Towards a definition of intractable headache for use in clinical practice and trials

Four Decades of Occipital Nerve Stimulation for Headache Disorders: A Systematic Review

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Chronic headaches are a significant source of disability worldwide. Despite the development of conventional strategies, a subset of patients remain refractory and/or experience side effects following these treatments. Hence, occipital nerve stimulation (ONS) should be considered as an alternative strategy for intractable chronic headaches. This review aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the effectiveness, safety, mechanisms and practical application of ONS for the treatment of headache disorders.

RECENT FINDINGS

Overall response rate of ONS is 35.7-100%, 17-100%, and 63-100% in patients with cluster headache, chronic migraine and occipital neuralgia respectively. Regarding the long-term effectivity in all groups, 41.6-88.0% of patients remain responders after ≥ 18.3 months. The most frequently reported adverse events include lead migration/fracture (13%) and local pain (7.3%). Based on our results, ONS can be considered a safe and effective treatment for chronic intractable headache disorders. To support more widespread application of ONS, additional research with larger sample sizes should be conducted.

Resistant and refractory migraine: clinical presentation, pathophysiology, and management

Migraine is a leading cause of disability worldwide. A minority of individuals with migraine develop resistant or refractory conditions characterised by ≥ 8 monthly days of debilitating headaches and inadequate response, intolerance, or contraindication to ≥3 or all preventive drug classes, respectively. Resistant and refractory migraine are emerging clinical definitions stemming from better knowledge of the pathophysiology of migraine and from the advent of migraine-specific preventive treatments. Resistant migraine mostly results from drug failures, while refractory migraine has complex and still unknown mechanisms that impair the efficacy of preventive treatments. Individuals with resistant migraine can be treated with migraine-specific preventive drugs. The management of refractory migraine is challenging and often unsuccessful, being based on combinations of different drugs and non-pharmacological treatment. Future research should aim to identify individuals at risk of developing treatment failures, prevent the condition, investigate the mechanisms of refractoriness to treatments, and find effective treatment strategies.

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.

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.

Breaking the cycle: unraveling the diagnostic, pathophysiological and treatment challenges of refractory migraine

Background

Refractory migraine is a poorly described complication of migraine in which migraine has chronified and become resistant to standard treatments. The true prevalence is unknown, but medication resistance is common in headache clinic patient populations. Given the lack of response to treatment, this patient population is extremely difficult to treat with limited guidance in the literature.

Objective

To review the diagnostic, pathophysiological, and management challenges in the refractory migraine population.

Discussion

There are no accepted, or even ICHD-3 appendix, diagnostic criteria for refractory migraine though several proposed criteria exist. Current proposed criteria often have low bars for refractoriness while also not meeting the needs of pediatrics, lower socioeconomic status, and developing nations. Pathophysiology is unknown but can be hypothesized as a persistent "on" state as a progression from chronic migraine with increasing central sensitization, but there may be heterogeneity in the underlying pathophysiology. No guidelines exist for treatment of refractory migraine; once all guideline-based treatments are tried, treatment consists of n-of-1 treatment trials paired with non-pharmacologic management.

Conclusion

Refractory migraine is poorly described diagnostically, its pathophysiology can only be guessed at by extension of chronic migraine, and treatment is more the art than science of medicine. Navigating care of this refractory population will require multidisciplinary care models and an emphasis on future research to answer these unknowns.

Intra- and interindividual attack frequency variability of chronic cluster headache

BACKGROUND

The lack of knowledge about the intra- and interindividual attack frequency variability in chronic cluster headache complicates power and sample size calculations for baseline periods of trials, and consensus on their most optimal duration.

METHODS

We analyzed the 12-week baseline of the ICON trial (occipital nerve stimulation in medically intractable chronic cluster headache) for: (i) weekly vs. instantaneous recording of attack frequency; (ii) intra-individual and seasonal variability of attack frequency; and (iii) the smallest number of weeks to obtain a reliable estimate of baseline attack frequency.

RESULTS

Weekly median (14.4 [8.2-24.0]) and instantaneous (14.2 [8.0-24.5]) attack frequency recordings were similar (p = 0.20; Bland-Altman plot). Median weekly attack frequency was 15.3 (range 4.2-140) and highest during spring (p = 0.001) compared to the other seasons. Relative attack frequency variability decreased with increasing attack frequency (p = 0.010). We tabulated the weekly attack frequency estimation accuracies compared to, and the associated deviations from, the 12-week gold standard for different lengths of the observation period.

CONCLUSION

Weekly retrospective attack frequency recording is as good as instantaneous recording and more convenient. Attack frequency is highest in spring. Participants with ≥3 daily attacks show less attack frequency variability than those with <3 daily attacks. An optimal balance between 90% accuracy and feasibility is achieved at a baseline period of seven weeks.The ICON trial is registered in ClinicalTrials.gov under number NCT01151631.

Refractory Headaches

Medication overuse headache (MOH), new daily persistent headache (NDPH), and persistent refractory headache attributed to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV2) infection represent a significant burden in terms of disability and quality of life, and a challenge in terms of definition, pathophysiology, and treatment. Regarding MOH, prevention without withdrawal is not inferior to prevention with withdrawal. Preventive medications like topiramate, onabotulinumtoxinA, and calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibodies improve chronic migraine with MOH regardless of withdrawal. The differential diagnosis of NDPH is broad and should be carefully examined. There are no guidelines for the treatment of NDPH, but options include a short course of steroids, nerve blocks, topiramate, nortriptyline, gabapentin, CGRP monoclonal antibodies, and onabotulinumtoxinA. The persistence of headache 3 months after SARS-CoV2 infection is a predictor of poor prognosis.

Advances in pharmacotherapy for the prophylactic treatment of resistant and refractory migraine

INTRODUCTION

Refractory migraine is associated with low quality of life and great socioeconomic burden. Despite high need for effective, tolerable preventive therapies, there has been little research on potential therapeutic options. Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) against Calcitonin Gene-Related Peptide (CGRP) are the first preventive therapeutic approach for migraine based on the underlying pathophysiology.

