1
|
Ornello R, Andreou AP, De Matteis E, Jürgens TP, Minen MT, Sacco S. Resistant and refractory migraine: clinical presentation, pathophysiology, and management. EBioMedicine 2024; 99:104943. [PMID: 38142636 PMCID: PMC10788408 DOI: 10.1016/j.ebiom.2023.104943] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/05/2023] [Revised: 12/09/2023] [Accepted: 12/13/2023] [Indexed: 12/26/2023] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Raffaele Ornello
- Department of Biotechnological and Applied Clinical Sciences, University of L'Aquila, L'Aquila, Italy
| | - Anna P Andreou
- Headache Research-Wolfson CARD, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK; Headache Centre, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Eleonora De Matteis
- Department of Biotechnological and Applied Clinical Sciences, University of L'Aquila, L'Aquila, Italy
| | - Tim P Jürgens
- Headache Center North-East, Department of Neurology, University Medical Center Rostock, Rostock, Germany; Department of Neurology, KMG Hospital Güstrow, Güstrow, Germany
| | - Mia T Minen
- Departments of Neurology and Population Health, NYU Langone Health, New York, USA
| | - Simona Sacco
- Department of Biotechnological and Applied Clinical Sciences, University of L'Aquila, L'Aquila, Italy.
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Towne BV, Girgiss CB, Schuster NM. Use of spinal cord stimulation in treatment of intractable headache diseases. PAIN MEDICINE (MALDEN, MASS.) 2023; 24:S6-S10. [PMID: 37833045 DOI: 10.1093/pm/pnad090] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/21/2022] [Revised: 02/17/2023] [Accepted: 06/27/2023] [Indexed: 10/15/2023]
Abstract
Headache diseases remain one of the leading causes of disability in the world. With the development of neuromodulation strategies, high cervical spinal cord stimulation (hcSCS) targeting the trigeminocervical complex has been deployed to treat refractory headache diseases. In this article, we review the proposed mechanism behind hcSCS stimulation, and the various studies that have been described for the successful use of this treatment strategy in patients with chronic migraine, cluster headache, and other trigeminal autonomic cephalalgias.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Brooke V Towne
- Department of Anesthesiology, University of California San Diego Health, San Diego, CA 92037, United States
| | - Carol B Girgiss
- School of Medicine, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, United States
| | - Nathaniel M Schuster
- Department of Anesthesiology, University of California San Diego Health, San Diego, CA 92037, United States
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Finnern MT, D'Souza RS, Jin MY, Abd-Elsayed AA. Cervical Spinal Cord Stimulation for the Treatment of Headache Disorders: A Systematic Review. Neuromodulation 2023; 26:1309-1318. [PMID: 36513586 DOI: 10.1016/j.neurom.2022.10.060] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/30/2022] [Revised: 10/02/2022] [Accepted: 10/25/2022] [Indexed: 12/14/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES Chronic headache remains a major cause of disability and pain worldwide. Although the literature has extensively described pharmacologic options for headache treatment and prophylaxis, there remains a paucity of data on the efficacy of neuromodulation interventions for treatment of headache unresponsive to conventional pharmacologic therapy. The primary aim of this review was to appraise the literature for the efficacy of cervical spinal cord stimulation (cSCS) in treating any intractable chronic headache, including migraine headaches (with or without aura), cluster headache, tension headache, and other types of headaches. MATERIALS AND METHODS In accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines, we performed a systematic review by identifying studies in PubMed, Embase (Scopus), Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials that assessed cSCS to treat chronic headache. Data were synthesized qualitatively, with primary outcomes of headache intensity and frequency. The secondary outcome was adverse effects. RESULTS In total, 16 studies comprising 107 patients met the inclusion criteria. Findings were presented based on type of headache, which included migraine headache with or without aura, cluster headache, trigeminal neuropathy, occipital neuralgia, posttraumatic headache, cervicogenic headache, short-lasting unilateral neuralgiform headache with autonomic symptoms, and poststroke facial pain. Per the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations criteria, there was very low-quality evidence that cSCS is associated with a decrease in migraine headache frequency, migraine headache intensity, and trigeminal neuropathy intensity. Placement for cSCS leads ranged from C1 to C4. CONCLUSIONS Our review suggests promising data from observational studies that cSCS may be helpful in decreasing frequency and intensity of chronic intractable headache. Future well-powered, randomized controlled trials are needed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Michael T Finnern
