Treatment of intractable chronic cluster headache by occipital nerve stimulation: a cohort of 51 patients

Cluster headache: understandings of current knowledge and directions for whole process management

Cluster headache (CH) is a common primary headache that severely impacts patients' quality of life, characterized by recurrent, severe, unilateral headaches often centered around the eyes, temples, or forehead. Distinguishing CH from other headache disorders is challenging, and its pathogenesis remains unclear. Notably, patients with CH often experience high levels of depression and suicidal tendencies, necessitating increased clinical attention. This comprehensive assessment combines various reports and the latest scientific literature to evaluate the current state of CH research. It covers epidemiology, population characteristics, predisposing factors, and treatment strategies. Additionally, we provide strategic insights into the holistic management of CH, which involves continuous, individualized care throughout the prevention, treatment, and rehabilitation stages. Recent advances in the field have revealed new insights into the pathophysiology of CH. While these findings are still evolving, they offer a more detailed understanding of the neurobiological mechanisms underlying this disorder. This growing body of knowledge, alongside ongoing research efforts, promises to lead to the development of more targeted and effective treatments in the future.

Research hotspots and frontiers of cluster headaches: a bibliometric analysis

Background

Extensive research on cluster headaches (CHs) has been conducted worldwide; however, there is currently no bibliometric research on CHs. Therefore, this study aimed to analyze the current research hotspots and frontiers of CHs over the past decade.

Methods

Raw data on CHs was obtained from the Web of Science Core Collection database from 2014 to 2023. CiteSpace V6.2 R7 (64 bit) and Microsoft Excel were used to assess the annual publication volume, authors, countries, and references. VOSviewer 1.6.19 software was used to assess the institutions, cited authors, and keywords, and co-occurrence and clustering functions were applied to draw a visual knowledge map.

Results

In the past decade, the overall annual publication volume of articles related to CHs has increased year by year, showing promising development prospects. The total 1909 articles contained six types of literature, among which the proportion of original research articles was the highest (1,270 articles, 66.53%), published in 201 journals. Cephalalgia (439 articles, 23.00%) had the highest publication volume, and the Lancet was the journal with the highest impact factor (IF = 168.9). Furthermore, the United States of America was the country with the most published papers (584 articles, 30.60%), University of London was the research institution with the most published papers (142 articles, 7.44%), and Goodsby, Peter J was found to be the most prolific author (38 articles, 1.99%).

Conclusion

This study may provide some direction for subsequent researcher on CHs. The hotspots and frontiers of future research on CHs are suggested as follows: in basic medicine, more attention should be paid to pathophysiology, especially on increasing research on the pathogenesis mediated by CGRP; in clinical medicine, more attention should be paid to the design of evidence-based medicine methodology, especially the strict design, including double-blind, questionnaire, and follow-up, in randomized controlled trials, using high-quality articles for meta-analyses, and recommending high-level evidence; therapeutic techniques need to be further explored, suggesting the implementation of transcranial magnetic stimulation of the cortex, and stimulation of the sphinopalatine ganglia and occipital nerve to achieve peripheral neuromodulation. Furthermore, chronic migraine and insomnia are inextricably linked to CHs.

Review of craniofacial pain syndromes involving the greater occipital nerve: relevant anatomy, clinical findings, and interventional management

Craniofacial pain syndromes exhibit a high prevalence in the general population, with a subset of patients developing chronic pain that significantly impacts their quality of life and results in substantial disabilities. Anatomical and functional assessments of the greater occipital nerve (GON) have unveiled its implication in numerous craniofacial pain syndromes, notably through the trigeminal-cervical convergence complex. The pathophysiological involvement of the greater occipital nerve in craniofacial pain syndromes, coupled with its accessibility, designates it as the primary target for various interventional procedures in managing craniofacial pain syndromes. This educational review aims to describe multiple craniofacial pain syndromes, elucidate the role of GON in their pathophysiology, detail the relevant anatomy of the greater occipital nerve (including specific intervention sites), highlight the role of imaging in diagnosing craniofacial pain syndromes, and discuss various interventional procedures such as nerve infiltration, ablation, neuromodulation techniques, and surgeries. Imaging is essential in managing these patients, whether for diagnostic or therapeutic purposes. The utilization of image guidance has demonstrated an enhancement in reproducibility, as well as technical and clinical outcomes of interventional procedures. Studies have shown that interventional management of craniofacial pain is effective in treating occipital neuralgia, cervicogenic headaches, cluster headaches, trigeminal neuralgia, and chronic migraines, with a reported efficacy of 60-90% over a duration of 1-9 months. Repeated infiltrations, neuromodulation, or ablation may prove effective in selected cases. Therefore, reassessment of treatment response and efficacy during follow-up is imperative to guide further management and explore alternative treatment options. Optimal utilization of imaging, interventional techniques, and a multidisciplinary team, including radiologists, will ensure maximum benefit for these patients.