AREAS COVERED

Following a brief introduction into the term 'refractory migraine,' the authors reviewavailable treatment options, focusing on current phase III trials of substances acting on the CGRP pathway.

EXPERT OPINION

No uniform definition for refractory migraine is available. The vast majority of proposals recommend treatment failure of 2-4 drug classes as a key diagnostic criterion. Phase III studies on CGRP-(receptor) mAbs demonstrated excellent efficacy and tolerability in patients with chronic and episodic migraine including subjects with multiple unsuccessful conventional therapy attempts. However, more comparator trials showing superiority of mAbs versus oral preventatives, such as the HER-MEs study are needed. In summary, with the CGRP antibodies, a group of drugs has entered the market which will most likely not only significantly improve the quality of life of many individual migraine patients but could also reduce indirect health-care costs associated with migraine by reducing recurrent medical consultations.

Calcitonin gene-related peptide in migraine: from pathophysiology to treatment

INTRODUCTION

It has been observed in recent years that levels of such molecules as calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) and, to a lesser extent, the pituitary adenylate cyclase-activating peptide are elevated during migraine attacks and in chronic migraine, both in the cerebrospinal fluid and in the serum. Pharmacological reduction of these proteins is clinically significant, with an improvement in patients' migraines. It therefore seems logical that one of the main lines of migraine research should be based on the role of CGRP in the pathophysiology of this entity.

DEVELOPMENT

The Spanish Society of Neurology's Headache Study Group decided to draft this document in order to address the evidence on such important issues as the role of CGRP in the pathophysiology of migraine and the mechanism of action of monoclonal antibodies and gepants; and to critically analyse the results of different studies and the profile of patients eligible for treatment with monoclonal antibodies, and the impact in terms of pharmacoeconomics.

CONCLUSIONS

The clinical development of gepants, which are CGRP antagonists, for the acute treatment of migraine attacks, and CGRP ligand and receptor monoclonal antibodies offer promising results for these patients.

Calcitonin gene-related peptide in migraine: from pathophysiology to treatment

INTRODUCTION

It has been observed in recent years that levels of such molecules as calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) and, to a lesser extent, the pituitary adenylate cyclase-activating peptide are elevated during migraine attacks and in chronic migraine, both in the cerebrospinal fluid and in the serum. Pharmacological reduction of these proteins is clinically significant, with an improvement in patients' migraines. It therefore seems logical that one of the main lines of migraine research should be based on the role of CGRP in the pathophysiology of this entity.

DEVELOPMENT

The Spanish Society of Neurology's Headache Study Group decided to draft this document in order to address the evidence on such important issues as the role of CGRP in the pathophysiology of migraine and the mechanism of action of monoclonal antibodies and gepants; and to critically analyse the results of different studies and the profile of patients eligible for treatment with monoclonal antibodies, and the impact in terms of pharmacoeconomics.

CONCLUSIONS

The clinical development of gepants, which are CGRP antagonists, for the acute treatment of migraine attacks, and CGRP ligand and receptor monoclonal antibodies offer promising results for these patients.

Comparative Impact of Pharmacological Therapies on Cluster Headache Management: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

It is important to find effective and safe pharmacological options for managing cluster headache (CH) because there is limited evidence from studies supporting the general efficacy and safety of pharmacological therapies. This systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) analyzed published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to evaluate the efficacy and safety of pharmacological treatments in patients with CH. The PubMed and Embase databases were searched to identify RCTs that evaluated the efficacy and safety of pharmacological treatments for CH. Efficacy outcomes included frequency and duration of attacks, pain-free rate, and the use of rescue agents. Safety outcomes were evaluated based on the number of patients who experienced adverse events. A total of 23 studies were included in the analysis. The frequency of attacks was reduced (mean difference (MD) = −1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) = −1.62 to −0.47; p = 0.0004), and the pain-free rate was increased (odds ratio (OR) = 3.89, 95% CI = 2.76−5.48; p < 0.00001) in the pharmacological treatment group, with a lower frequency of rescue agent use than the placebo group. Preventive, acute, and triptan or non-triptan therapies did not show significant differences in efficacy (p > 0.05). In the NMA, different results were shown among the interventions; for example, zolmitriptan 5 mg was more effective than zolmitriptan 10 mg in the pain-free outcome (OR = 0.40, 95% CI = 0.19−0.82; p < 0.05). Pharmacological treatment was shown to be more effective than placebo to manage CH with differences among types of therapies and individual interventions, and it was consistently shown to be associated with the development of adverse events. Thus, individualized therapy approaches should be applied to treat CH in real-world practice.

The clinical characteristics of familial cluster headache

Background

A positive family history predisposes to the development of cluster headache. The distinct characteristics of familial cluster headache have yet to be confirmed, however, evidence suggests a younger age of onset and higher proportion of females in this subgroup.

Objectives

To assess the rate and mode of inheritance of familial cluster headache in a tertiary referral centre for headache. To describe the clinical features of familial cluster headache.

Methods

A retrospective study conducted between 2007 and 2017. Cluster headache was confirmed in probands and affected relatives. Differences in demographics, clinical characteristics, and response-to-treatment in familial cluster headache were delineated through multivariate analysis using a control cohort of 597 patients with sporadic cluster headache.

Results

Familial cluster headache was confirmed in 48 (7.44%) patients and predominantly reflected an autosomal dominant mode of inheritance with reduced penetrance. Familial cases were more likely to report nasal blockage (OR 4.06, 95% CI; 2.600–6.494, p < 0.001) during an attack and a higher rate of concurrent short-lasting unilateral neuralgiform headache with conjunctival injection and tearing (OR 3.76, 95% CI; 1.572–9.953, p = 0.004).

Conclusion

These findings add to evidence suggesting a genetic component to cluster headache. Here, we demonstrated prominent nasal blockage, and a higher occurrence of concomitant short-lasting unilateral neuralgiform headache with conjunctival injection and tearing in this subgroup, further delineating the phenotype.

