Neuromodulation of the posterolateral hypothalamus for the treatment of chronic refractory cluster headache: Experience in five patients with a modified anatomical target

A prospective open label 2-8 year extension of the randomised controlled ICON trial on the long-term efficacy and safety of occipital nerve stimulation in medically intractable chronic cluster headache

BACKGROUND

We demonstrated in the randomised controlled ICON study that 48-week treatment of medically intractable chronic cluster headache (MICCH) with occipital nerve stimulation (ONS) is safe and effective. In L-ICON we prospectively evaluate its long-term effectiveness and safety.

METHODS

ICON participants were enrolled in L-ICON immediately after completing ICON. Therefore, earlier ICON participants could be followed longer than later ones. L-ICON inclusion was stopped after the last ICON participant was enrolled in L-ICON and followed for ≥2 years by completing six-monthly questionnaires on attack frequency, side effects, subjective improvement and whether they would recommend ONS to others. Primary outcome was the change in mean weekly attack frequency 2 years after completion of the ICON study compared to baseline. Missing values for log-transformed attack-frequency were imputed for up to 5 years of follow-up. Descriptive analyses are presented as (pooled) geometric or arithmetic means and 95% confidence intervals.

FINDINGS

Of 103 eligible participants, 88 (85%) gave informed consent and 73 (83%) were followed for ≥2 year, 61 (69%) ≥ 3 year, 33 (38%) ≥ 5 years and 3 (3%) ≥ 8.5 years. Mean (±SD) follow-up was 4.2 ± 2.2 years for a total of 370 person years (84% of potentially 442 years). The pooled geometric mean (95% CI) weekly attack frequency remained considerably lower after one (4.2; 2.8-6.3), two (5.1; 3.5-7.6) and five years (4.1; 3.0-5.5) compared to baseline (16.2; 14.4-18.3). Of the 49/88 (56%) ICON ≥50% responders, 35/49 (71%) retained this response and 15/39 (38%) ICON non-responders still became a ≥50% responder for at least half the follow-up period. Most participants (69/88; 78% [0.68-0.86]) reported a subjective improvement from baseline at last follow-up and 70/88 (81% [0.70-0.87]) would recommend ONS to others. Hardware-related surgery was required in 44/88 (50%) participants in 112/122 (92%) events (0.35 person-year-1 [0.28-0.41]). We didn't find predictive factors for effectiveness.

INTERPRETATION

ONS is a safe, well-tolerated and long-term effective treatment for MICCH.

FUNDING

The Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research, the Dutch Ministry of Health, the NutsOhra Foundation from the Dutch Health Insurance Companies, and Medtronic.

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.

Deep Brain Stimulation for Chronic Cluster Headaches: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Chronic cluster headache (CCH) is a severe and debilitating sub-type of trigeminal autonomic cephalalgia that can be resistant to medical management and associated with significant impairment in quality of life. Studies of deep brain stimulation (DBS) for CCH have provided promising results but have not been assessed in a comprehensive systematic review/meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE

The objective was to perform a systematic literature review and meta-analysis of patients with CCH treated with DBS to provide insight on safety and efficacy.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed according to PRISMA 2020 guidelines. 16 studies were included in final analysis. A random-effects model was used to meta-analyze data.

RESULTS

Sixteen studies reported 108 cases for data extraction and analysis. DBS was feasible in >99% of cases and was performed either awake or asleep. Meta-analysis revealed that the mean difference in headache attack frequency and headache intensity after DBS were statistically significant (p < 0.0001). Utilization of microelectrode recording was associated with statistically significant improvement in headache intensity postoperatively (p = 0.006). The average overall follow-up period was 45.4 months and ranged from 1 to 144 months. Death occurred in <1%. The rate of major complications was 16.67%.

CONCLUSIONS

DBS for CCHs is a feasible surgical technique with a reasonable safety profile that can be successfully performed either awake or asleep. In carefully selected patients, approximately 70% of patients achieve excellent control of their headaches.