- Department of Orthopedics and Rehabilitation, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USA
| | - Ryan S D'Souza
- Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Division of Pain Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - Max Y Jin
- Department of Anesthesiology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USA
| | - Alaa A Abd-Elsayed
- Department of Anesthesiology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Pleș H, Florian IA, Timis TL, Covache-Busuioc RA, Glavan LA, Dumitrascu DI, Popa AA, Bordeianu A, Ciurea AV. Migraine: Advances in the Pathogenesis and Treatment. Neurol Int 2023; 15:1052-1105. [PMID: 37755358 PMCID: PMC10535528 DOI: 10.3390/neurolint15030067] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/01/2023] [Revised: 08/28/2023] [Accepted: 08/28/2023] [Indexed: 09/28/2023] Open
Abstract
This article presents a comprehensive review on migraine, a prevalent neurological disorder characterized by chronic headaches, by focusing on their pathogenesis and treatment advances. By examining molecular markers and leveraging imaging techniques, the research identifies key mechanisms and triggers in migraine pathology, thereby improving our understanding of its pathophysiology. Special emphasis is given to the role of calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) in migraine development. CGRP not only contributes to symptoms but also represents a promising therapeutic target, with inhibitors showing effectiveness in migraine management. The article further explores traditional medical treatments, scrutinizing the mechanisms, benefits, and limitations of commonly prescribed medications. This provides a segue into an analysis of emerging therapeutic strategies and their potential to enhance migraine management. Finally, the paper delves into neuromodulation as an innovative treatment modality. Clinical studies indicating its effectiveness in migraine management are reviewed, and the advantages and limitations of this technique are discussed. In summary, the article aims to enhance the understanding of migraine pathogenesis and present novel therapeutic possibilities that could revolutionize patient care.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Horia Pleș
- Department of Neurosurgery, Centre for Cognitive Research in Neuropsychiatric Pathology (NeuroPsy-Cog), “Victor Babeș” University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 300041 Timișoara, Romania;
| | - Ioan-Alexandru Florian
- Department of Neurosciences, “Iuliu Hatieganu” University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 400012 Cluj-Napoca, Romania
| | - Teodora-Larisa Timis
- Department of Physiology, “Iuliu Hatieganu” University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 400012 Cluj-Napoca, Romania
| | - Razvan-Adrian Covache-Busuioc
- Neurosurgery Department, “Carol Davila” University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 020021 București, Romania; (R.-A.C.-B.); (L.-A.G.); (D.-I.D.); (A.A.P.); (A.B.); (A.V.C.)
| | - Luca-Andrei Glavan
- Neurosurgery Department, “Carol Davila” University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 020021 București, Romania; (R.-A.C.-B.); (L.-A.G.); (D.-I.D.); (A.A.P.); (A.B.); (A.V.C.)
| | - David-Ioan Dumitrascu
- Neurosurgery Department, “Carol Davila” University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 020021 București, Romania; (R.-A.C.-B.); (L.-A.G.); (D.-I.D.); (A.A.P.); (A.B.); (A.V.C.)
| | - Andrei Adrian Popa
- Neurosurgery Department, “Carol Davila” University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 020021 București, Romania; (R.-A.C.-B.); (L.-A.G.); (D.-I.D.); (A.A.P.); (A.B.); (A.V.C.)
| | - Andrei Bordeianu
- Neurosurgery Department, “Carol Davila” University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 020021 București, Romania; (R.-A.C.-B.); (L.-A.G.); (D.-I.D.); (A.A.P.); (A.B.); (A.V.C.)
| | - Alexandru Vlad Ciurea
- Neurosurgery Department, “Carol Davila” University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 020021 București, Romania; (R.-A.C.-B.); (L.-A.G.); (D.-I.D.); (A.A.P.); (A.B.); (A.V.C.)