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.

The HortONS study. Treatment of chronic cluster headache with transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation and occipital nerve stimulation: study protocol for a prospective, investigator-initiated, double-blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Chronic cluster headache (CCH) is a debilitating primary headache disorder. Occipital nerve stimulation (ONS) has shown the potential to reduce attack frequency, but the occipital paresthesia evoked by conventional (tonic) stimulation challenges a blinded comparison of active stimulation and placebo. Burst ONS offers paresthesia-free stimulation, enabling a blinded, placebo-controlled study. Identification of a feasible preoperative test would help select the best candidates for implantation. This study aims to explore ONS as a preventive treatment for CCH, comparing burst stimulation to tonic stimulation and placebo, and possibly identifying a potential preoperative predictor.

METHODS

An investigator-initiated, double-blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled trial is conducted, including 40 patients with CCH. Eligible patients complete a trial with the following elements: I) four weeks of baseline observation, II) 12 weeks of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) of the occipital nerves, III) implantation of a full ONS system followed by 2 week grace period, IV) 12 weeks of blinded trial with 1:1 randomization to either placebo (deactivated ONS system) or burst (paresthesia-free) stimulation, and V) 12 weeks of tonic stimulation. The primary outcomes are the reduction in headache attack frequency with TENS and ONS and treatment safety. Secondary outcomes are treatment efficacy of burst versus tonic ONS, the feasibility of TENS as a predictor for ONS outcome, reduction in headache pain intensity (numeric rating scale), reduction in background headache, the patient's impression of change (PGIC), health-related quality of life (EuroQoL-5D), self-reported sleep quality, and symptoms of anxiety and depression (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, HADS). Data on headache attack characteristics are registered weekly. Data on patient-reported outcomes are assessed after each trial phase.

DISCUSSION

The study design allows a comparison between burst ONS and placebo in refractory CCH and enables a comparison of the efficacy of burst and tonic ONS. It will provide information about the effect of burst ONS and explore whether the addition of this stimulation paradigm may improve stimulation protocols. TENS is evaluated as a feasible preoperative screening tool for ONS outcomes by comparing the effect of attack prevention of TENS and tonic ONS.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The study is registered at Clinicaltrials.gov (trial registration number NCT05023460, registration date 07-27-2023).

Efficacy of Occipital Nerve Stimulation in Trigeminal Autonomic Cephalalgias: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Trigeminal autonomic cephalalgias (TACs) are a group of highly disabling primary headache disorders. Although pharmacological treatments exist, they are not always effective or well tolerated. Occipital nerve stimulation (ONS) is a potentially effective surgical treatment.

OBJECTIVE

To perform a systematic review of the efficacy of ONS in treating TACs.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed using Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases. Primary outcomes were reduction in headache intensity, duration, and frequency. Secondary outcomes included adverse event rate and reduction in medication use. Because of large differences in outcome measures, data for patients suffering from short-lasting, unilateral, and neuralgiform headache attacks with conjunctival injection and tearing (SUNCT) and cranial autonomic symptoms (SUNA) were reported separately. Risk of bias was assessed using the NIH Quality Assessment Tools.

RESULTS

A total of 417 patients from 14 published papers were included in the analysis, of which 15 patients were in the SUNCT/SUNA cohort. The mean reduction in headache intensity and duration was 26.2% and 31.4%, respectively. There was a mean reduction in headache frequency of 50%, as well as a 61.2% reduction in the use of abortive medications and a 31.1% reduction in the use of prophylactic medications. In the SUNCT/SUNA cohort, the mean decrease in headache intensity and duration was 56.8% and 42.8%. The overall responder rate, defined as a >50% reduction in attack frequency, was 60.8% for the non-SUNCT/non-SUNA cohort and 66.7% for the SUNCT/SUNA cohort. Adverse events requiring repeat surgery were reported in 33% of cases. Risk of bias assessment suggests that articles included in this review had reasonable internal validity.