Refractory migraine profile in CGRP-monoclonal antibodies scenario

Objective

Refractory migraine (Ref‐M) represents a conundrum that headache experts have to face with. We aim to investigate whether a peculiar profile may characterize patients with Ref‐M according to 2020 European Headache Federation criteria. Furthermore, to substantiate a dysfunctional dopaminergic pathway involvement in these patients, we explored the effectiveness of olanzapine.

Materials & Methods

Eighty‐four patients (fitting previous Ref‐M criteria of the 2014) were treated with erenumab for six months. Differences between clinical and demographic features of responder (Ref‐M according to 2014 criteria) and not‐responder (Ref‐M according to 2020 criteria) patients to CGRP‐mAbs were investigated and their predictive values assessed. In fifteen patients with Ref‐M not responders to CGRP‐mAbs, olanzapine was administered (5 mg/die) for 3 months and frequency and pain intensity of migraine attacks were estimated.

Results

Patients with Ref‐M not responsive to CGRP‐mAbs (29/84) when compared with Ref‐M responsive to CGRP‐mAbs showed higher baseline frequency of migraine attacks, medication overuse and pain catastrophizing scale (PCS) scores. Logistic regression analyses showed that frequency of attacks, medication overuse and PCS score represent independent negative predictors of CGRP‐mAbs response. A ≥50% reduction of headache days/month was observed after olanzapine treatment in 67% of patients with Ref‐M not responsive to CGRP‐mAbs.

Conclusions

We outline that higher frequency of migraine attacks, medication overuse and pain catastrophizing characterize patients with Ref‐M not responsive to CGRP‐mAbs. In this frame, olanzapine effectiveness on frequency and pain intensity of migraine attacks supports the hypothesis that migraine refractoriness may be subtended by a prominent involvement of the dopaminergic pathway.

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.

Patient-Reported Outcomes for Migraine in the US and Europe: Burden Associated with Multiple Preventive Treatment Failures

Purpose

To evaluate patient-reported outcomes (PROs) among patients with migraine, including those who were preventive-naïve and preventive-treated.

Methods

This was a point-in-time, real-world study of patients with migraine in the US and EU5 (France, Germany, Spain, Italy, and UK) and their physicians using data from the Adelphi Migraine Disease Specific Programme (DSP™). Physicians completed patient record forms (PRFs) for the next nine consulting patients with migraine plus a tenth patient, who did not need to be consecutive, for whom prior preventive migraine treatments had failed at least once, in order to achieve oversampling of such patients. Patients were given self-completion (PSC) forms that included the Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire v2.1 (MSQ), Migraine Disability Assessment Scale (MIDAS), and Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI) questionnaire. Populations of interest included preventive-naïve and preventive-treated patients defined by the number of treatment lines (1–2 or 3+ preventive regimens). Continuous variables were compared using t-test or ANOVA if normally distributed and Mann–Whitney if not. Chi-squared was used for categorical variables.

Results

During August–December 2017, 615 physicians (359 PCPs, 256 neurologists) completed PRFs for 5785 patients (71% female; mean age 40 (±14) years; 65% in full- or part-time employment). Of these, 2798 completed a PSC (preventive-naïve/1–2/3+ preventive lines, n=1707/1034/57). Preventive-treated patients had a greater patient-reported burden across multiple measures versus preventive-naïve patients. Preventive-treated patients had lower MSQ scores indicating greater functional impairment, higher MIDAS scores indicating greater migraine-associated disability, and higher WPAI scores indicating greater overall work and activity impairment than preventive-naïve patients. The magnitude of difference was greatest for the 3+ preventive-treatments cohort. Patterns were similar in the US and EU5.

Conclusion

Among patients with migraine who are preventive-treated, including those with multiple lines of therapy, there remain considerable unmet needs in terms of restoring patient function.

Approach to Pediatric Intractable Migraine

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Intractable migraine in children and adolescents is a significant cause of disability and decreased quality of life (QoL) in this population. Challenges include lack of unifying definition for intractable migraine, and limited data on best-practice management in this age group, with most current treatment pathways extrapolated from adult studies or expert consensus.

RECENT FINDINGS

A comprehensive approach in the evaluation and management of intractable migraine in this age group encompasses excluding secondary causes of headache; making an accurate diagnosis; identifying and appropriately managing modifiable risk factors; and initiating appropriate pharmacologic therapy to reduce disability, improve health-related quality of life, reduce risk of progression, and develop adaptive pain coping strategies. Several strategies for management of pediatric intractable migraine including use of acute medications, bridge therapy in outpatient setting, emerging therapies for preventive therapy, and a stepwise combination therapy for management of pediatric intractable migraine in emergency and inpatient setting are presented based on available clinical data, safety/tolerability, availability, cost-effectiveness, and expert consensus. This descriptive review of the available literature focuses on approach to therapy for acute intractable migraine in a pediatric population including outpatient, emergency department (ED), and inpatient management.

Machine phenotyping of cluster headache and its response to verapamil

Cluster headache is characterized by recurrent, unilateral attacks of excruciating pain associated with ipsilateral cranial autonomic symptoms. Although a wide array of clinical, anatomical, physiological, and genetic data have informed multiple theories about the underlying pathophysiology, the lack of a comprehensive mechanistic understanding has inhibited, on the one hand, the development of new treatments and, on the other, the identification of features predictive of response to established ones. The first-line drug, verapamil, is found to be effective in only half of all patients, and after several weeks of dose escalation, rendering therapeutic selection both uncertain and slow. Here we use high-dimensional modelling of routinely acquired phenotypic and MRI data to quantify the predictability of verapamil responsiveness and to illuminate its neural dependants, across a cohort of 708 patients evaluated for cluster headache at the National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery between 2007 and 2017. We derive a succinct latent representation of cluster headache from non-linear dimensionality reduction of structured clinical features, revealing novel phenotypic clusters. In a subset of patients, we show that individually predictive models based on gradient boosting machines can predict verapamil responsiveness from clinical (410 patients) and imaging (194 patients) features. Models combining clinical and imaging data establish the first benchmark for predicting verapamil responsiveness, with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.689 on cross-validation (95% confidence interval: 0.651 to 0.710) and 0.621 on held-out data. In the imaged patients, voxel-based morphometry revealed a grey matter cluster in lobule VI of the cerebellum (-4, -66, -20) exhibiting enhanced grey matter concentrations in verapamil non-responders compared with responders (familywise error-corrected P = 0.008, 29 voxels). We propose a mechanism for the therapeutic effect of verapamil that draws on the neuroanatomy and neurochemistry of the identified region. Our results reveal previously unrecognized high-dimensional structure within the phenotypic landscape of cluster headache that enables prediction of treatment response with modest fidelity. An analogous approach applied to larger, globally representative datasets could facilitate data-driven redefinition of diagnostic criteria and stronger, more generalizable predictive models of treatment responsiveness.