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
The Neurostimulation Appropriateness Consensus Committee (NACC): Recommendations on Best Practices for Cervical Neurostimulation. Neuromodulation 2022; 25:35-52. [DOI: 10.1016/j.neurom.2021.10.013] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/27/2021] [Revised: 08/31/2021] [Accepted: 09/07/2021] [Indexed: 11/19/2022]
|
6
|
Malinowski MN, Chopra PR, Tieppo Francio V, Budwany R, Deer TR. A narrative review and future considerations of spinal cord stimulation, dorsal root ganglion stimulation and peripheral nerve stimulation. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol 2021; 34:774-780. [PMID: 34608057 DOI: 10.1097/aco.0000000000001072] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/25/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW In recent years, neuromodulation has experienced a renaissance. Novel waveforms and anatomic targets show potential improvements in therapy that may signify substantial benefits. New innovations in peripheral nerve stimulation and dorsal root ganglion stimulation have shown prospective evidence and sustainability of results. Sub-perception physiologic bursting, high-frequency stimulation and feedback loop mechanisms provide significant benefits over traditional tonic spinal cords stimulation (SCS) in peer reviewed investigations. We reviewed the themes associated with novel technology in the context of historical stalwart publications. RECENT FINDINGS New innovations have led to better nerve targeting, improvements in disease-based treatment, and opioid alternatives for those in chronic pain. In addition, new neural targets from both structural and cellular perspectives have changed the field of Neurostimulation. SUMMARY For many years, tonic SCS was representative of neuromodulation, but as this review examines, the progression of the field in the past decade has reshaped patient options.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mark N Malinowski
- OhioHealth Grant Medical Center, Ohio University Heritage COM, Columbus, Ohio
| | | | - Vinicius Tieppo Francio
- The University of Kansas Medical Center, Department of Rehabilitative Medicine, Kansas City, Kansas
| | - Ryan Budwany
- Center for Integrative Pain Management, West Virginia University School of Medicine, Morgantown
| | - Timothy Ray Deer
- The Spine and Nerve Center of The Virginias
- Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, WVU School of Medicine
- American Society of Pain and Neuroscience, Charleston, West Virginia, USA
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Abstract
Purpose of Review Neuromodulation devices have become an attractive alternative to traditional pharmacotherapy for migraine, especially for patients intolerant to medication or who prefer non-pharmacological options. In the past decades, many studies demonstrated the efficacy of neuromodulation devices in patients with episodic migraine (EM). However, the benefit of these devices on chronic migraine (CM), which is typically more debilitating and refractory than EM, remains not well studied. Recent Findings We reviewed the literature within the last five years on using FDA-cleared and investigational devices for CM. There were eight randomized controlled trials and 15 open-label observational studies on ten neuromodulation devices. Summary Neuromodulation is promising for use in CM, although efficacy varies among devices or individuals. Noninvasive devices are usually considered safe with minimal adverse events. However, stimulation protocol and methodology differ between studies. More well-designed studies adhering to the guideline may facilitate FDA clearance and better insurance coverage.
Collapse
|
8
|
Al-Kaisy A, Palmisani S, Carganillo R, Wesley S, Pang D, Rotte A, Santos A, Lambru G. Safety and Efficacy of 10 kHz Spinal Cord Stimulation for the Treatment of Refractory Chronic Migraine: A Prospective Long-Term Open-Label Study. Neuromodulation 2021; 25:103-113. [PMID: 34110663 DOI: 10.1111/ner.13465] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/08/2021] [Revised: 04/06/2021] [Accepted: 05/04/2021] [Indexed: 01/26/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Refractory chronic migraine (rCM) is a highly disabling condition for which novel safe and effective treatments are needed. Safety and long-term efficacy of paresthesia-free high cervical 10 kHz spinal cord stimulation (SCS) were here prospectively evaluated for the treatment of rCM. MATERIALS AND METHODS Twenty adults with rCM (mean numbers of preventive treatments failed: 12.2 ± 3.1) were enrolled in this single-center, open-label, prospective study and implanted with a 10 kHz SCS system (Senza™ system, Nevro Corp.), with the distal tip of the lead(s) positioned epidurally at the C2 vertebral level. Safety and effectiveness outcomes, such as adverse events, headache and migraine reductions, responder rates, Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS), Headache Impact Test-6 (HIT-6), and Migraine-Specific Quality-of-Life (MSQ), were captured up to 52 weeks after