CONCLUSION

ONS may be an effective surgical treatment for approximately two thirds of patients with medically refractory TACs.

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.

Epidemiology, burden and clinical spectrum of cluster headache: a global update

BACKGROUND

This narrative review aims to broaden our understanding of the epidemiology, burden and clinical spectrum of cluster headache based on updated findings with a global perspective.

METHODS

We conducted a literature search on the following topics: (a) epidemiology; (b) burden: quality of life, disability, economic burden, job-related burden and suicidality; and (c) clinical spectrum: male predominance and its changes, age, pre-cluster and pre-attack symptoms, aura, post-drome, attack characteristics (location, severity, duration and associated symptoms), bout characteristics (attack frequency, bout duration and bout frequency), circadian and seasonal rhythmicity and disease course.

RESULTS

New large-scale population-based reports have suggested a lower prevalence than previous estimations. The impact of cluster headache creates a significant burden in terms of the quality of life, disability, economic and job-related burdens and suicidality. Several studies have reported decreasing male-to-female ratios and a wide age range at disease onset. The non-headache phases of cluster headache, including pre-cluster, pre-attack and postictal symptoms, have recently been revisited. The latest data regarding attack characteristics, bout characteristics, and circadian and seasonal rhythmicity from different countries have shown variability among bouts, attacks, individuals and ethnicities. Studies on the disease course of cluster headache have shown typical characteristics of attacks or bouts that decrease with time.

CONCLUSIONS

Cluster headache may be more than a "trigeminal autonomic headache" because it involves complex central nervous system phenomena. The spectrum of attacks and bouts is wider than previously recognised. Cluster headache is a dynamic disorder that evolves or regresses over time.

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.

Long term outcomes of occipital nerve stimulation

Background

Occipital nerve stimulation (ONS) has been investigated as a potential treatment for disabling headaches and has shown promise for disorders such as chronic migraine and cluster headache. Long term outcomes stratified by headache subtype have had limited exploration, and literature on outcomes of this neuromodulatory intervention spanning 2 or more years is scarce.

Measures

We performed a narrative review on long term outcomes with ONS for treatment of headache disorders. We surveyed the available literature for studies that have outcomes for 24 months or greater to see if there is a habituation in response over time. Review of the literature revealed evidence in treatment of occipital neuralgia, chronic migraine, cluster headache, cervicogenic headache, short lasting unilateral neuralgiform headache attacks (SUNHA) and paroxysmal hemicrania. While the term "response" varied per individual study, a total of 17 studies showed outcomes in ONS with long term sustained responses (as defined per this review) in the majority of patients with specific headache types 177/311 (56%). Only 7 studies in total (3 cluster, 1 occipital neuralgia, 1 cervicogenic headache, 1 SUNHA, 1 paroxysmal hemicrania) provided both short-term and long-term responses up to 24 months to ONS. In cluster headache, the majority of patients (64%) were long term responders (as defined per this review) and only a minority of patients 12/62 (19%) had loss of efficacy (e.g., habituation). There was a high number 313/439 (71%) of adverse events per total number of patients in the studies including lead migration, requirements of revision surgery, allergy to surgical materials, infection and intolerable paresthesias.

Conclusions

With the evidence available, the response to ONS was sustained in the majority of patients with cluster headache with low rates of loss of efficacy in this patient population. There was a high percent of adverse events per number of patients in long term follow-up and likely related to the off-label use of leads typically used for spinal cord stimulation. Further longitudinal assessments of outcomes in occipital nerve stimulation with devices labelled for use in peripheral nerve stimulation are needed to evaluate the extent of habituation to treatment in headache.