Is pituitary MRI screening necessary in cluster headache?

Objective

To determine the prevalence and clinical predictors of pituitary adenomas in cluster headache patients, in order to determine the necessity of performing dedicated pituitary magnetic resonance imaging in patients with cluster headache.

Methods

A retrospective study was conducted of all consecutive patients diagnosed with cluster headache and with available brain magnetic resonance imaging between 2007 and 2017 in a tertiary headache center. Data including demographics, attack characteristics, response to treatments, results of neuroimaging, and routine pituitary function tests were recorded.

Results

Seven hundred and eighteen cluster headache patients attended the headache clinic; 643 underwent a standard magnetic resonance imaging scan, of whom 376 also underwent dedicated pituitary magnetic resonance imaging. Pituitary adenomas occurred in 17 of 376 patients (4.52%). Non-functioning microadenomas (n = 14) were the most common abnormality reported. Two patients, one of whom lacked the symptoms of pituitary disease, required treatment for their pituitary lesion. No clinical predictors of those adenomas were identified after multivariate analysis using random forests. Systematic pituitary magnetic resonance imaging scanning did not benefit even a single patient in the entire cohort.

Conclusion

The prevalence of pituitary adenomas in cluster headache is similar to that reported in the general population, thereby precluding an over-representation of pituitary lesions in cluster headache. We conclude that the diagnostic assessment of cluster headache patients should not include specific pituitary screening. Only patients with standard brain magnetic resonance imaging findings or symptoms suggestive of a pituitary disorder require brain magnetic resonance imaging with dedicated pituitary views.

Peripheral nerve stimulation registry for intractable migraine headache (RELIEF): a real-life perspective on the utility of occipital nerve stimulation for chronic migraine

BACKGROUND

Migraine is common and ranked as the first cause of disability in people under fifty. Despite significant advances in its pharmacological treatment, it often remains intractable. Neuromodulation is one option considered in the management of those patients.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the safety and efficacy of neuromodulation in the treatment of intractable chronic migraine using the Abbott occipital nerve stimulator.

METHODS

Recruitment took place in 18 centres in 6 countries. Patients over the age of 18 who had failed three or more preventative drugs, had at least moderate disability based on MIDAS or HIT-6 score and were implanted with an Abbott neurostimulator were included in the study. Patients were followed up for a maximum of 24 months. Data were collected on adverse events, headache relief, headache days, quality of life, migraine disability, satisfaction and quality of life.

RESULTS

One hundred twelve patients were included, 79 female and 33 male, with 45 patients reaching the maximum follow-up of 24 months. At 3 months, 33.7% were satisfied or very satisfied with the procedure with 43.0% reporting improved or greatly improved quality of life. 67.5% indicated that they would undergo the procedure again with satisfaction peaking at 9 months when 49.3% were satisfied or very satisfied with the procedure. At 24 months, 46.7% of available patients were satisfied or very satisfied with the procedure-18% of enrolled patients. The adverse events were however frequent with incidences of 37%, 47% and 31% respectively for hardware-, biological and stimulation-related side effects.

CONCLUSION

Neuromodulation can be beneficial for selected patients with intractable chronic migraine although frequent complications have been consistently reported across studies. Further research focusing on development of better hardware and technique optimisation and in particular reliable randomised trials with significantly longer follow-ups are warranted in this field.

Long-Term Outcomes of Occipital Nerve Stimulation for New Daily Persistent Headache With Migrainous Features

OBJECTIVES

New daily persistent headache (NDPH) is a subset of chronic headache where the pain is continuous from onset. Phenotypically it has chronic migraine or chronic tension type features. NDPH is considered to be highly refractory. Occipital nerve stimulation (ONS) has been used for treatment of refractory chronic migraine but there are no specific reports of its use for NDPH with migrainous features.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Nine patients with NDPH with migrainous features were identified as having had ONS implants between 2007 and 2014 in a specialist unit with experience of using ONS in chronic migraine. Moderate to severe headache days were compared at baseline and follow-up. A positive response was defined as at least 30% reduction in monthly moderate to severe headache days.

RESULTS

Patients had suffered NDPH for a median of 8 years (range 3-16 years) and had failed a median of 11 previous treatments (range 8-15). After a median follow-up of 53 months (range 27-108 months), only a single patient showed a positive response to ONS. At no point did the cohort as a whole show any change in monthly moderate to severe headache days or disability scores.

CONCLUSION

Our experience suggests that ONS is not effective in the treatment of NDPH with migrainous features even in centers with experience in treating chronic migraine with ONS. The difference in response rates of chronic migraine and NDPH with migrainous features supports the concept of a different pathophysiology to the two conditions.

European headache federation consensus on the definition of resistant and refractory migraine : Developed with the endorsement of the European Migraine & Headache Alliance (EMHA)

INTRODUCTION

Despite advances in the management of headache disorders, some patients with migraine do not experience adequate pain relief with acute and preventive treatments. It is the aim of the present document to provide a definition of those migraines which are difficult-to-treat, to create awareness of existence of this group of patients, to help Healthcare Authorities in understanding the implications, and to create a basis to develop a better pathophysiological understanding and to support further therapeutic advances.