implantation. RESULTS Compared to baseline, at 52 weeks postimplantation, there was a significant reduction of mean monthly migraine days (MMD) by 9.3 days (p < 0.001). Sixty percent and 50% of patients obtained respectively at least 30% and at least 50% reduction in mean MMD. By week 52, 50% of patients' chronic pattern converted to an episodic pattern. The proportion of subjects classified with severe headache-related disability on the HIT-6, decreased from 100% to 60% at week 52. Meaningful improvements of headache-related quality of life measured by the MSQ scale were observed with mean gain of 24.9 ± 23.1 (p < 0.001) points at 52 weeks. No unanticipated adverse device effects occurred. No patients required any additional device surgical revision. CONCLUSION 10 kHz SCS may a be safe and effective neurostimulation option for rCM patients. The paresthesia-free waveform constitutes an unprecedented advantage for future methodologically sound sham-controlled studies in headache neuromodulation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Adnan Al-Kaisy
- Pain & Neuromodulation Academic Research Centre, Guy's & St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Stefano Palmisani
- Pain & Neuromodulation Academic Research Centre, Guy's & St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Roy Carganillo
- Pain & Neuromodulation Academic Research Centre, Guy's & St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Samuel Wesley
- Pain & Neuromodulation Academic Research Centre, Guy's & St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - David Pang
- Pain & Neuromodulation Academic Research Centre, Guy's & St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | | | | | - Giorgio Lambru
- The Headache Service, Pain Management and Neuromodulation Centre Guy's & St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Neuromodulation in headache and craniofacial neuralgia: Guidelines from the Spanish Society of Neurology and the Spanish Society of Neurosurgery. NEUROLOGÍA (ENGLISH EDITION) 2021. [DOI: 10.1016/j.nrleng.2020.04.017] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/17/2022] Open
|
10
|
Harmsen IE, Hasanova D, Elias GJB, Boutet A, Neudorfer C, Loh A, Germann J, Lozano AM. Trends in Clinical Trials for Spinal Cord Stimulation. Stereotact Funct Neurosurg 2020; 99:123-134. [PMID: 33249416 DOI: 10.1159/000510775] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/03/2020] [Accepted: 08/03/2020] [Indexed: 11/19/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is a neuromodulation technology widely used in the treatment of intractable chronic pain syndromes. SCS is now being applied more broadly as a possible therapy for a range of indications, including neurological, cardiac, and gastrointestinal disorders. Ongoing research in this field is critical in order to gain further insights into the mechanisms of SCS, determine its role in new indications, and refine programming techniques for the optimization of therapeutic outcomes. OBJECTIVE To assess the state of SCS-related human research by cataloging and summarizing clinical trials that have been recently completed or are currently underway in this field. METHODS A search was conducted for clinical trials pertaining to SCS using the ClinicalTrials.gov database. Trials were analyzed to generate a detailed overview of ongoing SCS-related research. Specifically, trials were categorized by intervention, trial start date, study completion status, clinical phase, projected subject enrollment, condition, country of origin, device manufacturer, funding source, and study topic. RESULTS In total, 212 relevant clinical trials were identified. 175 trials (82.5%) involved invasive SCS, while the remaining 37 trials (17.5%) used noninvasive forms of spinal stimulation. Most trials examined the efficacy of SCS for chronic pain syndromes or new indications, while others assessed different stimulation parameters. The studies spanned >27 different disorders, with almost 20% of trials pertaining to conditions other than chronic pain syndromes. The majority of SCS trials were US-based (55.7% of studies), but many countries (e.g., Belgium and UK) are becoming increasingly active. The ratio of investigator-sponsored to industry-sponsored trials was 2:1. Emphasizing the need to optimize therapeutic outcomes of SCS, one-quarter of trials predominantly focused on the assessment of alternative stimulation parameters such as burst or high-frequency stimulation. CONCLUSIONS A large number of clinical trials of SCS are underway. Improvements in the treatment of pain and novel indications for SCS constitute the majority of studies. This overview of SCS-related clinical trials provides a window into future new indications, novel stimulation techniques, and a heightened understanding of the mechanisms of action.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Irene E Harmsen
- Division of Neurosurgery, Department of Surgery, Toronto Western Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Dilafruz Hasanova
- Division of Neurosurgery, Department of Surgery, Toronto Western Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Gavin J B Elias
