Warfarin for Refractory Chronic Cluster Headache: A Randomized Pilot Study

Baseline demographics and disease characteristics of patients with episodic or chronic cluster headache: data from two phase 3 randomized clinical trials in Europe and North America

Objective

Two phase 3 galcanezumab trials were conducted in Europe and North America to analyze the reduction of weekly cluster headache (CH) attack frequency in populations with episodic and chronic CH. The current study aims to illustrate prospectively recorded baseline clinical data from these trials and to identify possible predictors of response.

Methods

Patients (aged 18-65 years) met The International Classification of Headache Disorders 3rd edition-beta criteria for CH. Attacks were evaluated using an electronic headache diary for 7-day (episodic) or 14-day (chronic) eligibility assessments before patients were randomized 1:1 to monthly subcutaneous galcanezumab 300 mg or placebo.

Results

Data were collected from 106 patients with episodic and 237 with chronic CH. Overall, the mean age [standard deviation] was 45.4 [11.0] years; patients were predominantly White (84.5%), male (75.8%), and European (77.6%). Patients with episodic CH reported 17.5 [10.0] attacks/week; patients with chronic CH reported 18.8 [10.2] attacks/week. The average pain severity score (range 0-4) was 2.5 [0.7] for episodic CH and 2.7 [0.7] for chronic CH. Higher attack frequency was a possible predictor of response to galcanezumab; potential negative predictors of response were greater attack severity and duration.

Conclusion

This large dataset of patients with CH provides reliable systematically and prospectively collected information on disease characteristics. The analysis in episodic CH underscores potential predictors of response worth considering for future CH trial design.

Clinical Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, identifiers: NCT02397473 and NCT02438826.

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

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

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.

Warfarin in the treatment of refractory chronic cluster headache: a case report and review in therapeutic options

Cluster headache is the most common of trigeminal autonomic cephalalgia, with variable prevalence. It can be episodic or chronic, with few remission and high therapeutic failure. The case refers to a 55-year-old female patient, hypertensive and diabetic, with a history of migraine without aura with pain management. In 2014, the patient began to present a new headache pattern, with a diagnosis of Chronic Cluster Headache. Pain management to nasal sumatriptan as an acute treatment. For the prophylactic treatment, she presented therapeutic failure to several medications, with pain management with the use of warfarin. Associated with valproic acid to control migraine. There are few cases described in the literature about the use of warfarin, and its mechanism is still unclear. Warfarin was a key drug, with more than a 50% reduction in attack control. There is a need for more clinical trials randomly that support it. Cluster headache has peculiar clinical diagnosis, being increasingly well recognized and diagnosed. Knowledge and institution of treatment can significantly improve the quality of life of patients, helping to recover the functionality of patients affected by treatment failure.

Challenges and complexities in designing cluster headache prevention clinical trials: A narrative review

Objective

To provide a review of challenges in clinical trials for the preventive treatment of cluster headache (CH) and highlight considerations for future studies.

Background

Current guidelines for preventive treatment of CH are largely based on off‐label therapies supported by a limited number of small randomized controlled trials. Guidelines for clinical trial design for CH treatments from the International Headache Society were last issued in 1995.

Methods/Results

Randomized controlled clinical trials were identified in the European and/or United States clinical trial registries with a search term of “cluster headache,” and manually reviewed. Cumulatively, there were 27 unique placebo‐controlled prevention trials for episodic and/or chronic CH, of which 12 were either ongoing, not yet recruiting, or the status was unknown. Of the remaining 15 trials, 5 were terminated early and 7 of the 10 completed trials enrolled fewer patients than planned or did not report the planned sample size. A systematic search of PubMed was also utilized to identify published manuscripts reporting results from placebo‐controlled preventive trials of CH. This search yielded 16 publications, of which 7 were registered. Through critical review of trial data and published manuscripts, challenges and complexities encountered in clinical trials for the preventive treatment of CH were identified. For example, the excruciating pain associated with CH demands a suitably limited baseline duration, rapid treatment efficacy onset, and poses a specific issue regarding duration of investigational treatment period and length of exposure to placebo. In episodic CH, spontaneous remission as part of natural history, and the unpredictability and irregularity of cluster periods across patients present additional key challenges.

Conclusions

Optimal CH trial design should balance sound methodology to demonstrate efficacy of a potential treatment with patient needs and the natural history of the disease, including unique outcome measures and endpoint timings for chronic versus episodic CH.

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).

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.