MAIN BODY

Definitions were established with a consensus process using the Delphi method. Patients with migraine with or without aura or with chronic migraine can be defined as having resistant migraine and refractory migraine according to previous preventative failures. Resistant migraine is defined by having failed at least 3 classes of migraine preventatives and suffer from at least 8 debilitating headache days per month for at least 3 consecutive months without improvement; definition can be based on review of medical charts. Refractory migraine is defined by having failed all of the available preventatives and suffer from at least 8 debilitating headache days per month for at least 6 consecutive months. Drug failure may include lack of efficacy or lack of tolerability. Debilitating headache is defined as headache causing serious impairment to conduct activities of daily living despite the use of pain-relief drugs with established efficacy at the recommended dose and taken early during the attack; failure of at least two different triptans is required.

CONCLUSIONS

We hope, that the updated EHF definition will be able to solve the conflicts that have limited the use of definitions which have been put forward in the past. Only with a widely accepted definition, progresses in difficult-to-treat migraine can be achieved. This new definition has also the aim to increase the understanding of the impact of the migraine as a disease with all of its social, legal and healthcare implications. It is the hope of the EHF Expert Consensus Group that the proposed criteria will stimulate further clinical, scientific and social attention to patients who suffer from migraine which is difficult-to-treat.

New insights in post-traumatic headache with cluster headache phenotype: a cohort study

OBJECTIVES

To define the characteristics of post-traumatic headache with cluster headache phenotype (PTH-CH) and to compare these characteristics with primary CH.

METHODS

A retrospective study was conducted of patients seen between 2007 and 2017 in a headache centre and diagnosed with PTH-CH that developed within 7 days of head trauma. A control cohort included 553 patients with primary CH without any history of trauma who attended the headache clinic during the same period. Data including demographics, attack characteristics and response to treatments were recorded.

RESULTS

Twenty-six patients with PTH-CH were identified. Multivariate analysis revealed significant associations between PTH-CH and family history of CH (OR 3.32, 95% CI 1.31 to 8.63), chronic form (OR 3.29, 95% CI 1.70 to 6.49), parietal (OR 14.82, 95% CI 6.32 to 37.39) or temporal (OR 2.04, 95% CI 1.10 to 3.84) location of pain, and presence of prominent cranial autonomic features during attacks (miosis OR 11.24, 95% CI 3.21 to 41.34; eyelid oedema OR 5.79, 95% CI 2.57 to 13.82; rhinorrhoea OR 2.65, 95% CI 1.26 to 5.86; facial sweating OR 2.53, 95% CI 1.33 to 4.93). Patients with PTH-CH were at a higher risk of being intractable to acute (OR 12.34, 95% CI 2.51 to 64.73) and preventive (OR 16.98, 95% CI 6.88 to 45.52) treatments and of suffering from associated chronic migraine (OR 10.35, 95% CI 3.96 to 28.82).

CONCLUSION

This largest series of PTH-CH defines it as a unique entity with specific evolutive profile. Patients with PTH-CH are more likely to suffer from the chronic variant, have marked autonomic features, be intractable to treatment and have associated chronic migraine compared with primary CH.

Hints on Diagnosing and Treating Headache

BACKGROUND

Headache, like dizziness, is one of the more common presenting complaints in outpatient care and in the emergency room. More than 200 varieties of headache have been described, and the false impression may arise that the diagnosis and treatment of these syndromes is a highly challenging task.

METHODS

This review is based on pertinent articles retrieved by a selective search in PubMed.

RESULTS

In primary headache, the headache is not a symptom but a disease in its own right. There are four types of primary headache: migraine, tension headache, trigeminal autonomic cephalalgia, and other primary headache disorders. By definition, the physical examination is normal, including the neurological examination. Secondary headache, in contrast, is a symptom of another disease (e.g., a tumor or cerebral hemorrhage). Triptans and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID) are the drugs usually given for the acute treatment and prophylaxis of migraine. In tension headache, NSAID are given acutely, and tricyclic drugs for prophylaxis. There are various options for the treatment of trigeminal autonomic cephalalgia syndromes such as cluster headache and paroxysmal hemicrania. For group 4 headaches (other primary headache disorders), the treatment must be chosen on an individual basis; indomethacin is often effective.

CONCLUSION

If the patient is clearly suffering from none of the four types of primary headache, the problem must be a headache of a secondary nature, potentially reflecting a dangerous underlying disease. The treatment of headache is usually successful and thus highly rewarding for physicians of all medical specialties.

Identifying and managing refractory migraine: barriers and opportunities?

The term refractory migraine has been used to describe persistent headache that is difficult to treat or fails to respond to standard and/or aggressive treatments. This subgroup of migraine patients are generally highly disabled and experience impaired quality of life, despite optimal treatments. Several definitions and criteria for refractory migraine have been published, but as yet, an accepted or established definition is not available. This article reviews the published criteria and proposes a new set of criteria. The epidemiology, pathophysiology and management options are also reviewed.

Occipital nerve stimulation for non-migrainous chronic headaches: a systematic review protocol

BACKGROUND

Defined as a headache lasting at least 15 days per month, chronic headache is reported by 3% of the general population, and a substantial proportion of them are refractory to current therapies. Occipital nerve stimulation (ONS) is a treatment option, but is still considered as a last resort treatment especially because of its invasive nature and the cost associated. Some reviews reported a limited efficacy of ONS for the treatment of migraines, with a high risk of complications. However, results reporting its efficacy and safety on other headache disorders are unclear. The aim of this review is to assess the efficacy and safety of ONS in regards to non-migrainous chronic headaches.

METHODS

We will conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies evaluating the use of ONS in comparison to sham stimulation or the best available treatment in patients with chronic headache. MEDLINE, CINHAL, EMBASE, PsycINFO, ECRI Institute Library, WIKISTIM, the Cochrane Library databases, and clinical trial registries will be searched for eligible studies. The review will include adult patients diagnosed with chronic headache excluding migraine. Two independent reviewers will process to the screening of studies according to titles, abstracts, and then full texts. The primary outcome is the overall reduction of head pain severity. The secondary outcomes are rates of reduction in the severity of head pain, headache frequency, and duration, use of medication, impairment, quality of life, healthcare utilization, return to work, and adverse events. Extracted data will include patients' and procedure characteristics, details on comparative treatment or sham, and clinical outcomes. The risk of bias of the studies will be also independently assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tools.