- Division of Neurosurgery, Department of Surgery, Toronto Western Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Alexandre Boutet
- Division of Neurosurgery, Department of Surgery, Toronto Western Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.,Joint Department of Medical Imaging, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Clemens Neudorfer
- Division of Neurosurgery, Department of Surgery, Toronto Western Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Aaron Loh
- Division of Neurosurgery, Department of Surgery, Toronto Western Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Jürgen Germann
- Division of Neurosurgery, Department of Surgery, Toronto Western Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Andres M Lozano
- Division of Neurosurgery, Department of Surgery, Toronto Western Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada,
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Belvís R, Irimia P, Seijo-Fernández F, Paz J, García-March G, Santos-Lasaosa S, Latorre G, González-Oria C, Rodríguez R, Pozo-Rosich P, Láinez JM. Neuromodulation in headache and craniofacial neuralgia: guidelines from the Spanish Society of Neurology and the Spanish Society of Neurosurgery. Neurologia 2020; 36:61-79. [PMID: 32718873 DOI: 10.1016/j.nrl.2020.04.022] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/02/2019] [Revised: 03/11/2020] [Accepted: 04/15/2020] [Indexed: 01/01/2023] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Numerous invasive and non-invasive neuromodulation devices have been developed and applied to patients with headache and neuralgia in recent years. However, no updated review addresses their safety and efficacy, and no healthcare institution has issued specific recommendations on their use for these 2 conditions. METHODS Neurologists from the Spanish Society of Neurology's (SEN) Headache Study Group and neurosurgeons specialising in functional neurosurgery, selected by the Spanish Society of Neurosurgery (SENEC), performed a comprehensive review of articles on the MEDLINE database addressing the use of the technique in patients with headache and neuralgia. RESULTS We present an updated review and establish the first set of consensus recommendations of the SEN and SENC on the use of neuromodulation to treat headache and neuralgia, analysing the current levels of evidence on its effectiveness for each specific condition. CONCLUSIONS Current evidence supports the indication of neuromodulation techniques for patients with refractory headache and neuralgia (especially migraine, cluster headache, and trigeminal neuralgia) selected by neurologists and headache specialists, after pharmacological treatment options are exhausted. Furthermore, we recommend that invasive neuromodulation be debated by multidisciplinary committees, and that the procedure be performed by teams of neurosurgeons specialising in functional neurosurgery, with acceptable rates of morbidity and mortality.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- R Belvís
- Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau, Barcelona, España
| | - P Irimia
- Clínica Universitaria de Navarra, Pamplona, España.
| | | | - J Paz
- Hospital Universitario La Paz, Madrid, España
| | | | | | - G Latorre
- Hospital Universitario de Fuenlabrada, Madrid, España
| | | | - R Rodríguez
- Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau, Barcelona, España
| | | | - J M Láinez
- Hospital Clínico Universitario, Valencia, España
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Grider JS, Harned M. Cervical Spinal Cord Stimulation Using Monophasic Burst Waveform for Axial Neck and Upper Extremity Radicular Pain: A Preliminary Observational Study. Neuromodulation 2019; 23:680-686. [PMID: 31468641 DOI: 10.1111/ner.13041] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/17/2019] [Revised: 07/10/2019] [Accepted: 07/29/2019] [Indexed: 12/12/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Cervical spinal cord stimulation (cSCS) is an accepted therapeutic option for radicular upper extremity pain and less commonly for cervical axial pain despite less available literature in comparison with lumbar and lower extremity applications. METHODS This preliminary observational pilot study evaluated the efficacy of cSCS using the monophasic burst pattern in the treatment of both upper extremity radicular pain and axial neck pain. Primary outcome measures were reduction in pain scores, global pain scale (GPS) indices, and neck Oswestry disability index (nODI). RESULTS Of the 23 subjects trialed, 15 went to implantation of cSCS using burst and were followed for 1 year prospectively. Pre- and postprimary outcome measures suggested a statistically (p < 0.05) and clinically significant 12.40 point differential in the nODI, a statistically significant reduction of the GPS from 74.60 to 56.37 (p < 0.05), and a reduction in the pain rating score from 8.13 +/- 1.0 prior to trial to 3.85 +/- 1.1 at 1 year for axial neck and with and without radicular pain (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS This preliminary study suggests that the use of the burst waveform applied to cSCS results in improved function and decreased pain scores in subjects with axial neck pain with and without radicular symptomatology and cervicogenic headache.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jay S Grider
