essential when using verapamil and lithium.

CONCLUSION

We find that there is a great and unmet need to pursue novel and targeted preventive modalities to suppress the horrific pain attacks for people with cluster headache.

Transient side shift of cluster headache attacks after unilateral greater occipital nerve injection

Attacks of cluster headache (CH) are usually side-locked in most, but not all, patients. In a few patients, the side may alternate between or, rarely, within cluster episodes. We observed seven cases in whom the side of CH attacks temporarily shifted immediately or shortly after unilateral injection of the greater occipital nerve (GON) with corticosteroids. In five patients with previously side-locked CH attacks and in two patients with previously side-alternating CH attacks, a side shift for several weeks occurred immediately (N = 6) or shortly (N = 1) after GON injection. We concluded that unilateral GON injections might cause a transient side shift of CH attacks through inhibition of the ipsilateral hypothalamic attack generator causing relative overactivity of the contralateral side. The potential benefit of bilateral GON injection in patients who experienced a side shift after unilateral injection should be formally investigated.

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.

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

BACKGROUND

Preventive treatment for refractory chronic cluster headache (rCCH) is challenging and many therapies have been tried.

OBJECTIVE

To study what could be considered the therapy of choice in rCCH through a systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

This review was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO (ID CRD42021290983). A systematic search was performed in MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, clinicaltrials.gov, and the WHO's-International-Clinical-Trials-Registry-Platform. Studies on the preventive treatment for rCCH as defined by the European Headache Federation consensus statement were included. A meta-analysis of the pooled response rate was conducted for the different therapies.

RESULTS

Of 336 results, 45 were eligible for inclusion. Most articles studied the effect of neuromodulation as a preventive treatment for rCCH. The most studied neuromodulation technique was occipital nerve stimulation (ONS), with a pooled response rate in the meta-analysis of 57.3% (95% CI 0.481-0.665). Deep brain stimulation (DBS) was the second most studied treatment with a pooled response rate of 77.0% (95% CI 0.594-0.957). DBS results were more heterogeneous than ONS, which could be related to the different stimulation targets in DBS studies, and reported more serious adverse events than in ONS studies. The remaining therapies (anti-CGRP pathway drugs, warfarin, ketamine-magnesium infusions, serial occipital nerve blocks, clomiphene, onabotulinum toxin A, ketogenic diet, sphenopalatine ganglion radiofrequency or stimulation, vagus nerve stimulation, percutaneous bioelectric current stimulation, upper cervical cord stimulation, and vidian neurectomy) present weaker results or have less quality of evidence.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that ONS could be the first therapeutic strategy for patients with rCCH based on the current evidence.

Neuromodulation for Chronic Daily Headache

Purpose of Review

We reviewed the literature that explored the use of central and peripheral neuromodulation techniques for chronic daily headache (CDH) treatment.

Recent Findings

Although the more invasive deep brain stimulation (DBS) is effective in chronic cluster headache (CCH), it should be reserved for extremely difficult-to-treat patients. Percutaneous occipital nerve stimulation has shown similar efficacy to DBS and is less risky in both CCH and chronic migraine (CM). Non-invasive transcutaneous vagus nerve stimulation is a promising add-on treatment for CCH but not for CM. Transcutaneous external trigeminal nerve stimulation may be effective in treating CM; however, it has not yet been tested for cluster headache. Transcranial magnetic and electric stimulations have promising preventive effects against CM and CCH.

Summary

Although the precise mode of action of non-invasive neuromodulation techniques remains largely unknown and there is a paucity of controlled trials, they should be preferred to more invasive techniques for treating CDH.

Neurostimulation Treatment in Chronic Cluster Headache-a Narrative Review

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

In this narrative review, the current literature on neurostimulation methods in the treatment of chronic cluster headache is evaluated. These neurostimulation methods include deep brain stimulation, vagus nerve stimulation, greater occipital nerve stimulation, sphenopalatine ganglion stimulation, transcranial magnetic stimulation, transcranial direct current stimulation, supraorbital nerve stimulation, and cervical spinal cord stimulation.

