Paroxysmal hemicrania and hemicrania continua: Review on pathophysiology, clinical features and treatment

BACKGROUND

Paroxysmal hemicrania and hemicrania continua are indometacin-sensitive trigeminal autonomic cephalalgias, a terminology which reflects the predominant distribution of the pain, observable cranial autonomic features and shared pathophysiology. Understanding the latter is limited, both by low prevalence and the intricacies of studying brain function, requiring multimodal techniques to glean insights into such disorders. Similarly obscure is the curious response to indometacin. This review will address what is currently known about pathophysiology, the rationale for the current classification and, features which may confound the diagnosis, such as lack of cranial autonomic symptoms and those which are typically associated with migraine such as nausea, photophobia, phonophobia and aura. Despite these characteristics, a dramatic response to indometacin, which is not seen in migraine nor the other trigeminal autonomic cephalalgias , provides the hallmark of the diagnosis. The main clinical differential for paroxysmal hemicrania is based on temporal pattern and lies between cluster headache and short-lasting-neuralgiform headache attacks with tearing or additional cranial autonomic symptoms. For hemicrania continua it is more challenging as the main differential for which the disorder is often treated is migraine. A prior episodic pattern, often days at a time, and the tendency to exacerbation with analgesics will further deflect from the diagnosis. The relevance of this is that there is little overlap in therapeutics between paroxysmal hemicrania and hemicrania continua and other headache disorders and there are limited effective alternatives to indometacin. The most effective are other non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs including the newer COX-II inhibitors. Even though early reports suggest that a higher indometacin dose-requirement may herald a secondary precipitating pathology, this does not seem to be the case, with syndrome and response to treatment being similar with the primary disorder. In this context imaging of new onset paroxysmal hemicrania or hemicrania continua and implication of the results will be discussed as will alternative treatment options.

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.

Guidelines of the International Headache Society for Controlled Clinical Trials in Cluster Headache

In 1995, a committee of the International Headache Society developed and published the first edition of the Guidelines for Controlled Trials of Drugs in Cluster Headache. These have not been revised. With the emergence of new medications, neuromodulation devices and trial designs, an updated version of the International Headache Society Guidelines for Controlled Clinical Trials in Cluster Headache is warranted. Given the scarcity of evidence-based data for cluster headache therapies, the update is largely consensus-based, but takes into account lessons learned from recent trials and demands by patients. It is intended to apply to both drug and neuromodulation treatments, with specific proposals for the latter when needed. The primary objective is to propose a template for designing high quality, state-of-the-art, controlled clinical trials of acute and preventive treatments in episodic and chronic cluster headache. The recommendations should not be regarded as dogma and alternative solutions to particular methodological problems should be explored in the future and scientifically validated.

A Combination of Indomethacin Farnesyl and Amitriptyline Is Effective for Continuous Interictal Pain with Probable Chronic Paroxysmal Hemicrania

A 26-year-old woman with a history of migraine reported right-sided, severe stabbing orbital pain with cranial autonomic symptoms (CASs) for approximately 2 years. The attack duration was approximately 30 minutes, with a frequency of twice per day. Taking loxoprofen was ineffective. Six months earlier, moderate pressing continuous interictal pain without CASs had developed. Indomethacin farnesyl completely resolved the attacks but had no effect on the interictal pain. The patient was diagnosed with probable chronic paroxysmal hemicrania in accordance with the International Classification of Headache Disorders (ICHD-3) (third version). Continuous interictal pain gradually disappeared with a combination of indomethacin farnesyl and amitriptyline.

Phenotype of Cluster Headache: Clinical Variability, Persisting Pain Between Attacks, and Comorbidities-An Observational Cohort Study in 825 Patients

INTRODUCTION

Cluster headaches can occur with considerable clinical variability. The inter- and intra-individual variability could contribute to the fact that the clinical headache phenotype is not captured by too strict diagnostic criteria, and that the diagnosis and the effective therapy are thereby delayed. The aim of the study was to analyze the severity and extent of the clinical symptoms of episodic and chronic cluster headaches with regard to their variability and to compare them with the requirements of the International Classification of Headache Disorders 3rd edition (ICHD-3) diagnostic criteria.

METHODS

The study was carried out as a cross-sectional analysis of 825 patients who had been diagnosed with cluster headaches by their physician. Using an online questionnaire, standardized questions on sociodemographic variables, clinical features of the cluster headache according to ICHD-3, and accompanying clinical symptoms were recorded.