- Division of Interventional Pain Medicine, Department of Anesthesiology, University of Kentucky College of Medicine, Lexington, KY, USA
| | - Michael Harned
- Division of Interventional Pain Medicine, Department of Anesthesiology, University of Kentucky College of Medicine, Lexington, KY, USA
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Schuster NM, Rapoport AM. New strategies for the treatment and prevention of primary headache disorders. Nat Rev Neurol 2018; 12:635-650. [PMID: 27786243 DOI: 10.1038/nrneurol.2016.143] [Citation(s) in RCA: 60] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/25/2022]
Abstract
The primary headache disorders, which include migraine, cluster headache and tension-type headache, are among the most common diseases and leading causes of disability worldwide. The available treatment options for primary headache disorders have unsatisfactory rates of efficacy, tolerability and patient adherence. In this Review, we discuss promising new approaches for the prevention of primary headache disorders, such as monoclonal antibodies targeting calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) or its receptor, and small-molecule CGRP receptor antagonists. Neuromodulation approaches employing noninvasive or implantable devices also show promise for treating primary headache disorders. Noninvasive treatments, such as transcranial magnetic stimulation and transcutaneous peripheral nerve stimulation, are delivered by devices that patients can self-administer. Implantable devices targeting the occipital nerves, sphenopalatine ganglion or high cervical spinal cord are placed using percutaneous and/or surgical procedures, and are powered either wirelessly or by surgically implanted batteries. These new and emerging treatments have the potential to address unmet patient needs and reduce headache-associated disability.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nathaniel M Schuster
- Center for Pain Medicine, Department of Anesthesia, Critical Care, and Pain Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 15 Parkman Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02114, USA
| | - Alan M Rapoport
- Department of Neurology, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, 710 Westwood Plaza, Los Angeles, California 90095, USA
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Abstract
Migraine is one of the most common and debilitating neurological disorders. However, the efficacy of pharmacological therapies may have unsatisfactory efficacy and can be poorly tolerated. There is a strong need in clinical practice for alternative approaches for both acute and preventive treatment. Occasionally, this need might arise in the context of low-frequency migraneurs who are not keen to use medication or fear the potential side effects. At the opposite end of the spectrum, clinicians might be faced with patients who have proven refractory to numerous medications. These patients may benefit from invasive treatment strategies. In recent years, promising strategies for migraine therapy have emerged alongside a progressively better understanding of the complex pathophysiology underlying this disease. This review discusses the most recent and evidence-based advances in non-pharmacological therapeutic approaches for migraine, offering alternatives to drug treatment for both the commonly encountered episodic cases as well as the more complex migraine phenotypes, which are capable of challenging even the headache specialist.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Francesca Puledda
- Department of Basic and Clinical Neuroscience, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.
| | - Kevin Shields
- Headache Service, The National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery, Queen Square, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
|
16
|
Freitas TDS, Fonoff ET, Marquez Neto OR, Kessler IM, Barros LM, Guimaraes RW, Azevedo MF. Peripheral Nerve Stimulation for Painful Mononeuropathy Secondary to Leprosy: A 12-Month Follow-Up Study. Neuromodulation 2017; 21:310-316. [PMID: 29082637 DOI: 10.1111/ner.12714] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/23/2017] [Revised: 08/22/2017] [Accepted: 09/12/2017] [Indexed: 12/16/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Leprosy affects approximately 10-15 million patients worldwide and remains a relevant public health issue. Chronic pain secondary to leprosy is a primary cause of morbidity, and its treatment remains a challenge. We evaluated the feasibility and safety of peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) for painful mononeuropathy secondary to leprosy that is refractory to pharmacological therapy and surgical intervention (decompression). METHODS