RECENT FINDINGS

Altogether, only nVNS and SPG stimulation are supported by at least one positive sham-controlled clinical trial for preventive and acute attack (only SPG stimulation) treatment. Other clinical trials either did not control at all or controlled by differences in the stimulation technique itself but not by a sham-control. Case series report higher responder rates. The evidence for these neurostimulation methods in the treatment of chronic cluster headache is poor and in part contradictive. However, except deep brain stimulation, tolerability and safety of these methods are good so that in refractory situations application might be justified in individual cases.

Safety and efficacy of occipital nerve stimulation for attack prevention in medically intractable chronic cluster headache (ICON): a randomised, double-blind, multicentre, phase 3, electrical dose-controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Occipital nerve stimulation (ONS) has shown promising results in small uncontrolled trials in patients with medically intractable chronic cluster headache (MICCH). We aimed to establish whether ONS could serve as an effective treatment for patients with MICCH.

METHODS

The ONS in MICCH (ICON) study is an investigator-initiated, international, multicentre, randomised, double-blind, phase 3, electrical dose-controlled clinical trial. The study took place at four hospitals in the Netherlands, one hospital in Belgium, one in Germany, and one in Hungary. After 12 weeks' baseline observation, patients with MICCH, at least four attacks per week, and history of being non-responsive to at least three standard preventive drugs, were randomly allocated (at a 1:1 ratio using a computer-generated permuted block) to 24 weeks of occipital nerve stimulation at either 100% or 30% of the individually determined range between paraesthesia threshold and near-discomfort (double-blind study phase). Because ONS causes paraesthesia, preventing masked comparison versus placebo, we compared high-intensity versus low-intensity ONS, which are hypothesised to cause similar paraesthesia, but with different efficacy. In weeks 25-48, participants received individually optimised open-label ONS. The primary outcome was the weekly mean attack frequency in weeks 21-24 compared with baseline across all patients and, if a decrease was shown, to show a group-wise difference. The trial is closed to recruitment (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01151631).

FINDINGS

Patients were enrolled between Oct 12, 2010, and Dec 3, 2017. We enrolled 150 patients and randomly assigned 131 (87%) to treatment; 65 (50%) patients to 100% ONS and 66 (50%) to 30% ONS. One of the 66 patients assigned to 30% ONS was not implanted and was therefore excluded from the intention-to-treat analysis. Because the weekly mean attack frequencies at baseline were skewed (median 15·75; IQR 9·44 to 24·75) we used log transformation to analyse the data and medians to present the results. Median weekly mean attack frequencies in the total population decreased from baseline to 7·38 (2·50 to 18·50; p<0·0001) in weeks 21-24, a median change of -5·21 (-11·18 to -0·19; p<0·0001) attacks per week. In the 100% ONS stimulation group, mean attack frequency decreased from 17·58 (9·83 to 29·33) at baseline to 9·50 (3·00 to 21·25) at 21-24 weeks (median change from baseline -4·08, -11·92 to -0·25), and for the 30% ONS stimulation group, mean attack frequency decreased from 15·00 (9·25 to 22·33) to 6·75 (1·50 to 16·50; -6·50, -10·83 to -0·08). The difference in median weekly mean attack frequency between groups at the end of the masked phase in weeks 21-24 was -2·42 (95% CI -5·17 to 3·33). In the masked study phase, 129 adverse events occurred with 100% ONS and 95 occurred with 30% ONS. None of the adverse events was unexpected but 17 with 100% ONS and eight with 30% ONS were labelled as serious, given they required brief hospital admission for minor hardware-related issues. The most common adverse events were local pain, impaired wound healing, neck stiffness, and hardware damage.

INTERPRETATION

In patients with MICCH, both 100% ONS intensity and 30% ONS intensity substantially reduced attack frequency and were safe and well tolerated. Future research should focus on optimising stimulation protocols and disentangling the underlying mechanism of action.

FUNDING

The Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research, the Dutch Ministry of Health, the NutsOhra Foundation from the Dutch Health Insurance Companies, and Medtronic.