Neurosurgical Treatment of Pain

The aim of this review is to draw attention to neurosurgical approaches for treating chronic and opioid-resistant pain. In a first chapter, an up-to-date overview of the main pathophysiological mechanisms of pain has been carried out, with special emphasis on the details in which the surgical treatment is based. In a second part, the principal indications and results of different surgical approaches are reviewed. Cordotomy, Myelotomy, DREZ lesions, Trigeminal Nucleotomy, Mesencephalotomy, and Cingulotomy are revisited. Ablative procedures have a limited role in the management of chronic non-cancer pain, but they continues to help patients with refractory cancer-related pain. Another ablation lesion has been named and excluded, due to lack of current relevance. Peripheral Nerve, Spine Cord, and the principal possibilities of Deep Brain and Motor Cortex Stimulation are also revisited. Regarding electrical neuromodulation, patient selection remains a challenge.

Neurostimulation Treatment in Chronic Cluster Headache-a Narrative Review

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

In this narrative review, the current literature on neurostimulation methods in the treatment of chronic cluster headache is evaluated. These neurostimulation methods include deep brain stimulation, vagus nerve stimulation, greater occipital nerve stimulation, sphenopalatine ganglion stimulation, transcranial magnetic stimulation, transcranial direct current stimulation, supraorbital nerve stimulation, and cervical spinal cord stimulation.

RECENT FINDINGS

Altogether, only nVNS and SPG stimulation are supported by at least one positive sham-controlled clinical trial for preventive and acute attack (only SPG stimulation) treatment. Other clinical trials either did not control at all or controlled by differences in the stimulation technique itself but not by a sham-control. Case series report higher responder rates. The evidence for these neurostimulation methods in the treatment of chronic cluster headache is poor and in part contradictive. However, except deep brain stimulation, tolerability and safety of these methods are good so that in refractory situations application might be justified in individual cases.

Directional Deep Brain Stimulation of the Posteromedial Hypothalamus for Refractory Intermittent Explosive Disorder: A Case Series Using a Novel Neurostimulation Device and Intraoperative Microdialysis

BACKGROUND

Intermittent explosive disorder (IED) is a psychiatric disorder characterized by recurrent outbursts of aggressive behavior. Deep brain stimulation (DBS) in the posteromedial nucleus of the hypothalamus (pHyp) is an alternative therapy for extreme cases and shows promising results. Intraoperative microdialysis can help elucidate the neurobiological mechanism of pHyp-DBS. We sought to evaluate efficacy and safety of pHyp-DBS using 8-contact directional leads in patients with refractory IED (rIED) and the accompanying changes in neurotransmitters.

METHODS

This was a prospective study in which patients with a diagnosis of rIED were treated with pHyp-DBS for symptom alleviation. Bilateral pHyp-DBS was performed with 8-contact directional electrodes. Follow-up was performed at 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery.

RESULTS

Four patients (3 men, mean age 27 ± 2.8 years) were included. All patients were diagnosed with rIED and severe intellectual disability. Two patients had congenital rubella, one had a co-diagnosis of infantile autism, and the fourth presented with drug-resistant epilepsy. There was a marked increase in the levels of gamma-aminobutyric acid and glycine during intraoperative stimulation. The average improvement in aggressive behavior in the last follow-up was 6 points (Δ: 50%, P = 0.003) while also documenting an important improvement of the Short Form Health Survey in all domains except bodily pain. No adverse events associated with pHyp-DBS were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first study to show the safety and beneficial effect of directional lead pHyp-DBS in patients with rIED and to demonstrate the corresponding mechanism of action through increases in gamma-aminobutyric acid and glycine concentration in the pHyp.

Neuromodulation in headache and craniofacial neuralgia: guidelines from the Spanish Society of Neurology and the Spanish Society of Neurosurgery

INTRODUCTION

Numerous invasive and non-invasive neuromodulation devices have been developed and applied to patients with headache and neuralgia in recent years. However, no updated review addresses their safety and efficacy, and no healthcare institution has issued specific recommendations on their use for these 2 conditions.