Between 2011 and 2013 twenty-three patients with painful mononeuropathy secondary to leprosy were recruited to this prospective case series. All patients were considered to be refractory to optimized conservative treatment and neurosurgical decompression. Pain was evaluated over the course of the study using the neuropathic pain scale and the visual analog scale for pain. In the first stage, patients were implanted with a temporary electrode that was connected to an external stimulator, and were treated with PNS for seven days. Patients with 50% or greater pain relief received a definitive implantation in the second stage. Follow-ups in the second stage were conducted at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months. RESULTS After seven days of trial in the first stage, 10 patients showed a pain reduction of 50% or greater. At 12-month follow-up in the second stage, 6 of the 10 patients who underwent permanent device implantation showed a pain reduction of 50% or greater (75% reduction on average), and two patients showed a 30% reduction in pain. Two patients presented with electrode migration that required repositioning during the 12-month follow-up period. CONCLUSIONS Our data suggest that PNS might have significant long-term utility for the treatment of painful mononeuropathy secondary to leprosy. Future studies should be performed in order to corroborate our findings in a larger population and encourage the clinical implementation of this technique.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Erich Talamoni Fonoff
- Department of Neurology, Division of Functional Neurosurgery of Institute of Psychiatry of Hospital das Clínicas FMUSP, University of São Paulo Medical School, São Paulo, Brazil
| | | | | | - Laura Mendes Barros
- Department of Neurosurgery, University Hospital of Brasília, Brasilia, Brazil
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
17
|
Sokolov AY, Murzina AA, Osipchuk AV, Lyubashina OA, Amelin AV. Cholinergic mechanisms of headaches. NEUROCHEM J+ 2017. [DOI: 10.1134/s1819712417020131] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/03/2023]
|
18
|
Chang Chien GC, Mekhail N. Alternate Intraspinal Targets for Spinal Cord Stimulation: A Systematic Review. Neuromodulation 2017; 20:629-641. [PMID: 28160397 DOI: 10.1111/ner.12568] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/28/2015] [Revised: 11/14/2016] [Accepted: 11/14/2016] [Indexed: 12/30/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Conventional dorsal column spinal cord stimulation (SCS) provides less than optimal pain relief for certain pain syndromes and anatomic pain distributions. Practitioners have sought to treat these challenging therapeutic areas with stimulation of alternate intraspinal targets. OBJECTIVE To identify and systematically review the evidence for the value neuromodulating specific neuronal targets within the spinal canal to achieve relief of chronic pain. METHODS A systematic literature search was conducted using PubMed for clinical trials published from 1966 to March 1, 2015 to identify neurostimulation studies that employed non-dorsal column intraspinal stimulation to achieve pain relief. Identified studies on such targeted intraspinal stimulation were reviewed and graded using Evidence Based Interventional Pain Medicine criteria. RESULTS We found a total of 13 articles that satisfied our search criteria on targeted, non-dorsal column intraspinal stimulation for pain. We identified five studies on neurostimulation of the cervicomedullary junction, six studies on neurostimulation of the dorsal root ganglion, two studies on the neurostimulation of the conus medullaris, unfortunately none was found on intraspinal nerve root stimulation. LIMITATIONS The limitations of this review include the relative paucity of well-designed prospective studies on targeted SCS. CONCLUSIONS Clinical use of intraspinal neurostimulation is expanding at a very fast pace. Intraspinal stimulation of non-dorsal column targets may well be the future of neurostimulation as it provides new clinically significant neuromodulation of specific therapeutic targets that are not well or not easily addressed with conventional dorsal column SCS. In addition, they may avoid undesired stimulation induced paraesthesia, particularly in non-painful areas of the body.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- George C Chang Chien
- Pain Management, Ventura County Medical Center, Ventura, CA, USA.,Center for Regenerative Medicine, Southern California University of Health Sciences, Whittier, CA, USA
| | - Nagy Mekhail
- Evidence Based Pain Management Research, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA
| |
Collapse
|
19
|
Haider S, Owusu-Sarpong S, Peris Celda M, Wilock M, Prusik J, Youn Y, Pilitsis JG. A Single Center Prospective Observational Study of Outcomes With Tonic Cervical Spinal Cord Stimulation. Neuromodulation 2016; 20:263-268. [DOI: 10.1111/ner.12483] [Citation(s) in RCA: 17] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/06/2016] [Revised: 06/06/2016] [Accepted: 07/06/2016] [Indexed: 12/22/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Sameah Haider