Current advances in the management of cluster headaches

Introduction: Cluster headache (CH) is probably the most severe idiopathic pain condition, yet its current medical management remains poor.Areas covered: Only repurpose medicines are currently in use for the prevention of CH, partially because the pathophysiology of the condition is still elusive. In this article we performed a systematic review to evaluate the evidence for efficacy of the currently available or emerging treatments for CH.Expert opinion: We found several ongoing randomized clinical trials testing prophylactic treatments for CH and only few for the standard ones. Recent data from randomized trials with monoclonal antibodies targeting the calcitonin gene related peptide pathway (anti-CGRP mAbs) are controversial, although its role in the pathogenesis of the condition is well documented. This inconsistency may depict inadequacies in clinical trial designing. Anti-CGRP mAbs and antagonists of pituitary adenylate cyclase-activating polypeptide (PACAP) along with neuromodulation techniques, are curing the necessary valuable evidence that could illuminate the therapeutical future for cluster headache. Orexin pathway is another attractive target for CH treatment. To improve the evidence for efficacy, we further propose that the design of the clinical trials for CH needs to be radically reviewed to allow more patients to participate.

Occipital Nerve Stimulation for Refractory Chronic Cluster Headache: A Cost-Effectiveness Study

INTRODUCTION

Occipital nerve stimulation (ONS) is proposed to treat refractory chronic cluster headache (rCCH), but its cost-effectiveness has not been evaluated, limiting its diffusion and reimbursement.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We performed a before-and-after economic study, from data collected prospectively in a nation-wide registry. We compared the cost-effectiveness of ONS associated with conventional treatment (intervention and postintervention period) to conventional treatment alone (preintervention period) in the same patients. The analysis was conducted on 76 rCCH patients from the French healthcare perspective at three months, then one year by extrapolation. Because of the impact of the disease on patient activity, indirect cost, such as sick leave and disability leave, was assessed second.

RESULTS

The average total cost for three months was €7602 higher for the ONS strategy compared to conventional strategy with a gain of 0.07 quality-adjusted life-years (QALY), the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was then €109,676/QALY gained. The average extrapolated total cost for one year was €1344 lower for the ONS strategy (p = 0.5444) with a gain of 0.28 QALY (p < 0.0001), the ICER was then €-4846/QALY gained. The scatter plot of the probabilistic bootstrapping had 80% of the replications in the bottom right-hand quadrant, indicating that the ONS strategy is dominant. The average indirect cost for three months was €377 lower for the ONS strategy (p = 0.1261).

DISCUSSION

This ONS cost-effectiveness study highlighted the limitations of a short-time horizon in an economic study that may lead the healthcare authorities to reject an innovative strategy, which is actually cost-effective. One-year extrapolation was the proposed solution to obtain results on which healthcare authorities can base their decisions.

CONCLUSION

Considering the burden of rCCH and the efficacy and safety of ONS, the demonstration that ONS is dominant should help its diffusion, validation, and reimbursement by health authorities in this severely disabled population.

Long-Term Efficacy of Occipital Nerve Stimulation for Medically Intractable Cluster Headache

BACKGROUND

Occipital nerve stimulation (ONS) has been proposed to treat refractory chronic cluster headache (rCCH) but its efficacy has only been showed in small short-term series.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate ONS long-term efficacy in rCCH.

METHODS

We studied 105 patients with rCCH, treated by ONS within a multicenter ONS prospective registry. Efficacy was evaluated by frequency, intensity of pain attacks, quality of life (QoL) EuroQol 5 dimensions (EQ5D), functional (Headache Impact Test-6, Migraine Disability Assessment) and emotional (Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale [HAD]) impacts, and medication consumption.

RESULTS

At last follow-up (mean 43.8 mo), attack frequency was reduced >50% in 69% of the patients. Mean weekly attack frequency decreased from 22.5 at baseline to 9.9 (P < .001) after ONS. Preventive and abortive medications were significantly decreased. Functional impact, anxiety, and QoL significantly improved after ONS. In excellent responders (59% of the patients), attack frequency decreased by 80% and QoL (EQ5D visual analog scale) dramatically improved from 37.8/100 to 73.2/100. When comparing baseline and 1-yr and last follow-up outcomes, efficacy was sustained over time. In multivariable analysis, low preoperative HAD-depression score was correlated to a higher risk of ONS failure. During the follow-up, 67 patients experienced at least one complication, 29 requiring an additional surgery: infection (6%), lead migration (12%) or fracture (4.5%), hardware dysfunction (8.2%), and local pain (20%).