DISCUSSION

This systematic review will allow us to better evaluate the potential role of ONS for the treatment of patients with chronic headache that are refractory to less invasive therapies. It will help to determine the degree of safety of ONS. Moreover, it will help to design and conduct future randomized controlled trials focused on patients who may better respond to such treatment.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42019121623.

Adherence to the 2008 IHS guidelines for controlled trials of drugs for the preventive treatment of chronic migraine in adults

Introduction

Since the definition of chronic migraine as a new disease entity in 2004, numerous clinical trials have examined the efficacy of preventive treatments in chronic migraine. Our aim was to assess the adherence of these trials to the Guidelines of the International Headache Society published in 2008.

Methods

We searched PubMed for controlled clinical trials investigating preventive treatment for chronic migraine in adults designed after the release of the Guidelines and published until December 2017. Trial quality was evaluated with a 13-item scoring system enlisting essential recommendations adapted from the Guidelines.

Results

Out of 3352 retrieved records, we included 16 papers in the analysis dealing with pharmacological treatment of chronic migraine. The median score was 6.5 (range 2–13). All trials were randomized, the large majority (81.25%) were placebo-controlled and double-blinded (87.5%). Adherence was lowest on i) a priori definition of outcomes (31.25%), ii) primary endpoint definition (37.5%%) and iii) trial registration (37.5%).

Discussion

Most clinical trials adhered to the recommendations of the IHS, whereas adherence to migraine-specific recommendations was lower. Greater awareness and adherence to the guidelines are essential to improve the quality of clinical trials, validity of publications and the generalizability of the results.

Saliva molecular inflammatory profiling in female migraine patients responsive to adjunctive cervical non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation: the MOXY Study

Background

Rising evidence indicate that oxytocin and IL-1β impact trigemino-nociceptive signaling. Current perspectives on migraine physiopathology emphasize a cytokine bias towards a pro-inflammatory status. The anti-nociceptive impact of oxytocin has been reported in preclinical and human trials. Cervical non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation (nVNS) emerges as an add-on treatment for the preventive and abortive use in migraine. Less is known about its potential to modulate saliva inflammatory signaling in migraine patients. The rationale was to perform inter-ictal saliva measures of oxytocin and IL-1ß along with headache assessment in migraine patients with 10 weeks adjunctive nVNS compared to healthy controls.

Methods

12 migraineurs and 12 suitably matched healthy control were studied with inter-ictal saliva assay of pro- and anti-neuroinflammatory cytokines using enzyme-linked immuno assay techniques along with assessment of headache severity/frequency and associated functional capacity at baseline and after 10 weeks adjunctive cervical nVNS.

Results

nVNS significantly reduced headache severity (VAS), frequency (headache days and total number of attacks) and significantly improved sleep quality compared to baseline (p < 0.01). Inter-ictal saliva oxytocin and IL-1β were significantly elevated pre- as well as post-nVNS compared to healthy controls (p < 0.01) and similarly showed changes that may reflect the observed clinical effects.

Conclusions

Our results add to accumulating evidence for a therapeutic efficacy of adjunct cervical non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation in migraine patients. This study failed to provide an evidence-derived conclusion addressed to the predictive value and usefulness of saliva assays due to its uncontrolled study design. However, saliva screening of mediators associated with trigemino-nociceptive traffic represents a novel approach, thus deserve future targeted headache research.

Trial registration This study was indexed at the German Register for Clinical Trials (DRKS No. 00011089) registered on 21.09.2016

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

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

Managing cluster headache with sphenopalatine ganglion stimulation: a review

Cluster headache (CH) is a primary headache and considered as one of the worst pains known to man. The sphenopalatine ganglion (SPG) plays a pivotal role in cranial autonomic symptoms associated with pain. Lesioning procedures involving the SPG and experimental acute SPG stimulation have shown some degree of efficacy with regard to CH. A neuromodulation device, chronically implanted in the pterygopalatine fossa, has been specifically designed for acute on-demand SPG stimulation. In a pilot placebo-controlled study in 28 patients suffering from refractory chronic CH, alleviation of pain was achieved in 67.1% of full stimulation-treated attacks compared to 7% of sham stimulation-treated attacks (p<0.0001). Long-term results (24 months; 33 patients) confirmed the efficacy of SPG stimulation as an abortive treatment for CH attacks. Moreover, 35% of the patients observed a >50% reduction in attack frequency, suggesting that repeated use of SPG stimulation might act as a CH-preventive treatment. Globally, 61% of the patients were acute responders, frequency responders, or both, and 39% did not respond to SPG stimulation. The safety of SPG microstimulator implantation procedure was evaluated in a cohort of 99 patients; facial sensory disturbances were observed in 67% of the patients (46% of them being transient), transient allodynia in 3%, and infection in 5%. SPG stimulation appears as a promising innovative, efficient, and safe therapeutic solution for patients suffering from severe CH. It has shown its efficacy in aborting CH attacks compared to placebo stimulation, suggesting that it is particularly adapted for CH patients who are not sufficiently improved by abortive treatments such as sumatriptan and oxygen. However, further studies comparing SPG stimulation with standard abortive and/or preventive CH treatments will be necessary to define more precisely its place within the management of severe chronic and/or episodic CH.

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.

Occipital nerve stimulation improves the quality of life in medically-intractable chronic cluster headache: Results of an observational prospective study

Background Occipital nerve stimulation (ONS) has been proposed to treat chronic medically-intractable cluster headache (iCCH) in small series of cases without evaluation of its functional and emotional impacts. Methods We report the multidimensional outcome of a large observational study of iCCH patients, treated by ONS within a nationwide multidisciplinary network ( https://clinicaltrials.gov NCT01842763), with a one-year follow-up. Prospective evaluation was performed before surgery, then three and 12 months after. Results One year after ONS, the attack frequency per week was decreased >30% in 64% and >50% in 59% of the 44 patients. Mean (Standard Deviation) weekly attack frequency decreased from 21.5 (16.3) to 10.7 (13.8) ( p = 0.0002). About 70% of the patients responded to ONS, 47.8% being excellent responders. Prophylactic treatments could be decreased in 40% of patients. Functional (HIT-6 and MIDAS scales) and emotional (HAD scale) impacts were significantly improved, as well as the health-related quality of life (EQ-5D). The mean (SD) EQ-5D visual analogic scale score increased from 35.2 (23.6) to 51.9 (25.7) ( p = 0.0037). Surgical minor complications were observed in 33% of the patients. Conclusion ONS significantly reduced the attack frequency per week, as well as the functional and emotional headache impacts in iCCH patients, and dramatically improved the health-related quality of life of responders.