RESULTS

The majority of patients with cluster headaches have clinical features that are mapped by the diagnostic criteria of ICHD-3. However, due to the variability of the symptoms, there is a significant proportion of clinical phenotypes that are not captured by the ICHD-3 criteria for cluster headaches. In addition, change in the side of the pain between the cluster episodes, pain location, as well as persisting pain between the attacks is not addressed in the ICHD-3 criteria. In the foreground of the comorbidities are psychological consequences in the form of depression, sleep disorders, and anxiety.

CONCLUSIONS

The variability of the phenotype of cluster headaches can preclude some patients from receiving an appropriate diagnosis and effective therapy if the diagnostic criteria applied are too strict. The occurrence of persisting pain between attacks should also be diagnostically evaluated due to its high prevalence and severity as well as psychological strain. When treating patients with cluster headaches, accompanying psychological illnesses should carefully be taken into account.

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.

Clinical characteristics of pre-attack symptoms in cluster headache: A large series of Korean patients

BACKGROUND

Previous studies have reported notable differences in demographic and clinical features of cluster headache between Western and Asian populations, including lower prevalence of the chronic type and in women. Recently, prodromal symptoms of migraine and pre-attack symptoms of cluster headache have drawn attention regarding their potential pathophysiological implications and pre-emptive treatment. However, pre-attack symptoms of cluster headache have not been studied in the Asian population.

METHODS

A total of 136 patients with cluster headache (21 first-onset, 110 episodic, and five chronic cases) were recruited in this multi-center study between October 2018 and December 2019. We evaluated the characteristics of pre-attack symptoms in a current bout using a structured questionnaire. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to evaluate the factors associated with presence of pre-attack symptoms.

RESULTS

Pre-attack symptoms were reported in 71.3% of our patients with cluster headache. When present, pre-attack symptoms occurred at a median of 20 minutes (range 1-120) before the attack. The prevalence of local and painful, local and painless sensory, autonomic, and general symptoms was 58.8%, 14.7%, 11.0%, and 30.1%, respectively. Multivariable logistic regression analysis revealed that higher number of bouts was associated with higher prevalence of pre-attack symptoms (OR = 1.464, p = 0.044).

CONCLUSIONS

Pre-attack symptoms were frequently observed in Korean patients with cluster headache, which was consistent with previous Western studies.

Differential efficacy of non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation for the acute treatment of episodic and chronic cluster headache: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Two randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled trials (ACT1, ACT2) evaluated non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation (nVNS) as acute treatment for cluster headache. We analyzed pooled ACT1/ACT2 data to increase statistical power and gain insight into the differential efficacy of nVNS in episodic and chronic cluster headache.

METHODS

Data extracted from ACT1 and ACT2 were pooled using a fixed-effects model. Main outcome measures were the primary endpoints of each study. This was the proportion of participants whose first treated attack improved from moderate (2), severe (3), or very severe (4) pain intensity to mild (1) or nil (0) for ACT1 and the proportion of treated attacks whose pain intensity improved from 2-4 to 0 for ACT2.

RESULTS

The pooled population included 225 participants (episodic: n = 112; chronic: n = 113) from ACT1 (n = 133) and ACT2 (n = 92) in the nVNS (n = 108) and sham (n = 117) groups. Interaction was shown between treatment group and cluster headache subtype (p < 0.05). nVNS was superior to sham in episodic but not chronic cluster headache (both endpoints p < 0.01). Only four patients discontinued the studies due to adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

nVNS is a well-tolerated and effective acute treatment for episodic cluster headache.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The studies were registered at clinicaltrials.gov (ACT1: NCT01792817; ACT2: NCT01958125).

A case of remitting hemicrania continua with seasonal variation and clustering: a diagnostic confusion with cluster headache

Hemicrania continua (HC) is an indomethacin responsive primary headache that is characterised by a continuous strictly unilateral headache with periodic exacerbations. About 15% may have a remitting subtype of HC. Herein, we are reporting a 36-year-old man who had a 5-year history of episodic right-sided headaches. The headaches used to occur in a discrete series lasting 4-6 weeks, separated by pain-free remissions of 10-11 months. In each relapse, he had continuous background pain with superimposed exacerbations. The superimposed exacerbations were 1-2 attacks per day, lasting for 2-5 hours, and were associated with ipsilateral cranial autonomic symptoms. However, the patient did not respond to usual therapies of custer headache (CH). He had a complete response to indomethacin. We suggest that remitting subtype of HC may mimic CH. A therapeutic trial of indomethacin should be done in all strictly unilateral headaches who are not responding to other drugs.