CONCLUSION

Our results showed that long-term efficacy of ONS in CCH was maintained over time. In responders, ONS induced a major reduction of functional and emotional headache-related impacts and a dramatic improvement of QoL. These results obtained in real-life conditions support its use and dissemination in rCCH patients.

Peripheral Nerve Stimulation and Clinical Outcomes: A Retrospective Case Series

PURPOSE

Peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) is a rapidly expanding field within neuromodulation; however, there is limited data on therapeutic efficacy. This study describes the indications and clinical outcomes for patients undergoing PNS for chronic pain states.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This is a retrospective case series of adults undergoing PNS implantation from 2004 to 2017 at an academic medical center. The primary outcomes were changes in numeric rating scale (NRS) pain scores, opioid utilization in oral morphine milligram equivalent (MME), and self-reported patient functioning at 6 months postoperatively. Infectious and device-related complications were also assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 72 patients underwent PNS implantation, including 59 patients that received a preceding PNS trial (59/78; 76% progression rate) and 13 that did not receive a PNS trial. The most common indication for stimulation was occipital neuralgia (47%) followed by lower-extremity neuropathies (17%). PNS implantation was associated with 6-month reductions in pain scores (7 [6, 8] baseline vs. 4 [2, 5] 6 months; P < 0.001) and opioid utilization (eg, median 60 [31, 104] vs. 18 [0, 52] MME among those with baseline opioid use; P < 0.001). Median functional improvement was 73% (50%, 88%). Seven patients (10%) suffered a postoperative surgical site infection at a median of 50 (30, 124) days, of which five devices were removed.

CONCLUSION

Peripheral nerve stimulation was associated with reduced pain scores, lower opioid utilization, and improved patient function at 6 months. These data support PNS as a potentially effective nonopioid analgesic modality in chronic pain, though prospective multicenter evaluation is warranted to evaluate longer-term outcomes.

Peripheral Neuromodulation for the Management of Headache

Context

Neuromodulation is an expanding field of study for headache treatment to reduce pain by targeting structures within the nervous system that are commonly involved in headache pathophysiology, such as the vagus nerve (VNS), occipital nerves, or sphenopalatine ganglion (SPG) for stimulation. Pharmaceutical medical therapies for abortive and prophylactic treatment, such as triptans, NSAIDs, beta-blockers, TCAs, and antiepileptics, are effective for some individuals, but the role that technology plays in investigating other therapeutic modalities is essential. Peripheral neuromodulation has gained popularity and FDA approval for use in treating certain headaches and migraine headache conditions, particularly in those who are refractory to treatment. Early trials found FDA approved neurostimulatory implant devices, including Cephaly and SpringTMS, improved patient-oriented outcomes with reductions in headaches per month (frequency) and severity.

Evidence Acquisition

This was a narrative review. The sources for this review are as follows: Searching on PubMed, Google Scholar, Medline, and ScienceDirect from 1990 - 2019 using keywords: Peripheral Neuromodulation, Headache, vagus nerve, occipital nerves, sphenopalatine ganglion.

Results

The first noninvasive neurostimulator device approved for migraine treatment was the Cefaly device, an external trigeminal nerve stimulation device (e-TNS) that transcutaneously excites the supratrochlear and supraorbital branches of the ophthalmic nerve. The second noninvasive neurostimulation device receiving FDA approval was the single-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulator, SpringTMS, positioned at the occiput to treat migraine with aura. GammaCore is a handheld transcutaneous vagal nerve stimulator applied directly to the neck at home by the patient for treatment of cluster headache (CH) and migraine. Several other devices are in development for the treatment of headaches and target headache evolution at different levels and inputs. The Scion device is a caloric vestibular stimulator (CVS) which interfaces with the user through a set of small cones resting in the ear canal on either side and held in place by modified over-ear headphones. The pulsante SPG Microstimulator is a patient-controlled device implanted in the patient’s upper jaw via an hour-long oral procedure to target the sphenopalatine ganglion. The occipital nerve stimulator (ONS) is an invasive neuromodulation device for headache treatment that consists of an implanted pulse generator on the chest wall connected to a subcutaneous lead with 4 - 8 electrodes that is tunneled the occiput.