- Department of Neurosurgery; Albany Medical College; Albany NY USA
| | | | | | - Meghan Wilock
- Department of Neurosurgery; Albany Medical College; Albany NY USA
| | - Julia Prusik
- Department of Neurosurgery; Albany Medical College; Albany NY USA
- Department of Neuroscience and Experimental Therapeutics; Albany Medical College; Albany NY USA
| | - Youngwon Youn
- Department of Neurosurgery; Albany Medical College; Albany NY USA
- Department of Neuroscience and Experimental Therapeutics; Albany Medical College; Albany NY USA
| | - Julie G. Pilitsis
- Department of Neurosurgery; Albany Medical College; Albany NY USA
- Department of Neuroscience and Experimental Therapeutics; Albany Medical College; Albany NY USA
| |
Collapse
|
20
|
Russo A, Tessitore A, Conte F, Marcuccio L, Giordano A, Tedeschi G. Transcutaneous supraorbital neurostimulation in "de novo" patients with migraine without aura: the first Italian experience. J Headache Pain 2015; 16:69. [PMID: 26197977 PMCID: PMC4510103 DOI: 10.1186/s10194-015-0551-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 36] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/27/2015] [Accepted: 07/02/2015] [Indexed: 12/25/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Transcutaneous supraorbital neurostimulation (tSNS) has been recently found superior to sham stimulation for episodic migraine prevention in a randomized trial. We evaluated both the safety and efficacy of a brief period of tSNS in a group of patients with migraine without aura (MwoA). METHODS We enrolled 24 consecutive patients with MwoA experiencing a low frequency of attacks, which had never taken migraine preventive drugs in the course of their life. Patients performed a high frequency tSNS and were considered "compliant" if they used the tSNS for ≥ 2/3 of the total time expected. For this reason, four patients were excluded from the final statistical analysis. Primary outcome measures were the reduction migraine attacks and migraine days per month (p < 0.05). Furthermore, we evaluated the percentage of patients having at least 50% reduction of monthly migraine attacks and migraine days. Secondary outcome measures were the reduction of headache severity during migraine attacks and HIT-6 (Headache Impact Test) rating as well as in monthly intake of rescue medication (p < 0.05). Finally, compliance and satisfaction to treatment and potential adverse effects related to tSNS have been evaluated. RESULTS Between run-in and second month of tSNS treatment, both primary and secondary endpoints were met. Indeed, we observed a statistically significant decrease in the frequency of migraine attacks (p < 0.001) and migraine days (p < 0.001) per month. We also demonstrated at least 50% reduction of monthly migraine attacks and migraine days in respectively 81 and 75% of patients. Furthermore, a statistically significant reduction in average of pain intensity during migraine attacks (p = 0.002) and HIT-6 rating (p < 0.001) and intake of rescue medication (p < 0.001) has been shown. All patients showed good compliance levels and no relevant adverse events. CONCLUSION In patients experiencing a low frequency of attacks, significant improvements in multiple migraine severity parameters were observed following a brief period of high frequency tSNS. Therefore, tSNS may be considered a valid option for the preventive treatment of migraine attacks in patients who cannot or are not willing to take daily medications, or in whom low migraine frequency and/or intensity would not require pharmacological preventive therapies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Antonio Russo
- />Headache Center, Department of Medical, Surgical, Neurological, Metabolic and Aging Sciences, Second University of Naples, Naples, 80138 Italy
- />MRI Research Center SUN-FISM, Second University of Naples, Naples, Italy
| | - Alessandro Tessitore
- />Headache Center, Department of Medical, Surgical, Neurological, Metabolic and Aging Sciences, Second University of Naples, Naples, 80138 Italy
- />MRI Research Center SUN-FISM, Second University of Naples, Naples, Italy
| | - Francesca Conte
- />Headache Center, Department of Medical, Surgical, Neurological, Metabolic and Aging Sciences, Second University of Naples, Naples, 80138 Italy
- />MRI Research Center SUN-FISM, Second University of Naples, Naples, Italy
| | - Laura Marcuccio
- />Headache Center, Department of Medical, Surgical, Neurological, Metabolic and Aging Sciences, Second University of Naples, Naples, 80138 Italy
- />MRI Research Center SUN-FISM, Second University of Naples, Naples, Italy
| | - Alfonso Giordano
- />MRI Research Center SUN-FISM, Second University of Naples, Naples, Italy
- />Institute for Diagnosis and Care “Hermitage Capodimonte”, Naples, Italy
| | - Gioacchino Tedeschi
- />Headache Center, Department of Medical, Surgical, Neurological, Metabolic and Aging Sciences, Second University of Naples, Naples, 80138 Italy
- />MRI Research Center SUN-FISM, Second University of Naples, Naples, Italy
| |
Collapse
|