Effects of acute and preventive therapies for episodic and chronic cluster headache: A scoping review of the literature

BACKGROUND

Cluster headache is the most common primary headache disorder of the trigeminal autonomic cephalalgias, and it is highly disabling.

OBJECTIVE

We undertake a scoping review to characterize therapies to prevent and acutely treat cluster headache, characterize trial methodology utilized in studies, and recommend future trial "good practices." We also assess homogeneity of studies and feasibility for future network meta-analyses (NMAs) to compare acute and preventive treatments for cluster headache.

METHODS

A priori protocol for this scoping review was registered and available on Open Science Forum. We sought studies that enrolled adult patients with cluster headache as identified by accepted diagnostic criteria. Both randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies (with a control group) were included. The interventions of interest were medications, procedures, devices, surgeries, and behavioral/psychological interventions, whereas comparators of interest were placebo, sham, or other active treatments. Outcomes were predefined; however, we did not exclude studies lacking these outcomes. A systemic search was conducted in Ovid Medline, Embase, and Cochrane. We performed a targeted search for conference abstracts from journals prominent in the field.

RESULTS

We identified 56 studies: 45 RCTs, four studies only available in clinical trial registries, and seven observational studies. Of the 45 RCTs, 20 focused on acute therapies and 25 on preventive therapies. Overall, we determined that it is feasible to pursue a NMA for acute therapy focusing on 15 or 30-min headache reduction for acute trials, as we identified 11 trials in the combined population of patients with either episodic or chronic cluster headache (2 trials in populations with chronic cluster headache were also found). For preventive therapy of cluster headache, we identified trials with common outcomes that may be considered for NMA, however, as these trials had differences in treatment effect modifiers that could not be corrected, NMAs appear infeasible for this indication. We identified new studies looking at noninvasive vagal nerve stimulation, sphenopalatine ganglion stimulation, prednisone, and oxygen published since the most recent systematic review in the field, although these acute treatments were previously identified as effective. However, for calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibodies, galcanezumab demonstrated effectiveness in episodic cluster headache, but a lack of effectiveness in chronic cluster headache, and fremanezumab was not effective for episodic nor chronic cluster headache. This finding highlights that CGRP monoclonal antibodies may not show a class effect in cluster headache prevention and need to be considered individually.

CONCLUSIONS

We describe the treatment landscape of cluster headache for both acute and preventive treatments. Last, we present the NMAs we will undertake in acute therapies of cluster headache.

Cluster Headache Pathophysiology—A Disorder of Network Excitability?

Patients’ accounts of cluster headache attacks, ictal restlessness, and electrophysiological studies suggest that the pathophysiology involves Aδ-fibre nociceptors and the network processing their input. Continuous activity of the trigeminal autonomic reflex throughout the in-bout period results in central sensitization of these networks in many patients. It is likely that several factors force circadian rhythmicity upon the disease. In addition to sensitization, circadian changes in pain perception and autonomic innervation might influence the excitability of the trigeminal cervical complex. Summation of several factors influencing pain perception might render neurons vulnerable to spontaneous depolarization, particularly at the beginning of rapid drops of the pain threshold (“summation headache”). In light of studies suggesting an impairment of short-term synaptic plasticity in CH patients, we suggest that the physiologic basis of CH attacks might be network overactivity—similarly to epileptic seizures. Case reports documenting cluster-like attacks support the idea of distinct factors being transiently able to induce attacks and being relevant in the pathophysiology of the disorder. A sustained and recurring proneness to attacks likely requires changes in the activity of other structures among which the hypothalamus is the most probable candidate.

Cluster Headache: A Review and Update in Treatment

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The treatment of cluster headache has evolved to include a handheld neuromodulation device and a monoclonal antibody in addition to more traditional agents.