Long-term outcomes of occipital nerve stimulation for chronic migraine: a cohort of 53 patients

Background

Chronic migraine affects up to 2 % of the general population and has a substantial impact on sufferers. Occipital nerve stimulation has been investigated as a potentially effective treatment for refractory chronic migraine. Results from randomised controlled trials and open label studies have been inconclusive with little long-term data available.

Methods

The long-term efficacy, functional outcome and safety of occipital nerve stimulation was evaluated in an uncontrolled, open-label, prospective study of 53 intractable chronic migraine patients.

Results

Fifty-three patients were implanted in a single centre between 2007 and 2013. Patients had a mean age of 47.75 years (range 26–70), had suffered chronic migraine for around 12 years and had failed a mean of 9 (range 4–19) preventative treatments prior to implant. Eighteen patients had other chronic headache phenotypes in addition to chronic migraine. After a median follow-up of 42.00 months (range 6–97) monthly moderate-to-severe headache days (i.e. days on which pain was more than 4 on the verbal rating score and lasted at least 4 h) reduced by 8.51 days (p < 0.001) in the whole cohort, 5.80 days (p < 0.01) in those with chronic migraine alone and 12.16 days (p < 0.001) in those with multiple phenotypes including chronic migraine. Response rate of the whole group (defined as a >30 % reduction in monthly moderate-to-severe headache days) was observed in 45.3 % of the whole cohort, 34.3 % of those with chronic migraine alone and 66.7 % in those with multiple headache types. Mean subjective patient estimate of improvement was 31.7 %. Significant reductions were also seen in outcome measures such as pain intensity (1.34 points, p < 0.001), all monthly headache days (5.66 days, p < 0.001) and pain duration (4.54 h, p < 0.001). Responders showed substantial reductions in headache-related disability, affect scores and quality of life measures. Adverse event rates were favourable with no episodes of lead migration and only one minor infection reported.

Conclusions

Occipital nerve stimulation may be a safe and efficacious treatment for highly intractable chronic migraine patients even after relatively prolonged follow up of a median of over 3 years.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s10194-016-0659-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Cluster headache attack remission with sphenopalatine ganglion stimulation: experiences in chronic cluster headache patients through 24 months

Background

Cluster headache (CH) is a debilitating headache disorder with severe consequences for patient quality of life. On-demand neuromodulation targeting the sphenopalatine ganglion (SPG) is effective in treating the acute pain and a subgroup of patients experience a decreased frequency of CH attacks.

Methods

We monitored self-reported attack frequency, headache disability, and medication intake in 33 patients with medically refractory, chronic CH (CCH) in an open label follow-up study of the original Pathway CH-1 study. Patients were followed for at least 24 months (average 750 ± 34 days, range 699-847) after insertion of an SPG microstimulator. Remission periods (attack-free periods exceeding one month, per the ICHD 3 (beta) definition) occurring during the 24-month study period were characterized. Attack frequency, acute effectiveness, medication usage, and questionnaire data were collected at regular clinic visits. The time point “after remission” was defined as the first visit after the end of the remission period.

Results

Thirty percent (10/33) of enrolled patients experienced at least one period of complete attack remission. All remission periods followed the start of SPG stimulation, with the first period beginning 134 ± 86 (range 21-272) days after initiation of stimulation. On average, each patient’s longest remission period lasted 149 ± 97 (range 62-322) days. The ability to treat acute attacks before and after remission was similar (37 % ± 25 % before, 49 % ± 32 % after; p = 0.2188). Post-remission headache disability (HIT-6) was significantly improved versus baseline (67.7 ± 6.0 before, 55.2 ± 11.4 after; p = 0.0118). Six of the 10 remission patients experienced clinical improvements in their preventive medication use. At 24 months post insertion headache disability improvements remained and patient satisfaction measures were positive in 100 % (10/10).

Conclusions

In this population of 33 refractory CCH patients, in addition to providing the ability to treat acute attacks, neuromodulation of the SPG induced periods of remission from cluster attacks in a subset of these. Some patients experiencing remission were also able to reduce or stop their preventive medication and remissions were accompanied by an improvement in headache disability.

Safety and efficacy of cervical 10 kHz spinal cord stimulation in chronic refractory primary headaches: a retrospective case series

Background

Paresthesia-free cervical 10 kHz spinal cord stimulation (HF10 SCS) may constitute a novel treatment modality for headache disorders, when pharmacological approaches fail. We report the results of a retrospective analysis assessing the long-term safety, tolerability and efficacy of HF10 SCS in a group of patients with chronic refractory primary headache disorders.

Findings

Four patients with chronic migraine (CM), two with chronic SUNA (Short-lasting Unilateral Neuralgiform headache attacks with Autonomic symptoms) and one with chronic cluster headache (CCH) refractory to medical treatments, were implanted with cervical HF10 SCS. Pre- and post-implantation data were collected from the medical notes and from headache charts. At an average follow-up of 28 months (range: 12–42 months) we observed an improvement of at least 50 % in headache frequency and/or intensity in all CM patients. One SUNA patient became pain free and the other reported at least 50 % improvement in attacks frequency an duration. The CCH patient reported a significant reduction in CH attacks duration. Two patients underwent a surgical revision due to lead migration.

Conclusions

Paresthesia-free high cervical HF10 SCS appears to be a long-term safe and likely effective therapeutic approach for patients with chronic refractory primary headache disorders. These results warrant further prospective studies in larger series of patients.