The spectrum of cluster headache: A case report of 4600 attacks

Introduction

Knowledge of the clinical features of cluster headache is mainly based on retrospective and cross-sectional studies. Here, we present a case of a chronic cluster headache patient who prospectively recorded timing and clinical features of all attacks for 6 years, aiming to describe the clinical spectrum and timing of cluster headache symptoms experienced and to identify daily and/or seasonal rhythmicity.

Methods

Registration of attack timing, duration, associated symptoms and severity was done prospectively on a smartphone application. Pain severity was recorded on a 0–10 scale. Attacks were divided into mild, moderate, severe, and very severe. We analysed diurnal rhythmicity by multimodal Gaussian analysis and spectral analysis.

Results

In total, 4600 attacks were registered (mean duration 39.3 (SD 18.5) min. Mean severity 3.6 (SD 1.28)). Mild attacks accounted for 14.2%, moderate 65.7%, severe 16.9% and very severe 3.2% of all attacks. Nocturnal attacks were more severe than daytime attacks. The number of autonomic symptoms and duration of attacks increased with pain severity. Peak chronorisk (risk of attacks occurring according to hour of day) was at 12.48 in the registration period. Over time, circadian rhythmicity and attack frequency varied.

Conclusion

Clinical characteristics of cluster headache attacks can vary greatly within the individual patient. Clinicians attempting to personalise the administration of preventive treatment should pay notice to the variation over time in diurnal rhythmicity. The recorded self-limiting mild attacks that do not fulfill the ICHD-3 criteria for a cluster headache attack warrant further investigation, as they could hold important information about disease activity.

Non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation for treatment of cluster headache: early UK clinical experience

Background

Evidence supports the use of non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation (nVNS; gammaCore®) as a promising therapeutic option for patients with cluster headache (CH). We conducted this audit of real-world data from patients with CH, the majority of whom were treatment refractory, to explore early UK clinical experience with nVNS used acutely, preventively, or both.

Methods

We retrospectively analysed data from 30 patients with CH (29 chronic, 1 episodic) who submitted individual funding requests for nVNS to the National Health Service. All patients had responded to adjunctive nVNS therapy during an evaluation period (typical duration, 3–6 months). Data collected from patient interviews, treatment diaries, and physician notes were summarised with descriptive statistics. Paired t tests were used to examine statistical significance.

Results

The mean (SD) CH attack frequency decreased from 26.6 (17.1) attacks/wk. before initiation of nVNS therapy to 9.5 (11.0) attacks/wk. (P < 0.01) afterward. Mean (SD) attack duration decreased from 51.9 (36.7) minutes to 29.4 (28.5) minutes (P < 0.01), and mean (SD) attack severity (rated on a 10-point scale) decreased from 7.8 (2.3) to 6.0 (2.6) (P < 0.01). Use of abortive treatments also decreased. Favourable changes in the use of preventive medication were also observed. No serious device-related adverse events were reported.

Conclusions

Significant decreases in attack frequency, severity, and duration were observed in these patients with CH who did not respond to or were intolerant of multiple preventive and/or acute treatments. These real-world findings complement evidence from clinical trials demonstrating the efficacy and safety of nVNS in CH.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s10194-018-0936-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Cluster headache beyond the pain phase: A prospective study of 500 attacks

OBJECTIVE

To describe the nature, prevalence, and duration of symptoms in the preictal, ictal, and postictal phases of cluster headache (CH) attacks.

METHODS

Fifty-seven patients with episodic or chronic CH participated in this prospective, observational study. In a questionnaire concerning 33 CH and migraine-related symptoms, patients reported the clinical features of up to 10 CH attacks/patient. The questionnaire was divided into 3 sections: a preictal phase, ictal phase, and postictal phase. For each phase, patients documented whether the given symptom was present, and if possible estimated the duration of the symptom.

RESULTS

In total, 500 CH attack descriptions were obtained. In the preictal phase, general symptoms (most frequently concentration difficulties, restlessness, and mood changes) occurred 20 minutes prior to 46.0% of attacks. Local painful and autonomic symptoms were observed 10 minutes prior to 54.6% and 35% of attacks, respectively. Postictally, pain and autonomic symptoms resolved over 20 minutes, leaving patients with fatigue (36.2%), decreased energy (39.0%), and concentration difficulties (27.6%), lasting a median of 60 minutes.