METHODS

Neurologists from the Spanish Society of Neurology's (SEN) Headache Study Group and neurosurgeons specialising in functional neurosurgery, selected by the Spanish Society of Neurosurgery (SENEC), performed a comprehensive review of articles on the MEDLINE database addressing the use of the technique in patients with headache and neuralgia.

RESULTS

We present an updated review and establish the first set of consensus recommendations of the SEN and SENC on the use of neuromodulation to treat headache and neuralgia, analysing the current levels of evidence on its effectiveness for each specific condition.

CONCLUSIONS

Current evidence supports the indication of neuromodulation techniques for patients with refractory headache and neuralgia (especially migraine, cluster headache, and trigeminal neuralgia) selected by neurologists and headache specialists, after pharmacological treatment options are exhausted. Furthermore, we recommend that invasive neuromodulation be debated by multidisciplinary committees, and that the procedure be performed by teams of neurosurgeons specialising in functional neurosurgery, with acceptable rates of morbidity and mortality.

Localization of the Sphenopalatine Ganglion Within the Pterygopalatine Fossa on Computed Tomography Angiography-A Potential Role in the Setting of Sphenopalatine Ganglion Microstimulator Implantation

OBJECTIVES

A recent approach to treatment of cluster headaches (CH) employs a microstimulator device for on-demand neuromodulation of the sphenopalatine ganglion (SPG) during an acute CH attack. A precise anatomical localization of the SPG within the pterygopalatine fossa (PPF) is optimal in order to position the SPG electrode array. This study aims to investigate a novel approach for SPG localization using computed tomography angiographic studies (CTA).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Two independent observers identified the location of the SPG on 54 computed tomography angiographic studies (CTA) and measured its position relative to the vidian canal (VC). The qualitative confidence of identification, morphology, position within the PPF and its relation to vascular structures were also recorded.

RESULTS

The SPG was detectable in 88% of cases with a variable position. The most frequent positions were superior (56%) and lateral (99%) relative to the VC with a mean (±SD) craniocaudal distance of 0.34 mm (±1.38) and a mean mediolateral distance of 3.04 mm (±1.2). However, in a considerable proportion of cases, the SPG was identified inferiorly to the VC (33%). Interobserver and intraobserver agreement for SPG location were moderate and strong respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Since localization of SPG on CTAs is feasible and reproducible, it has future clinical potential to aid placement, optimal positioning and individualized programming of the electrode array.

Deep brain stimulation modulates hypothalamic-brainstem fibers in cluster headache: case report

Hypothalamic deep brain stimulation (DBS) has been used for more than a decade to treat cluster headache (CH) but its mechanisms remain poorly understood. The authors have successfully treated a patient with CH using hypothalamic DBS and found that the contact used for chronic stimulation was located in a white matter region posterior to the mammillary bodies. Fiber tracts crossing that region were the medial forebrain bundle and those interconnecting the hypothalamus and brainstem, including the dorsal longitudinal fasciculus. Because the stimulation of axons is an important mechanism of DBS, some of its clinical effects in CH may be related to the stimulation of fibers interconnecting the hypothalamus and brainstem.

Efficacy and safety of surgical treatment of cluster headache

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

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

PATIENTS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Cluster headache: insights from resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging

The comprehension of cluster headache (CH) has greatly benefited from the tremendous progress of the neuroimaging techniques over the last 20 years. Since the pioneering study of May et al. (1998), the neuroimaging results have indeed revolutionized the conception of this disease, now considered as a dysfunction of the central nervous system. Clinical, neuroendocrinological, and neuroimaging studies strongly suggested the involvement of the hypothalamus as the generator of cluster headache attacks. However, the latency of the improvement and the inefficacy of the hypothalamic deep brain stimulation (DBS) in the acute phase suggested that the hypothalamus might play a modulating role, pointing to the presence of some dysfunctional brain networks, normalized or modulated by the DBS. Despite the great importance of possible dysfunctional hypothalamic networks in cluster headache pathophysiology, only quite recently the scientific community has begun to explore the functional connectivity of these circuits using resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging. This is a neuroimaging technique extensively employed to investigate the functional connectivity among separated regions of the brain at rest in the low-frequency domain (< 0.1 Hz). Here, we present a review of the few resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging studies investigating the hypothalamic network contributing to a deeper comprehension of this neurological disorder. These studies seem to demonstrate that both the hypothalamus and the diencephalic-mesencephalic junction regions might play an important role in the pathophysiology of CH. However, future studies are needed to confirm the results and to clarify if the observed dysfunctional networks are a specific neural fingerprint of the CH pathophysiology or an effect of the severe acute pain. It will be also crucial to clarify the neural pathways of the chronicization of this disorder.

Targeted Acid-Sensing Ion Channel Therapies for Migraine

Acid-sensing ion channels (ASICs) are a family of ion channels, consisting of four members; ASIC1 to 4. These channels are sensitive to changes in pH and are expressed throughout the central and peripheral nervous systems-including brain, spinal cord, and sensory ganglia. They have been implicated in a number of neurological conditions such as stroke and cerebral ischemia, traumatic brain injury, and epilepsy, and more recently in migraine. Their expression within areas of interest in the brain in migraine, such as the hypothalamus and PAG, their demonstrated involvement in preclinical models of meningeal afferent signaling, and their role in cortical spreading depression (the electrophysiological correlate of migraine aura), has enhanced research interest into these channels as potential therapeutic targets in migraine. Migraine is a disorder with a paucity of both acute and preventive therapies available, in which at best 50% of patients respond to available medications, and these medications often have intolerable side effects. There is therefore a great need for therapeutic development for this disabling condition. This review will summarize the understanding of the structure and CNS expression of ASICs, the mechanisms for their potential role in nociception, recent work in migraine, and areas for future research and drug development.

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.

Assessing and treating primary headaches and cranio-facial pain in patients undergoing rehabilitation for neurological diseases

BACKGROUND

Pain is a very common condition in patient undergoing rehabilitation for neurological disease; however the presence of primary headaches and other cranio-facial pains, particularly when they are actually or apparently independent from the disability for which patient is undergoing rehabilitation, is often neglected. Diagnostic and therapeutic international and national guidelines, as well as tools for the subjective measure of head pain are available and should also be applied in the neurorehabilitation setting. This calls for searching the presence of head pain, independently from the rehabilitation needs, since pain, either episodic or chronic, interferes with patient performance by affecting physical and emotional status. Pain may also interfere with sleep and therefore hamper recovery.

METHODS

In our role of task force of the Italian Consensus Conference on Pain in Neurorehabilitation (ICCPN), we have elaborated specific recommendations for diagnosing and treating head pains in patients undergoing rehabilitation for neurological diseases.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

In this narrative review, we describe the available literature that has been evaluated in order to define the recommendations and outline the needs of epidemiological studies concerning headache and other cranio-facial pain in neurorehabilitation.

Cluster headache and other TACs: Pathophysiology and neurostimulation options

BACKGROUND

The trigeminal autonomic cephalalgias (TACs) are highly disabling primary headache disorders. There are several issues that remain unresolved in the understanding of the pathophysiology of the TACs, although activation of the trigeminal-autonomic reflex and ipsilateral hypothalamic activation both play a central role. The discovery of the central role of the hypothalamus led to its use as a therapeutic target. After the good results obtained with hypothalamic stimulation, other peripheral neuromodulation targets were tried in the management of refractory cluster headache (CH) and other TACs.

METHODS

This review is a summary both of CH pathophysiology and of efficacy of the different neuromodulation techniques.