Conclusions

The aim of this review is to provide a comprehensive overview of the efficacy, preliminary outcomes, and limitations of neurostimulatory implants available for use in the US and those pending further development.

Role of greater occipital nerve block for preventive treatment of chronic migraine: A critical review

Objective:

The aim of this study is to critically analyze the evidence of the efficacy and safety of greater occipital nerve (GON) block for the preventive treatment of chronic migraine (CM).

Background:

A rigorous scientific assessment of efficacy and safety of the GON block for preventive treatment in CM is not available. This critical review was undertaken for this purpose.

Methods:

References for this review were identified by searches of articles published in the English language in PubMed between 1969 and April 15, 2020 using “greater occipital nerve block,” “chronic migraine,” “migraine,” “headache,” and “treatment” as keywords.

Results:

Out of potential 532 articles, 9 open-label and 4 placebo-controlled trials that studied the role of GON block for prevention of CM were identified and reviewed. Open-label trials reported a reduction of headache severity and frequency in 35–68% of patients. The beneficial effect of a single block lasted up to 4 weeks. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) used varied methodology and techniques of GON block and the outcomes were reported at different time points. A single RCT showed a beneficial effect of the GON block at 1 week. However, the GON block was found to be safe and well tolerated.

Conclusion:

Long-term efficacy of GON block in CM shall need further well-designed RCTs using standardized methodology. This study, in addition, reviewed the limitations and uncertainties regarding the technique and methods of use of GON block in CM.

Explant rates of electrical neuromodulation devices in 1177 patients in a single center over an 11-year period

Introduction

The publication of explant rates has established risk factors and a definitive objective outcome of failure for spinal cord stimulation (SCS) treating neuropathic pain. We present a UK study analyzing explants of electrical neuromodulation devices for different conditions over 11 years in a single center specializing in neuromodulation.

Methods

A retrospective analysis was performed using a departmental database between 2008 and 2019. Explants were analyzed according to condition, mode of stimulation and other demographics using logistic regression and Kaplan-Meier graphs with log-rank (Mantel-Cox) test.

Results

Out of a total of 1177 patients, the explant rate was 17.8% at 5 years and 25.2% at 10 years. Loss of efficacy was the most frequent reason for explant 119/181 (65%). Multivariant regression analysis indicated patients with back pain without prior surgery had a reduced risk of explant (p=0.03). Patients with SCS systems that had 10 kHz, options of multiple waveforms, and rechargeable batteries also had a decreased risk of explant (p<0.001). None of these findings were confirmed when comparing Kaplan-Meier graphs, however. Contrary to other studies, we found gender and age were not independent variables for explant.

Conclusion

These data contribute to a growing list of explant data in the scientific literature and give indications of what factors contribute to long-term utilization of electrical neuromodulation devices.

Neuromodulation in headache and craniofacial neuralgia: guidelines from the Spanish Society of Neurology and the Spanish Society of Neurosurgery

INTRODUCTION

Numerous invasive and non-invasive neuromodulation devices have been developed and applied to patients with headache and neuralgia in recent years. However, no updated review addresses their safety and efficacy, and no healthcare institution has issued specific recommendations on their use for these 2 conditions.

METHODS

Neurologists from the Spanish Society of Neurology's (SEN) Headache Study Group and neurosurgeons specialising in functional neurosurgery, selected by the Spanish Society of Neurosurgery (SENEC), performed a comprehensive review of articles on the MEDLINE database addressing the use of the technique in patients with headache and neuralgia.

RESULTS

We present an updated review and establish the first set of consensus recommendations of the SEN and SENC on the use of neuromodulation to treat headache and neuralgia, analysing the current levels of evidence on its effectiveness for each specific condition.

CONCLUSIONS

Current evidence supports the indication of neuromodulation techniques for patients with refractory headache and neuralgia (especially migraine, cluster headache, and trigeminal neuralgia) selected by neurologists and headache specialists, after pharmacological treatment options are exhausted. Furthermore, we recommend that invasive neuromodulation be debated by multidisciplinary committees, and that the procedure be performed by teams of neurosurgeons specialising in functional neurosurgery, with acceptable rates of morbidity and mortality.