CONCLUSIONS

Preictal and postictal symptoms are very frequent in CH, demonstrating that CH attacks are not composed of a pain phase alone. Since the origin of CH attacks is unresolved, studies of preictal and postictal symptoms could contribute to the understanding of CH pathophysiology and, potentially, early, abortive treatment strategies.

Allodynia in cluster headache

Cutaneous allodynia is an established marker for central sensitization in migraine. There is debate whether cutaneous allodynia may also occur in cluster headache, another episodic headache disorder. Here, we examined the presence and severity of allodynia in a large well-defined nationwide population of people with cluster headache. Using validated questionnaires we assessed, cross-sectionally, ictal allodynia and comorbid depression and migraine in the nationwide "Leiden University Cluster headache neuro-Analysis" (LUCA) study. Participants with cluster headache were diagnosed according to the International Classification of Headache Disorders criteria. Multivariate regression models were used, with correction for demographic factors and cluster headache subtype (chronic vs episodic; recent attacks <1 month vs no recent attacks). In total, 606/798 (75.9%) participants with cluster headache responded; of whom, 218/606 (36%) had allodynia during attacks. Female gender (odds ratio [OR] 2.05, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 1.28-3.29), low age at onset (OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.96-0.99), lifetime depression (OR 1.63, 95% CI 1.06-2.50), comorbid migraine (OR 1.96, 95% CI 1.02-3.79), and having recent attacks (OR 1.80, 95% CI 1.13-2.86), but not duration of attacks and chronic cluster headache, were independent risk factors for allodynia. The high prevalence of cutaneous allodynia with similar risk factors for allodynia as found for migraine suggests that central sensitization, like in migraine, also occurs in cluster headache. In clinical practice, awareness that people with cluster headache may suffer from allodynia can in the future be an important feature in treatment options.

Non-Invasive Vagus Nerve Stimulation for the ACute Treatment of Cluster Headache: Findings From the Randomized, Double-Blind, Sham-Controlled ACT1 Study

Objective

To evaluate non‐invasive vagus nerve stimulation (nVNS) as an acute cluster headache (CH) treatment.

Background

Many patients with CH experience excruciating attacks at a frequency that is not sufficiently addressed by current symptomatic treatments.

Methods

One hundred fifty subjects were enrolled and randomized (1:1) to receive nVNS or sham treatment for ≤1 month during a double‐blind phase; completers could enter a 3‐month nVNS open‐label phase. The primary end point was response rate, defined as the proportion of subjects who achieved pain relief (pain intensity of 0 or 1) at 15 minutes after treatment initiation for the first CH attack without rescue medication use through 60 minutes. Secondary end points included the sustained response rate (15‐60 minutes). Subanalyses of episodic cluster headache (eCH) and chronic cluster headache (cCH) cohorts were prespecified.

Results

The intent‐to‐treat population comprised 133 subjects: 60 nVNS‐treated (eCH, n = 38; cCH, n = 22) and 73 sham‐treated (eCH, n = 47; cCH, n = 26). A response was achieved in 26.7% of nVNS‐treated subjects and 15.1% of sham‐treated subjects (P = .1). Response rates were significantly higher with nVNS than with sham for the eCH cohort (nVNS, 34.2%; sham, 10.6%; P = .008) but not the cCH cohort (nVNS, 13.6%; sham, 23.1%; P = .48). Sustained response rates were significantly higher with nVNS for the eCH cohort (P = .008) and total population (P = .04). Adverse device effects (ADEs) were reported by 35/150 (nVNS, 11; sham, 24) subjects in the double‐blind phase and 18/128 subjects in the open‐label phase. No serious ADEs occurred.

Conclusions

In one of the largest randomized sham‐controlled studies for acute CH treatment, the response rate was not significantly different (vs sham) for the total population; nVNS provided significant, clinically meaningful, rapid, and sustained benefits for eCH but not for cCH, which affected results in the total population. This safe and well‐tolerated treatment represents a novel and promising option for eCH. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01792817.

Chronic cluster headache and the pituitary gland

BACKGROUND

Cluster headache is classified as a primary headache by definition not caused by an underlying pathology. However, symptomatic cases of otherwise typical cluster headache have been reported.