RECENT FINDINGS

Galcanezumab is an approved treatment for episodic cluster headache. The non-invasive vagal nerve stimulator has been shown to be effective as a treatment for episodic cluster headache. Dedicated pituitary imaging may not be necessary with a normal MRI of the brain. Cluster headache is the most common trigeminal-autonomic cephalalgia, characterized by unilateral, frequent, debilitating attacks associated with ipsilateral autonomic symptoms. Attacks have a circadian and, often, seasonal pattern with periods of remission that can last months to years in episodic patients. Though a rare disease, an increasing number of studies have revealed novel targets for treatment. Treatment in cluster headache should focus on early intervention to reduce frequency of attacks and the length of the cycle, which improves outcomes and disability. Acute therapy is used to treat attacks, while bridging and preventive therapies are combined to reduce cycle length. Case 1: A 43-year-old man presents with the chief complaint of severe headaches. Upon general examination, he seems uncomfortable, agitated, and exhausted. He states that he hasn't "slept in over a week because of debilitating headaches." His headaches start around the same time every night: when he lays down to go to sleep. The pain is described as sharp, like a "hot poker" to his left eye. His partner has noticed that his eye droops and turns red when the pain starts. The attacks come on abruptly and prevent him from sleeping. The severe pain lasts 30 to 45 min, but he has mild-to-moderate pain that lingers for the rest of the night. He has seen his primary care physician, an allergist, and an ear, nose, and throat (ENT) specialist before coming to see a neurologist. Similar headaches occurred last year during the month of October as well. On further questioning, he reports that these headache attacks have been occurring almost yearly for the past 7 years. Each year, these headaches come on as the weather is changing and occur on a nightly basis for about 3 to 4 weeks.

Drug profile: galcanezumab for prevention of cluster headache

Introduction: Cluster headache [CH] is a severely disabling trigeminal autonomic cephalalgia [TAC]. Approximately 1 in 1,000 adults are affected by CH. Calcitonin gene-related peptide [CGRP] is an important mediator in the pathophysiology of CH. Galcanezumab is a monoclonal antibody with an affinity for the CGRP peptide, FDA approved for the prevention of episodic CH. Areas covered: Search words queried were 'cluster headache,' 'cluster headache, and CGRP,' 'cluster headache, and galcanezumab.' Over 99 articles in Pubmed and prescribing information for galcanezumab were reviewed. Some of the data pertaining to CH trials with fremanezumab were reviewed using clinical trials.org. Expert opinion: Galcanezumab has shown benefit in decreasing the weekly frequency of CH attacks across week 1 through week 3 in patients with CH; 8.7 attacks in the galcanezumab group, as compared with 5.2 in the placebo group (95% confidence interval, 0.2 to 6.7; P = 0.04). It has a favorable risk-benefit ratio. The prevention of CH with CGRP inhibition represents a novel advance for a condition with a significant unmet need. The negative trial results of galcanezumab for chronic cluster headache [CCH] may be due to the refractory nature and sheds light on the critical need to investigate the underlying biology and therapeutic options.

Cluster headache: new targets and options for treatment

Cluster headache is a severe headache disorder with considerable impact on quality of life. The pathophysiology of the disease remains poorly understood. With few specific targets for treatment, current guidelines mainly include off-label treatment with medication. However, new targets for possible treatment options are emerging. Calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP)-targeted medication could become the first (cluster) headache-specific treatment option. Other exciting new treatment options include invasive and non-invasive neuromodulation techniques. Here, we provide a short overview of new targets and treatment options that are being investigated for cluster headache.

Neuroendocrine Associations Underlying the Persistent Therapeutic Effects of Classic Serotonergic Psychedelics

Recent reports on the effects of psychedelic-assisted therapies for mood disorders and addiction, as well as the effects of psychedelics in the treatment of cluster headache, have demonstrated promising therapeutic results. In addition, the beneficial effects appear to persist well after limited exposure to the drugs, making them particularly appealing as treatments for chronic neuropsychiatric and headache disorders. Understanding the basis of the long-lasting effects, however, will be critical for the continued use and development of this drug class. Several mechanisms, including biological and psychological ones, have been suggested to explain the long-lasting effects of psychedelics. Actions on the neuroendocrine system are some such mechanisms that warrant further investigation in the study of persisting psychedelic effects. In this report, we review certain structural and functional neuroendocrinological pathologies associated with neuropsychiatric disorders and cluster headache. We then review the effects that psychedelic drugs have on those systems and provide preliminary support for potential long-term effects. The circadian biology of cluster headache is of particular relevance in this area. We also discuss methodologic considerations for future investigations of neuroendocrine system involvement in the therapeutic benefits of psychedelic drugs.

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.

Treatment of Cluster Headache: The American Headache Society Evidence-Based Guidelines

BACKGROUND

Cluster headache (CH), the most common trigeminal autonomic cephalalgia, is an extremely debilitating primary headache disorder that is often not optimally treated. New evidence-based treatment guidelines for CH will assist clinicians with identifying and choosing among current treatment options.

OBJECTIVES

In this systematic review we appraise the available evidence for the acute and prophylactic treatment of CH, and provide an update of the 2010 American Academy of Neurology (AAN) endorsed systematic review.