A Head-to-Head Comparison of Percutaneous Mastoid Electrical Stimulator and Supraorbital Transcutaneous Stimulator in the Prevention of Migraine: A Prospective, Randomized Controlled Study

INTRODUCTION

This prospective, randomized, multicenter head-to-head outcome study was performed to compare the efficacy and safety of Percutaneous Mastoid Electrical Stimulator (PMES) and Supraorbital Transcutaneous Stimulator (STS) in migraine prevention.

METHODS

This was a prospective, randomized, head-to-head outcome study that involved three medical centers. After a one-month run-in, episodic patients with at least two migraine attacks/month were randomized to receive PMES daily for 45 min or STS daily for 20 min for three months. The primary outcomes were change in monthly migraine days and the 50% response rate.

RESULTS

A total of 90 patients were included in this study. We observed statistically significant reduction of migraine days in the third month treatment both in the PMES group and STS group. The difference between the two groups was not significant (60.5% vs. 53.8%, p = 0.88). Of note, 77.8% patients in the PMES group and 62.2% patients in the STS group had a ≥50% reduction of migraine days in the third month (p = 0.070). The change in monthly migraine days, monthly migraine attacks, severity of migraine days, accompanying symptoms during migraine and monthly acute anti-migraine drug intake were not significantly different between the two groups. The change of Headache Impact Test-6 (HIT-6) from run-in to the third-month treatment in the STS group was more remarkable than that in the PMES group (36.5% vs. 25.6%, p = 0.041). The occurrence of discomfort paresthesia was higher in the STS group (13.3% vs. 0%, p = 0.026).

CONCLUSION

PMES and STS treatment were both effective in migraine prevention. The safety and efficacy of PMES and STS were comparable.

Safety and efficacy of percutaneous pulsed radiofrequency treatment at the C1-C2 level in chronic cluster headache: a retrospective analysis of 21 cases

We performed a study of the safety and efficacy of percutaneous pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) treatment directed at C1 and C2 levels as performed at our local pain clinic in refractory chronic cluster headache (CCH) patients. We identified 21 CCH patients treated with PRF (240 s, max. 45 V, max. 42 °C) directed at the ganglion and/or nerve root of C1 and C2. Data were collected through retrospective analysis of patients' files and include demographic variables, onset and duration of the headache, mean attack frequency, and prior pharmacological treatment. Safety and reduction of attack frequency in the first 3 months after a first PRF treatment was the primary outcome parameter of this study. All patients had been treated with at least two prophylactic drugs and 19 (90%) had previously been treated with verapamil, lithium, and topiramate. Ten patients (47.6%) reported no meaningful effect, four patients (19%) reported a meaningful reduction of < 50%, and seven patients (33.3%) reported a reduction in headache burden of at least 50% in the 3 months following treatment. Two patients reported occurrence or increase in frequency of contralateral cluster attacks. No other adverse events were reported or detected at follow-up. Upper cervical PRF treatment appears to be a safe procedure that could prove effective in the treatment of patients with refractory CCH and warrants a prospective study.

Burst Occipital Nerve Stimulation for Chronic Migraine and Chronic Cluster Headache

BACKGROUND

Occipital nerve stimulation (ONS) is widely used for headache syndromes including chronic migraine (CM) and chronic cluster headache (CCH). The paraesthesia associated with tonic stimulation can be bothersome and can limit therapy. It is now clear in spinal cord stimulation that paraesthesia-free waveforms can produce effective analgesia, but this has not been reported in ONS for CM or CCH.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Seventeen patients (12 CM and 5 CCH) were treated with bilateral burst pattern ONS, including 4 who had previously had tonic ONS. Results were assessed in terms of the frequency of headaches (number of headache days per month for CM, and number of attacks per day for CCH) and their intensity on the numeric pain rating scale.

RESULTS

Burst ONS produced a statistically significant mean reduction of 10.2 headache days per month in CM. In CCH, there were significant mean reductions in headache frequency (92%) and intensity (42%).

CONCLUSION

Paraesthesia is not necessary for good quality analgesia in ONS. Larger studies will be required to determine whether the efficacies of the two stimulation modes differ. Burst ONS is imperceptible and therefore potentially amenable to robustly blinded clinical trials.