CASE PRESENTATION

A 47-year-old male suffered from primary chronic cluster headache (CCH, ICHD-3 beta criteria fulfilled) since the age of 35 years. A magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) study of the brain in 2006 came back normal. He tried several prophylactic treatments but was never longer than 1 month without attacks. He was under chronic treatment with verapamil with only a limited effect on the attack frequency. Subcutaneous sumatriptan 6 mg injections were very effective in aborting attacks. By February 2014 the patient developed a continuous interictal pain ipsilateral to the right-sided cluster headache attacks. An indomethacin test (up to 225 mg/day orally) was negative. Because of the change in headache pattern we performed a new brain MRI, which showed a cystic structure in the pituitary gland. The differential diagnosis was between a Rathke cleft cyst and a cystic adenoma. Pituitary function tests showed an elevated serum prolactin level. A dopamine agonist (cabergoline) was started and the headache subsided completely. Potential pathophysiological mechanisms of pituitary tumor-associated headache are discussed.

CONCLUSION

Neuroimaging should be considered in all patients with CCH, especially those with an atypical presentation or evolution. Response to acute treatment does not exclude a secondary form of cluster headache. There may be shared pathophysiological mechanisms of primary and secondary cluster headache.

[Epidemiology, clinical presentation, diagnosis, natural history and screening of cluster headache]

This review is focused on the essential data about epidemiology, clinical presentation, diagnosis, natural history and screening for cluster headache.

[Therapy of trigeminal autonomic headaches]

Trigeminal autonomic cephalgias (TAC) are characterized by severe and strictly unilateral headaches with a frontotemporal and periorbital preponderance in combination with ipsilateral cranial autonomic symptoms, such as lacrimation, conjunctival injection, rhinorrhea, nasal congestion, and restlessness or agitation. One main differentiating factor is the duration of painful attacks. While attacks typically last 5 s to 10 min in SUNCT syndrome (short-lasting unilateral neuralgiform headache attacks with conjunctival injection and tearing), paroxysmal hemicrania lasts 2-30 min and cluster headaches 15-180 min. Hemicrania continua represents a continuous TAC variant. From a therapeutic view, TACs differ substantially. Lamotrigine is used as first-choice prevention in SUNCT syndrome and indometacin in paroxysmal hemicrania. For cluster headaches, acute therapy with inhaled pure oxygen and fast-acting triptans (sumatriptan s.c. and intranasal zolmitriptan) is equally important to short-term preventive therapy with methysergide and cortisone and long-term prophylactic treatment comprising verapamil as drug of first choice and lithium carbonate and topiramate as drugs of second choice. In refractory cases of chronic cluster headache, neuromodulatory approaches such as occipital nerve stimulation and sphenopalatine ganglion stimulation are increasingly applied.

Paroxysmal hemicrania: a retrospective study of a consecutive series of 22 patients and a critical analysis of the diagnostic criteria

Background

Paroxysmal hemicrania (PH) is a probably underreported primary headache disorder. It is characterized by repeated attacks of severe, strictly unilateral pain lasting 2 to 30 minutes localized to orbital, supraorbital, and temporal areas accompanied by ipsilateral autonomic features. The hallmark of PH is the absolute cessation of the headache with indomethacin. However, these all features may not be present in all cases and a few cases may remain unclassified according to the 2nd Edition of The International classification of Headache Disorders (ICHD-II) criteria for PH.

Methods

Twenty-two patients were included in this retrospective observation.

Results

We describe 17 patients, observed over six years, who fulfilled the ICHD-II criteria for PH. In parallel, we identified five more patients in whom one of the features of the diagnostic criteria for PH was missing. Two patients did not show any evidence of cranial autonomic feature during the attacks of headache. Another two patients did not fulfill the criteria for PH as the maximum attack frequency was less than five. One patient had an incomplete response to indomethacin.

Conclusion

A subset of patients may not have all the defined features of PH and there is a need for refinement of the existing diagnostic criteria.

A proposal for revision of hemicrania continua diagnostic criteria based on critical analysis of 62 patients

BACKGROUND

Misdiagnosis of hemicrania continua (HC) is common. It is diagnosed according to the criteria of the International Headache Society (IHS), but in clinical practice, these criteria seem too restrictive and many hemicrania continua-like headaches remain unclassified.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

We retrospectively studied the patients fulfilling the IHS criteria for HC. In addition, we identified a group of patients who met all criteria minus cranial autonomic features (HC-A) or minus a complete response to indomethacin (HC-I). We compared epidemiological profiles, clinical features and therapeutic responses to drug(s) between the groups. In addition, we reviewed the literature and critically analysed the diagnostic criteria for HC.