Recent advances in the diagnosis and management of cluster headache

Cluster headache, a primary headache disorder, consists of short (15-180 minutes), frequent (up to eight a day), unilateral attacks of facial pain with associated ipsilateral autonomic features and restlessness. The attacks are suspected to be one of the most painful human experiences, and the disorder is associated with a high rate of suicidal ideation. Proper diagnosis is key, as some of the most effective treatments, such as high flow oxygen gas, are rarely used in other headache disorders. Yet diagnostic delay is typically years for this disorder, as it is often confused with migraine and trigeminal neuralgia, and secondary causes may be overlooked. This review covers the clinical, pathophysiologic, and therapeutic features of cluster headache. Recent updates in diagnosis include the redefinition of chronic cluster headache (remission periods lasting less than three months instead of the previous one month), and recent advances in management include new treatments for episodic cluster headache (galcanezumab and non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation).

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.

Diagnostic protocols and newer treatment modalities for cluster headache

Cluster Headaches are one of the most arguably severe forms of primary headache syndrome that affects humans. Although it is relatively uncommon, it has a significant impact on the quality of life. It is a multifactorial disease that has risk factors ranging from seasonal changes, lifestyle habits to genetics. It occurs in 2 forms- Episodic and Chronic, each having its well-defined Diagnostic Criteria. Moreover, Cluster Headache has an exhaustive list of options for both Preventive and Abortive treatment. This article focuses on Cluster Headache, its pathophysiology, risk factors, differentials, and its diverse treatment modalities. In this study, an all-language literature search was conducted on Medline, Cochrane, Embase, and Google Scholar till October 2021. The following search strings and Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms were used: "Cluster Headache," "Triptans," "Neuromodulation," and "Migraine." We explored the literature on Cluster Headache for its epidemiology, pathophysiology, the role of various genes and how they bring about the disease as well as its episodic and chronic variants, and treatment options. Although we have a wide variety of options for Preventive and Abortive therapy, newer more effective pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions are being developed, and must be integrated into new treatment protocols.

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.

Cluster Headache: What's New?

Background

Cluster headache is a highly disabling primary headache disorder which is widely described as the most painful condition a human can experience.

Aim

To provide an overview of the clinical characteristics, epidemiology, risk factors, differential diagnosis, pathophysiology and treatment options of cluster headache, with a focus on recent developments in the field.

Methods

Structured review of the literature on cluster headache.

Results

Cluster headache affects approximately one in 1000 of the population. It is characterised by attacks of severe unilateral head pain associated with ipsilateral cranial autonomic symptoms, and the tendency for attacks to occur with circadian and circannual periodicity. The pathophysiology of cluster headache and other primary headache disorders has recently become better understood and is thought to involve the hypothalamus and trigeminovascular system. There is good quality evidence for acute treatment of attacks with parenteral triptans and high flow oxygen; preventive treatment with verapamil; and transitional treatment with oral corticosteroids or greater occipital nerve injection. New pharmacological and neuromodulation therapies have recently been developed.

Conclusion

Cluster headache causes distinctive symptoms, which once they are recognised can usually be managed with a variety of established treatments. Recent pathophysiological understanding has led to the development of newer pharmacological and neuromodulation therapies, which may soon become established in clinical practice.

Trigger areas nerve decompression for refractory chronic migraine

BACKGROUND

Chronic migraine refractory to medical treatment represents a common debilitating primary neurovascular disorder associated with great disability, high financial costs, reduced rates of productivity and impaired health-related quality of life.

OBJECTIVE

To demonstrate the feasibility of scalp (trigger areas) nerve decompression as a treatment alternative in the management of refractory CM patients METHODS: From January 2005 to January 2020, we retrospectively collected data of 154 patients diagnosed with chronic migraine that underwent trigger site nerve decompression. These trigger areas were divided according the nerve compromise as frontal (supraorbital nerve), temporal (auriculotemporal nerve), occipital (greater occipital nerve). Following extensive clinical evaluation, the surgical treatment was performed after under local anesthesia and required the release of the affected nerve from surrounding connective tissue adhesions, and vascular conflicts.

RESULTS

Of the total amount of patients, 91 (59.09%) patients underwent auriculotemporal nerve decompression, 27 (13.63%) cases supraorbital nerve decompression, 15 (9.74%) patients greater occipital nerve decompression, and the remaining 21 (13.63%) patients had more than one procedure of nerve decompression. At 1-year follow or latest follow-up, 96 (62.2%) patients were considered as cured, 29 cases (18.83%) reported improvement of their symptoms, 21 (13.64%) patients considered only a partial symptomatic remission and 5 (3.25%) patients reported no change or failed surgical treatment.