Targeted Vagus Nerve Stimulation for Rehabilitation After Stroke

Stroke is a leading cause of disability worldwide, and in approximately 60% of individuals, upper limb deficits persist 6 months after stroke. These deficits adversely affect the functional use of the upper limb and restrict participation in day to day activities. An important goal of stroke rehabilitation is to improve the quality of life by enhancing functional independence and participation in activities. Since upper limb deficits are one of the best predictors of quality of life after stroke, effective interventions targeting these deficits may represent a means to improve quality of life. An increased understanding of the neurobiological processes underlying stroke recovery has led to the development of targeted approaches to improve motor deficits. One such targeted strategy uses brief bursts of Vagus Nerve Stimulation (VNS) paired with rehabilitation to enhance plasticity and support recovery of upper limb function after chronic stroke. Stimulation of the vagus nerve triggers release of plasticity promoting neuromodulators, such as acetylcholine and norepinephrine, throughout the cortex. Timed engagement of neuromodulators concurrent with motor training drives task-specific plasticity in the motor cortex to improve function and provides the basis for paired VNS therapy. A number of studies in preclinical models of ischemic stroke demonstrated that VNS paired with rehabilitative training significantly improved the recovery of forelimb motor function compared to rehabilitative training without VNS. The improvements were associated with synaptic reorganization of cortical motor networks and recruitment of residual motor neurons controlling the impaired forelimb, demonstrating the putative neurobiological mechanisms underlying recovery of motor function. These preclinical studies provided the basis for conducting two multi-site, randomized controlled pilot trials in individuals with moderate to severe upper limb weakness after chronic ischemic stroke. In both studies, VNS paired with rehabilitation improved motor deficits compared to rehabilitation alone. The trials provided support for a 120-patient pivotal study designed to evaluate the efficacy of paired VNS therapy in individuals with chronic ischemic stroke. This manuscript will discuss the neurobiological rationale for VNS therapy, provide an in-depth discussion of both animal and human studies of VNS therapy for stroke, and outline the challenges and opportunities for the future use of VNS therapy.

Deep brain stimulation of chronic cluster headaches: Posterior hypothalamus, ventral tegmentum and beyond

OBJECTIVE

We present long-term follow-up results and analysis of stimulation sites of a prospective cohort study of six patients with chronic cluster headaches undergoing deep brain stimulation of the ipsilateral posterior hypothalamic region.

METHODS

The primary endpoint was the postoperative change in the composite headache severity score "headache load" after 12 months of chronic stimulation. Secondary endpoints were the changes in headache attack frequency, headache attack duration and headache intensity, quality of life measures at 12, 24, and 48 months following surgery. Stimulating contact positions were analysed and projected onto the steroetactic atlas of Schaltenbrand and Wahren.

RESULTS

There was a significant reduction of headache load of over 93% on average at 12 months postoperatively that persisted over the follow-up period of 48 months (p = 0.0041) and that was accompanied by a significant increase of reported quality of life measures (p = 0.03). Anatomical analysis revealed that individual stimulating electrodes were located in the red nucleus, posterior hypothalamic region, mesencephalic pretectal area and centromedian nucleus of the thalamus.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings confirming long-term effectiveness of deep brain stimulation for chronic cluster headaches suggest that the neuroanatomical substrate of deep brain stimulation-induced headache relief is probably not restricted to the posterior hypothalamic area but encompasses a more widespread area.

Occipital Nerve Stimulation

Although the first publications on clinical use of peripheral nerve stimulation for the treatment of chronic pain came out in the mid-1960s, it took 10 years before this approach was used to stimulate the occipital nerves. The future for occipital nerve stimulation is likely to bring new indications, devices, stimulation paradigms, and a decrease in invasiveness. As experience increases, one may expect that occipital nerve stimulation will eventually gain regulatory approval for more indications, most likely for occipital neuralgia, migraines and cluster headaches. This process may require additional studies, at least for approval from the US Food and Drug Administration.