RESULTS

Sixty-two patients with a putative diagnosis of HC were identified. Thirty patients (48%) fulfilled the IHS criteria for HC. Thirty-two (52%) patients failed to satisfy one of the features of HC. Thirteen patients (21%) did not show any evidence of cranial autonomic feature during the episodes of the exacerbations (HC-A). Another 19 patients (31%) did not show a complete response to indomethacin (HC-I). Epidemiological and clinical features of all three groups were compared. None of the differences were statistically significant. In review of the literature, we noted that cranial autonomic features, a sense of restlessness/agitation during exacerbations, and response to indomethacin (marked to complete) are the specific features of HC. However, these features may not all be present in all cases.

CONCLUSION

Present diagnostic criteria are too restrictive. We suggest adding the site of pain in the criteria, as described for trigeminal autonomic cephalalgias. Cranial autonomic features, a sense of restlessness during exacerbations, and marked to complete response to indomethacin are three characteristics features of HC. We suggest that the presence of any two may be sufficient to diagnose HC.

Interictal pain in primary headache syndromes

Primary headache disorders are generally characterized by the pain, time course, and associated symptoms of their attacks, but often are accompanied by milder interictal pain. Patients with chronic migraine, chronic tension-type headache, hemicrania continua, and new daily-persistent headache have constant pain more often than not. Patients with trigeminal autonomic cephalalgias such as cluster headache commonly have interictal pain as well, usually much milder and unilateral to the side of attacks. Even those with rare headache types, including hypnic headache and trigeminal neuralgia, commonly have interictal pain. This review describes the incidence of interictal pain in primary headache disorders and suggests the significance and biological meanings of this pain.

Cluster headache: clinical features and therapeutic options

BACKGROUND

Cluster headache is the most common type of trigemino-autonomic headache, affecting ca. 120 000 persons in Germany alone. The attacks of pain are in the periorbital area on one side, last 90 minutes on average, and are accompanied by trigemino-autonomic manifestations and restlessness. Most patients have episodic cluster headache; about 15% have chronic cluster headache, with greater impairment of their quality of life. The attacks often possess a circadian and seasonal rhythm.

METHOD

Selective literature review

RESULTS

Oxygen inhalation and triptans are effective acute treatment for cluster attacks. First-line drugs for attack prophylaxis include verapamil and cortisone; alternatively, lithium and topiramate can be given. Short-term relief can be obtained by the subcutaneous infiltration of local anesthetics and steroids along the course of the greater occipital nerve, although most of the evidence in favor of this is not derived from randomized clinical trials. Patients whose pain is inadequately relieved by drug treatment can be offered newer, invasive treatments, such as deep brain stimulation in the hypothalamus (DBS) and bilateral occipital nerve stimulation (ONS).

CONCLUSION

Pharmacotherapy for the treatment of acute attacks and for attack prophylaxis is effective in most patients. For the minority who do not gain adequate relief, newer invasive techniques are available in some referral centers. Definitive conclusions as to their value cannot yet be drawn from the available data.

Phantom headache: pain-memory-emotion hypothesis for chronic daily headache?

The neurobiology of chronic pain, including chronic daily headache (CDH) is not completely understood. “Pain memory” hypothesis is one of the mechanisms for phantom limb pain. We reviewed the literature to delineate a relation of “pain memory” for the development of CDH. There is a direct relation of pain to memory. Patients with poor memory have less chance to develop “pain memory”, hence less possibility to develop chronic pain. Progressive memory impairment may lead to decline in headache prevalence. A similar relation of pain is also noted with emotional or psychiatric symptoms. Literature review suggests that there is marked overlap in the neural network of pain to that of memory and emotions. We speculate that pain, memory, and emotions are interrelated in triangular pattern, and each of these three is related to other two in bidirectional pattern, i.e., stimulation of one of these will stimulate other symptoms/networks and vice versa (triangular theory for chronic pain). Longstanding or recurrent noxious stimuli will strengthen this interrelation, and this may be responsible for chronicity of pain. Reduction of both chronic pain and psychological symptoms by cognitive behavioral therapy or psychological interventions further suggests a bidirectional interrelation between pain and emotion. Longitudinal studies are warranted on the prevalence of headache and other painful conditions in patients with progressive memory impairment to delineate the relation of pain to memory. Interrelation of headache to emotional symptoms should also be explored.