METHODS

Medline, PubMed, and EMBASE databases were searched for double-blind, randomized controlled trials that investigated treatments of CH in adults. Exclusion and inclusion criteria were identical to those utilized in the 2010 AAN systematic review.

RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

For acute treatment, sumatriptan subcutaneous, zolmitriptan nasal spray, and high flow oxygen remain the treatments with a Level A recommendation. Since the 2010 review, a study of sphenopalatine ganglion stimulation was added to the current guideline and has been administered a Level B recommendation for acute treatment. For prophylactic therapy, previously there were no treatments that were administered a Level A recommendation. For the current guidelines, suboccipital steroid injections have emerged as the only treatment to receive a Level A recommendation with the addition of a second Class I study. Other newly evaluated treatments since the 2010 guidelines have been given a Level B recommendation (negative study: deep brain stimulation), a Level C recommendation (positive study: warfarin; negative studies: cimetidine/chlorpheniramine, candesartan), or a Level U recommendation (frovatriptan).

CONCLUSIONS

This AHS guideline can be utilized for understanding which therapies have superiority to placebo or sham treatment in the management of CH. In clinical practice, these recommendations should be considered in concert with other variables including safety, side effects, patient preferences, clinician experience, cost, and the invasiveness of the intervention. Given the lack of Class I evidence and Level A recommendations, particularly for a number of commonly used preventive therapies, further studies are warranted to demonstrate safety and efficacy for established and emerging therapies.

Pharmacotherapy options for cluster headache

INTRODUCTION

Cluster headache (CH) is a primary headache disorder and the most common trigeminal autonomic cephalalgia. Patients suffer from very severe unilateral headache attacks accompanied by ipsilateral trigeminal autonomic symptoms. Previous studies described a high burden of disease due to its impact on social life as well as an increased suicide ideation rate. The mean time to diagnosis in western industrialized countries is estimated at 4 years.

AREAS COVERED

Many treatment options for CH exist, but due to the rarity of the disease, controlled randomized clinical studies remain difficult to perform. This review summarizes the current knowledge about the treatment of CH including internationally accepted treatment guidelines, and an additional MEDLINE search (1 February 2015).

EXPERT OPINION

International treatment recommendations and official guidelines give reassurance about specific pharmacotherapy options for CH, but only few of these are backed by sufficient scientific evidence. The limited therapeutic efficacy in some patients leads to the use of alternative, complementary, but also illicit drugs to better cope with the disease. Many single cases, case series and uncontrolled studies were performed with different substances in an attempt to find a better way to treat or prevent the excruciatingly painful attacks associated with CH. Large-scale, randomized controlled clinical trials are desperately needed in order to further increase the quality of patient care for this outstanding but terrifying disease.

Cluster headache: conventional pharmacological management

Cluster headache pain is very intense, usually increases in intensity very rapidly from onset, and attacks are often frequent. These clinical features result in significant therapeutic challenges. The most effective pharmacological treatment options for acute cluster attack include subcutaneous sumatriptan, 100% oxygen, and intranasal zolmitriptan. Subcutaneous or intramuscular dihydroergotamine and intranasal sumatriptan are additional options. Transitional therapy is applicable mainly for patients with high-frequency (>2 attacks per day) episodic cluster headache, and options include short courses of high-dose oral corticosteroids, dihydroergotamine, and occipital nerve blocks with local anesthetic and steroids. Prophylactic therapy is important both for episodic and chronic cluster headache, and the main options are verapamil and lithium. Verapamil is drug of first choice but may cause cardiac arrhythmias, and periodic electrocardiograms (EKGs) during dose escalation are important. Many other drugs are also in current use, but there is an insufficient evidence base to recommend them.

Role of nitric oxide in cluster headache

Nitric oxide (NO) is an important molecule in headache pathophysiology. NO regulates vascular tone and acts as a potent vasodilator, and thus participates in regulating blood flow. NO is also considered to play a role in processing sensory information and pain sensitization. In this article, we review the role of NO in one of the primary headache disorders, cluster headache (CH). The pathophysiology of CH is still not completely understood. A multifactorial genesis where NO is likely to be involved is probable. The level of NO production has been shown to correlate with disease activity in several inflammatory disorders, such as cystitis, multiple sclerosis, and cerebral lupus erythematosus. In this article, the issue of whether similar circumstances apply for CH and also the role of NO in the pathophysiology of CH in a wider perspective are discussed.