CONCLUSION

Nerve decompression of trigger site areas (frontal, temporal, occipital) by removal of tissue, muscles and vessels in patients with medically refractory CM is a feasible alternative treatment modality with a high success of up to 80.5.

An unusual case of lead migration in occipital nerve stimulation: A case report and literature review

Background:

Lead migration is a complication associated with occipital nerve stimulation (ONS). We present a rare case in which fibrosis in the stress relief loop caused lead migration in the treatment of occipital neuralgia.

Case Description:

A 30-year-old woman with a 5-year history of refractory occipital neuralgia, who had been under ONS therapy for 2 months, presented with a sudden onset of typical occipital neuralgia pain associated with cervical muscles spasms and myoclonus. A skull radiography showed lead migration. The patient underwent surgery for lead repositioning. During surgery, we identified extensive fibrosis throughout the stress relief loop that produced several constriction points. The fibrosis in the stress relief loop increased tension on the lead during head-and-neck movement, causing progressive migration of the lead.

Conclusion:

Although lead migration is a common complication of ONS, its association with fibrosis in the stress relief loop has not, to the best of our knowledge, been reported before. Lead migration can directly affect treatment outcome and it is, therefore, important to fully understand the possible mechanisms that can cause it and how to promptly manage them.

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.

Occipital nerve stimulation and deep brain stimulation for refractory cluster headache: a prospective analysis of efficacy over time

OBJECTIVE

Occipital nerve stimulation (ONS) and deep brain stimulation (DBS) are widely used surgical treatments for chronic refractory cluster headache (CH). However, there is little literature regarding long-term follow-up of these treatments.

METHODS

The authors describe two prospective cohorts of patients with refractory CH treated with ONS and DBS and compare preoperative to postoperative status at 6 and 12 months after the surgery and at final follow-up. Efficacy analysis using objective and subjective variables is reported, as well as medication reduction and complications.

RESULTS

The ONS group consisted of 13 men and 4 women, with a median age of 44 years (range 31-61 years). The median number of attacks per week (NAw) before surgery was 28 (range 7-70), and the median follow-up duration was 48 months. The DBS group comprised 5 men and 2 women, with a median age of 50 years (range 29-64 years). The median NAw before surgery was 56 (range 14-140), and the median follow-up was 36 months. The NAw and visual analog scale score were significantly reduced for the ONS and DBS groups after surgery. However, while all the patients from the DBS group were considered responders at final follow-up, with more than 85% being satisfied with the treatment, approximately 29% of initial responders to ONS became resistant by the final follow-up (p = 0.0253).

CONCLUSIONS

ONS is initially effective as a treatment for refractory CH, although a trend toward loss of efficacy was observed. No clear predictors of good clinical response were found in the present study. Conversely, DBS appears to be effective and provide a more stable clinical response over time with an acceptable rate of surgical complications.

Mapping Assessments Instruments for Headache Disorders against the ICF Biopsychosocial Model of Health and Disability

Headache disorders have a strong impact on sufferers’ lives. However, the “content” of assessment instruments addressing concepts, such as disability and quality of life (QoL), has not comprehensively been addressed. We searched SCOPUS for research papers in which outcome measures were used in adult populations of patients with migraine, tension-type headache (TTH), and cluster headache (CH). The content of single instruments was then mapped against the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health. A total of 150 papers and 26 instruments were included: 15 addressed disability or impact, two addressed work-related difficulties, and nine addressed QoL. Few instruments were commonly used across the conditions and covered domains of functioning were impact on daily life activities, homework, school, and work-related tasks, leisure time, informal and family relations, pain, emotional difficulties, energy level, and impulse control. Most of the research is based on instruments that were developed for migraine, which is critical for CH, and the impact of headache disorders on work-related activities is poorly acknowledged. Further research is needed to expand the scope of headaches impact on daily life activities, and on environmental factors relevant to headache disorders to raise knowledge on the less represented areas, e.g., TTH impact.

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.