Long-term occipital nerve stimulation for drug-resistant chronic cluster headache

Introduction

Chronic cluster headache is rare and some of these patients become drug-resistant. Occipital nerve stimulation has been successfully employed in open studies to treat chronic drug-resistant cluster headache. Data from large group of occipital nerve stimulation-treated chronic cluster headache patients with long duration follow-up are advantageous.

Patients and methods

Efficacy of occipital nerve stimulation has been evaluated in an experimental monocentric open-label study including 35 chronic drug-resistant cluster headache patients (mean age 42 years; 30 men; mean illness duration: 6.7 years). The primary end-point was a reduction in number of daily attacks.

Results

After a median follow-up of 6.1 years (range 1.6–10.7), 20 (66.7%) patients were responders (≥50% reduction in headache number per day): 12 (40%) responders showed a stable condition characterized by sporadic attacks, five responders had a 60–80% reduction in headache number per day and in the remaining three responders chronic cluster headache was transformed in episodic cluster headache. Ten (33.3%) patients were non-responders; half of these have been responders for a long period (mean 14.6 months; range 2–48 months). Battery depletion (21 patients 70%) and electrode migration (six patients – 20%) were the most frequent adverse events.

Conclusions

Occipital nerve stimulation efficacy is confirmed in chronic drug-resistant cluster headaches even after an exceptional long-term follow-up. Tolerance can occur years after improvement.

Long-term effectiveness of sphenopalatine ganglion stimulation for cluster headache

Objectives

The sphenopalatine ganglion (SPG) plays a pivotal role in cluster headache (CH) pathophysiology as the major efferent parasympathetic relay. We evaluated the long-term effectiveness of SPG stimulation in medically refractory, chronic CH patients.

Methods

Thirty-three patients were enrolled in an open-label follow-up study of the original Pathway CH-1 study, and participated through 24 months post-insertion of a microstimulator. Response to therapy was defined as acute effectiveness in ≥ 50% of attacks or a ≥ 50% reduction in attack frequency versus baseline.

Results

In total, 5956 attacks (180.5 ± 344.8, range 2–1581 per patient) were evaluated. At 24 months, 45% (n = 15) of patients were acute responders. Among acute responders, a total of 4340 attacks had been treated, and in 78% of these, effective therapy was achieved using only SPG stimulation (relief from moderate or greater pain or freedom from mild pain or greater). A frequency response was observed in 33% (n = 11) of patients with a mean reduction of attack frequency of 83% versus baseline. In total, 61% (20/33) of all patients were either acute or frequency responders or both. The majority maintained their therapeutic response through the 24-month evaluation.

Conclusions

In the population of disabled, medically refractory chronic CH patients treated in this study, SPG stimulation is an effective acute therapy in 45% of patients, offering sustained effectiveness over 24 months of observation. In addition, a maintained, clinically relevant reduction of attack frequency was observed in a third of patients. These long-term data provide support for the use of SPG stimulation for disabled patients and should be considered after medical treatments fail, are not tolerated or are inconvenient for the patients.

Ventral tegmental area deep brain stimulation for refractory chronic cluster headache

OBJECTIVE

To present outcomes in a cohort of medically intractable chronic cluster headache (CCH) patients treated with ventral tegmental area (VTA) deep brain stimulation (DBS).

METHODS

In an uncontrolled open-label prospective study, 21 patients (17 male; mean age 52 years) with medically refractory CCH were selected for ipsilateral VTA-DBS by a specialist multidisciplinary team including a headache neurologist and functional neurosurgeon. Patients had also failed or were denied access to occipital nerve stimulation within the UK National Health Service. The primary endpoint was improvement in the headache frequency. Secondary outcomes included other headache scores (severity, duration, headache load), medication use, disability and affective scores, quality of life (QoL) measures, and adverse events.

RESULTS

Median follow-up was 18 months (range 4-60 months). At the final follow-up point, there was 60% improvement in headache frequency (p = 0.007) and 30% improvement in headache severity (p = 0.001). The headache load (a composite score encompassing frequency, severity, and duration of attacks) improved by 68% (p = 0.002). Total monthly triptan intake of the group dropped by 57% posttreatment. Significant improvement was observed in a number of QoL, disability, and mood scales. Side effects included diplopia, which resolved in 2 patients following stimulation adjustment, and persisted in 1 patient with a history of ipsilateral trochlear nerve palsy. There were no other serious adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

This study supports that VTA-DBS may be a safe and effective therapy for refractory CCH patients who failed conventional treatments.

CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE

This study provides Class IV evidence that VTA-DBS decreases headache frequency, severity, and headache load in patients with medically intractable chronic cluster headaches.

A good preoperative response to transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation predicts a better therapeutic effect of implanted occipital nerve stimulation in pharmacologically intractable headaches

Occipital nerve stimulation (ONS) is a surgical approach to treat patients with medically intractable chronic headache disorders. However, no preoperative test has been yet validated to allow candidates to be selected for implantation. In this study, the analgesic efficacy of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) was tested for 1 to 3 months in 41 patients with pharmacologically intractable headache disorders of various origins, using a new technique of electrode placement over the occipital nerve. ONS electrodes were subsequently implanted in 33 patients (occipital neuralgia [n=15], cervicogenic headache [n=7], cluster headache [n=6], chronic migraine [n=5]) who had responded at least moderately to TENS. Assessment was performed up to five years after implantation (three years on average), based on the mean and maximum daily pain intensity scored on a 0-10 visual analogue scale and the number of headache days per month. Both TENS and chronic ONS therapy were found to be efficacious (57-76% improvement compared to baseline on the various clinical variables). The efficacy of ONS was better in cases of good or very good preoperative response to TENS than in cases of moderate response to TENS. Implanted ONS may be a valuable therapeutic option in the long term for patients with pharmacologically intractable chronic headache. Although we cannot conclude in patients with poor or no response to TENS, a good or very good response to TENS can support the indication of ONS therapy. This preoperative test could particularly be useful in patients with chronic migraine, in whom it may be difficult to indicate an invasive technique of cranial neurostimulation.