The effect of occipital nerve field stimulation on the descending pain pathway in patients with fibromyalgia: a water PET and EEG imaging study

Background

Fibromyalgia is a chronic disorder characterized by widespread musculoskeletal pain accompanied by fatigue, sleep, memory, and mood problems. Recently, occipital nerve field stimulation (ONS) has been proposed as an effective potential treatment for fibromyalgia-related pain. The aim of this study is to unravel the neural mechanism behind occipital nerve stimulation’s ability to suppress pain in fibromyalgia patients.

Materials and methods

Seven patients implanted with subcutaneous electrodes in the C2 dermatoma were enrolled for a Positron Emission Tomography (PET) H₂¹⁵O activation study. These seven patients were selected from a cohort of 40 patients who were part of a double blind, placebo-controlled study followed by an open label follow up at six months. The H₂¹⁵O PET scans were taken during both the “ON” (active stimulation) and “OFF” (stimulating device turned off) conditions. Electroencephalogram (EEG) data were also recorded for the implanted fibromyalgia patients during both the “ON” and “OFF” conditions.

Results

Relative to the “OFF” condition, ONS stimulation resulted in activation in the dorsal lateral prefrontal cortex, comprising the medial pain pathway, the ventral medial prefrontal cortex, and the bilateral anterior cingulate cortex as well as parahippocampal area, the latter two of which comprise the descending pain pathway. Relative deactivation was observed in the left somatosensory cortex, constituting the lateral pain pathway as well as other sensory areas such as the visual and auditory cortex. The EEG results also showed increased activity in the descending pain pathway. The pregenual anterior cingulate cortex extending into the ventral medial prefrontal cortex displayed this increase in the theta, alpha1, alpha2, beta1, and beta2 frequency bands.

Conclusion

PET shows that ONS exerts its effect via activation of the descending pain inhibitory pathway and the lateral pain pathway in fibromyalgia, while EEG shows activation of those cortical areas that could be responsible for descending inhibition system recruitment.

Trial Registration

This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00917176 (June 10, 2009).

Endoscopic Pericranial Flap Repair of Occipital-Frontal Electrode Erosion

INTRODUCTION

Occipital-frontal nerve stimulation is an off-label therapy for treating chronic refractory migraine and orofacial pain. Though effective, patients experience a high rate of complications including lead migration and erosion through the overlying skin.

CASE DESCRIPTION

We present a case of frontal electrode erosion that was revised via pericranial flap repair. The patient presented with multiple lead migrations, necessitating multiple revision surgeries with eventual frontal wound dehiscence. The choice was made to wrap the electrode in a pericranial flap to prevent recurrent lead migration. Two weeks postoperatively, the wound was well healed and the patient reported that the midline electrode was functioning properly.

DISCUSSION

Pericranial flap revision confers little additional risk when compared with simple wound closure, and the surgeon can proceed without total electrode removal, additional incisions, or lead tunneling. The flap provides a highly vascular additional layer of stability to the electrode, reducing the likelihood of further lead exposure without compromising the efficacy of the device. These results suggest that endoscopic pericranial flap revision is a viable technique for the repair of occipital nerve stimulation lead erosions.

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.

Pain Management in the Emergency Department: a Review Article on Options and Methods

CONTEXT

The aim of this review is to recognizing different methods of analgesia for emergency medicine physicians (EMPs) allows them to have various pain relief methods to reduce pain and to be able to use it according to the patient's condition and to improve the quality of their services.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

In this review article, the search engines and scientific databases of Google Scholar, Science Direct, PubMed, Medline, Scopus, and Cochrane for emergency pain management methods were reviewed. Among the findings, high quality articles were eventually selected from 2000 to 2018, and after reviewing them, we have conducted a comprehensive comparison of the usual methods of pain control in the emergency department (ED).

RESULTS

For better understanding, the results are reported in to separate subheadings including "Parenteral agents" and "Regional blocks". Non-opioids analgesics such as nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and acetaminophen are commonly used in the treatment of acute pain. However, the relief of acute moderate to severe pain usually requires opioid agents. Considering the side effects of systemic drugs and the restrictions on the use of analgesics, especially opioids, regional blocks of pain as part of a multimodal analgesic strategy can be helpful.

CONCLUSION

This study was designed to investigate and identify the disadvantages and advantages of using each drug to be able to make the right choices in different clinical situations for patients while paying attention to the limitations of the use of these analgesic drugs.

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.

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.