Primaries non-migraine headaches treatment: a review

In the "headache world," great attention has always been paid to migraine patients, especially for the research and development of new therapies. For the other forms of primary headaches, especially those of Chapters 2 and 3 of the classification, there are however therapies that, even if not specific, can give significant results. Tension-type headache recognizes in NSAIDs the most effective drugs to treat acute attack, while prevention is based on the use of tricyclic antidepressants and muscle relaxants. For TACs, the discussion is more complex: first of all, there are two forms of primary headache that respond absolutely to indomethacin. For these, the main problem is how to manage the possible side effects arising from prolonged treatments and possibly what to use as an alternative. For cluster headaches and short-lasting unilateral neuralgiform headache attacks, we have drugs with good efficacy as regards medical therapy, such as verapamil or lamotrigine, but in recent years, neuromodulation techniques, both surgical and non-invasive, have also been affirming themselves, which represent a more possibility for forms of headache that are often very disabling and resistant to common analgesics.

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.

Pharmacotherapy for Cluster Headache

Cluster headache is characterised by attacks of excruciating unilateral headache or facial pain lasting 15 min to 3 h and is seen as one of the most intense forms of pain. Cluster headache attacks are accompanied by ipsilateral autonomic symptoms such as ptosis, miosis, redness or flushing of the face, nasal congestion, rhinorrhoea, peri-orbital swelling and/or restlessness or agitation. Cluster headache treatment entails fast-acting abortive treatment, transitional treatment and preventive treatment. The primary goal of prophylactic and transitional treatment is to achieve attack freedom, although this is not always possible. Subcutaneous sumatriptan and high-flow oxygen are the most proven abortive treatments for cluster headache attacks, but other treatment options such as intranasal triptans may be effective. Verapamil and lithium are the preventive drugs of first choice and the most widely used in first-line preventive treatment. Given its possible cardiac side effects, electrocardiogram (ECG) is recommended before treating with verapamil. Liver and kidney functioning should be evaluated before and during treatment with lithium. If verapamil and lithium are ineffective, contraindicated or discontinued because of side effects, the second choice is topiramate. If all these drugs fail, other options with lower levels of evidence are available (e.g. melatonin, clomiphene, dihydroergotamine, pizotifen). However, since the evidence level is low, we also recommend considering one of several neuromodulatory options in patients with refractory chronic cluster headache. A new addition to the preventive treatment options in episodic cluster headache is galcanezumab, although the long-term effects remain unknown. Since effective preventive treatment can take several weeks to titrate, transitional treatment can be of great importance in the treatment of cluster headache. At present, greater occipital nerve injection is the most proven transitional treatment. Other options are high-dose prednisone or frovatriptan.

Long-term efficacy of superficial temporal artery ligation and auriculotemporal nerve transection for temporal cluster headache in adolescent

OBJECTIVES

Cluster headache is a primary headache disorder, which has affected up to 0.1% population. Superficial temporal artery ligation combined with auriculotemporal nerve transection (SLAT) is one of the surgical alternatives to treat the drug-resistant temporal cluster headache (TCH). The current work aimed to assess the effect of SLAT on TCH patients based on the very long-term clinical follow-up.

METHODS

The current retrospective study had enrolled 20 adolescent TCH patients undergoing SLAT between December 2016 and January 2018. The headache diaries as well as the pain severity questionnaire of the visual analog scale (VAS) had been collected to measure the pain severity before and after surgery.

RESULTS

The pain-free rates 3 days, as well as 1, 6, and 12 months, after SLAT surgery were 2.00%, 10.00%, 25.00%, and 70.00%, respectively. The frequency of TCH attack daily was found to be markedly reduced on the whole; besides, the pain degree was also remarkably decreased.

CONCLUSIONS

Results in this study indicate that the sustained headache can be relieved after SLAT in adolescent patients with intractable TCH.

Efficacy and safety of surgical treatment of cluster headache

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Cluster headache (CR) is the most severe human headache and is chronic in 10%-20% of patients, and 10% can become refractory to all effective drugs. In this scenario, surgical procedures are indicated: radiofrequencies of the sphenopalatine ganglion ipsilateral to pain (RF-SPG), bilateral stimulation of the occipital nerves (NOM-S) and deep brain stimulation (DBS) of the ipsilateral posterior hypothalamus. The efficacy and safety of each of these procedures has been specifically analyzed, but the progress of a series of patients following this surgical route in order of aggressiveness has not been described.

PATIENTS

Patients with chronic and refractory CR according to the criteria of the European Headache Federation. The patients underwent RF-SPG, NOM-S sequentially if the previous procedure had been ineffective, and DBS if the previous procedure had been ineffective.

RESULTS

We prospectively included 44 patients between November 2003 and June 2018 with an average age of 38.3 years; 70% were men. The mean follow-up was 87.4 months. Nineteen patients responded to 74 procedures of RF-SPG (33.3%). Of the remaining 25 patients, a NOM-S device was implanted in 22, showing an efficacy of 50%. Finally, 9 patients underwent ECP of the ipsilateral lower-posterior hypothalamus with an efficacy of 88.8%. No serious complications were found following any of these 3 procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

The sequential application of these three surgical procedures succeeded in reversing the serious situation of chronic CR refractory to an episodic CR in 93% of patients with acceptable surgical morbidity.

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.

Emerging treatments for cluster headache: hopes and disappointments

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Cluster headache stands among the worst debilitating pain conditions. Available treatments for cluster headache have often disabling side effects, are not tolerated, or are ineffective. The management of drug-refractory chronic forms is challenging. New treatments are warranted and reported here.

RECENT FINDINGS

In cluster headache acute treatment, delivery systems like Demand Valve Oxygen or nonrebreather-type masks could enhance the effectiveness of inhaled oxygen therapy. Noninvasive vagus nerve stimulation relieves cluster headache pain at short-term in episodic patients. Sphenopalatine ganglion stimulation combines acute and preventive properties in subsets of patients and is of interest in selected refractory chronic forms. In cluster headache prevention, 'hypothalamic' deep brain stimulation is being refined using slightly different stereotactic coordinates or lower risk methods like endoventricular stimulation. Anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies provide interesting results in episodic cluster headache, have a good safety profile, but do not appear effective in chronic cluster headache.

SUMMARY

These novel approaches provide additional alternatives to conventional cluster headache management, but results obtained in chronic forms are often disappointing. Research on cluster headache is often hampered by the lack of awareness in the medical world and by the relatively low prevalence of cluster headache compared with migraine. However, common features shared by these two primary headaches could help developing disease-specific therapies.

The greater occipital nerve and its spinal and brainstem afferent projections: A stereological and tract-tracing study in the rat

The neuromodulation of the greater occipital nerve (GON) has proved effective to treat chronic refractory neurovascular headaches, in particular migraine and cluster headache. Moreover, animal studies have shown convergence of cervical and trigeminal afferents on the same territories of the upper cervical and lower medullary dorsal horn (DH), the so-called trigeminocervical complex (TCC), and recent studies in rat models of migraine and craniofacial neuropathy have shown that GON block or stimulation alter nociceptive processing in TCC. The present study examines in detail the anatomy of GON and its central projections in the rat applying different tracers to the nerve and quantifying its ultrastructure, the ganglion neurons subserving GON, and their innervation territories in the spinal cord and brainstem. With considerable intersubject variability in size, GON contains on average 900 myelinated and 3,300 unmyelinated axons, more than 90% of which emerge from C₂ ganglion neurons. Unmyelinated afferents from GON innervates exclusively laminae I-II of the lateral DH, mostly extending along segments C_2-3 . Myelinated fibers distribute mainly in laminae I and III-V of the lateral DH between C₁ and C₆ and, with different terminal patterns, in medial parts of the DH at upper cervical segments, and ventrolateral rostral cuneate, paratrigeminal, and marginal part of the spinal caudal and interpolar nuclei. Sparse projections also appear in other locations nearby. These findings will help to better understand the bases of sensory convergence on spinomedullary systems, a critical pathophysiological factor for pain referral and spread in severe painful craniofacial disorders.

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.

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.

Neurostimulation for Refractory Cervicogenic Headache: A Three-Year Retrospective Study

BACKGROUND

Occipital nerve stimulation (ONS) has been used for the treatment of neuropathic pain conditions and could be a therapeutic approach for refractory cervicogenic headache (CeH).

AIM

The aim of this study is to assess the efficacy and safety of unilateral ONS in patients suffering from refractory CeH.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective chart review on patients implanted from 2011 to 2013 at CHUM. The primary outcome was a 50% reduction in headache days per month. Secondary outcomes included change in EuroQol Group Visual Analog Scale rating of health-related quality of life (EQ VAS), six item headache impact test (HIT-6) score, hospital anxiety and depression scale (HADS) score, work status, and medication overuse.

RESULTS

Sixteen patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria; they had suffered from daily moderate to severe CeH for a median of 15 years. At one year follow-up, 11 patients were responders (69%). There was a statistically significant improvement in the EQ VAS score (median change: 40 point increase, p = 0.0013) and HIT-6 score (median change: 17.5 point decrease, p = 0.0005). Clinically significant anxiety and depression scores both resolved amongst 60% of patients. At three years, six patients were responders (37.5%). Out of the 11 responders at one-year post implantation, five had remained headache responders (R-R) and one additional patient became a responder (NR-R). There was a statistically significant improvement in the EQ VAS score (median change: 15 point increase, p = 0.019) and HIT-6 score (median change: 7.5 point decrease, p = 0.0017) compared with baseline. Clinically significant anxiety and depression scores both, respectively, resolved among 22.5% and 33.9% of patients. Five out of seven disabled patients were back to work.

CONCLUSION

ONS may be a safe and effective treatment modality for patients suffering from a refractory CeH. Further study may be warranted.

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.

Predictors of response to occipital nerve stimulation in refractory chronic headache

Background

Occipital nerve stimulation is a promising treatment for refractory chronic headache disorders, but is invasive and costly. Identifying predictors of response would be useful in selecting patients. We present the results of an open-label prospective cohort study of 100 patients (35 chronic migraine, 33 chronic cluster headache, 20 short-lasting unilateral neuralgiform headache attacks and 12 hemicrania continua) undergoing occipital nerve stimulation, using a multivariate binary regression analysis to identify predictors of response.

Results

Response rate of the cohort was 48%. Multivariate analysis showed short lasting unilateral neuralgiform headache attacks (OR 6.71; 95% CI 1.49–30.05; p = 0.013) and prior response to greater occipital nerve block (OR 4.22; 95% CI 1.35–13.21; p = 0.013) were associated with increased likelihood of response. Presence of occipital pain (OR 0.27; 95% CI 0.09–0.76; p = 0.014) and the presence of severe anxiety and/or depression (as measured on hospital anxiety and depression score) at time of implantation (OR 0.32; 95% CI 0.11–0.91; p = 0.032) were associated with reduced likelihood of response.

Conclusion

Possible clinical predictors of response to occipital nerve stimulation for refractory chronic headaches have been identified. Our data shows that those with short-lasting unilateral neuralgiform headache attacks respond better than those with chronic migraine, and that a prior response to greater occipital nerve block is associated with positive outcomes. This study suggests that the presence of occipital pain and severe mood disorder at time of implant are both associated with poor outcomes to occipital nerve stimulation.

Long-term follow up of intractable chronic short lasting unilateral neuralgiform headache disorders treated with occipital nerve stimulation

Background Occipital nerve stimulation is a potential treatment option for medically intractable short-lasting unilateral neuralgiform headache attacks. We present long-term outcomes in 31 patients with short-lasting unilateral neuralgiform headache attacks treated with occipital nerve stimulation in an uncontrolled open-label prospective study. Methods Thirty-one patients with intractable short-lasting unilateral neuralgiform headache attacks were treated with bilateral occipital nerve stimulation from 2007 to 2015. Data on attack characteristics, quality of life, disability and adverse events were collected. Primary endpoint was change in mean daily attack frequency at final follow-up. Results At a mean follow-up of 44.9 months (range 13-89) there was a 69% improvement in attack frequency with a response rate (defined as at least a 50% improvement in daily attack frequency) of 77%. Attack severity reduced by 4.7 points on the verbal rating scale and attack duration by a mean of 64%. Improvements were seen in headache-related disability and depression. Adverse event rates were favorable, with no electrode migration or erosion reported. Conclusion Occipital nerve stimulation appears to offer a safe and efficacious treatment for refractory short-lasting unilateral neuralgiform headache attacks with significant improvements sustained in the long term. The procedure has a low adverse event rate when conducted in highly specialised units.