RESULTS

In chronic cluster headache (CCH) patients, hypothalamic deep brain stimulation (DBS) produced a decrease in attack frequency of more than 50% in 60% of patients. Occipital nerve stimulation (ONS) also elicited favorable outcomes with a reduction of more than 50% of attacks in around 70% of patients with medically intractable CCH. Stimulation of the sphenopalatine ganglion (SPG) with a miniaturized implanted stimulator produced a clinically significant improvement in 68% of patients (acute, preventive, or both). Vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) with a portable device used in conjunction with standard of care in CH patients resulted in a reduction in the number of attacks. DBS and ONS have been used successfully in some cases of other TACs, including hemicrania continua (HC) and short-lasting unilateral headache attacks (SUNHA).

CONCLUSIONS

DBS has good results, but it is a more invasive technique and can generate serious adverse events. ONS has good results, but frequent and not serious adverse events. SPG stimulation (SPGS) is also efficacious in the acute and prophylactic treatment of refractory cluster headache. At this moment, ONS and SPG stimulation techniques are recommended as first line therapy in refractory cluster patients. New recent non-invasive approaches such as the non-invasive vagal nerve stimulator (nVNS) have shown efficacy in a few trials and could be an interesting alternative in the management of CH, but require more testing and positive randomized controlled trials.

Deep brain stimulation in headache

BACKGROUND

Deep brain stimulation of the posterior hypothalamic area was first introduced in 2000 to treat drug-refractory chronic cluster headache (CH).

FINDINGS

So far, hypothalamic stimulation has been employed in 79 patients suffering from various forms of intractable short-lasting unilateral headache forms, mainly trigeminal autonomic cephalalgias. The majority were (88.6%) chronic CH, including one patient who suffered from symptomatic chronic CH-like attacks; the remaining were short-lasting unilateral neuralgiform headache attacks with conjunctival injection and tearing (SUNCT), one had paroxysmal hemicranias and one symptomatic trigeminal neuralgia. Overall, after a mean follow up of 2.2 years, 69.6% (55) hypothalamic-stimulated patients showed a ≥50% improvement.

CONCLUSIONS

These observations need confirmation in randomised, controlled trials. A key role of the posterior hypothalamic area in the pathophysiology of unilateral short-lasting headaches, possibly by regulating the duration rather than triggering the attacks, can be hypothesised. Because of its invasiveness, hypothalamic stimulation can be proposed only after other, less-invasive, neurostimulation procedures have been tried.

Stimulation of the ventral tegmental area increased nociceptive thresholds and decreased spinal dorsal horn neuronal activity in rat

Deep brain stimulation has been found to be effective in relieving intractable pain. The ventral tegmental area (VTA) plays a role not only in the reward process, but also in the modulation of nociception. Lesions of VTA result in increased pain thresholds and exacerbate pain in several pain models. It is hypothesized that direct activation of VTA will reduce pain experience. In this study, we investigated the effect of direct electrical stimulation of the VTA on mechanical, thermal and carrageenan-induced chemical nociceptive thresholds in Sprague-Dawley rats using our custom-designed wireless stimulator. We found that: (1) VTA stimulation itself did not show any change in mechanical or thermal threshold; and (2) the decreased mechanical and thermal thresholds induced by carrageenan injection in the hind paw contralateral to the stimulation site were significantly reversed by VTA stimulation. To further explore the underlying mechanism of VTA stimulation-induced analgesia, spinal cord dorsal horn neuronal responses to graded mechanical stimuli were recorded. VTA stimulation significantly inhibited dorsal horn neuronal activity in response to pressure and pinch from the paw, but not brush. This indicated that VTA stimulation may have exerted its analgesic effect via descending modulatory pain pathways, possibly through its connections with brain stem structures and cerebral cortex areas.

Neurostimulation for Treatment of Migraine and Cluster Headache

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this narrative review is to summarize the current state of neurostimulation therapies for the treatment of migraine and/or cluster.

METHODS

For this narrative review, publications were identified by searching PubMed using the search terms "migraine" or "cluster" combined with "vagal nerve stimulation," "transcranial magnetic stimulation," "supraorbital nerve stimulation," "sphenopalatine ganglion stimulation," "occipital nerve stimulation," "deep brain stimulation," "neurostimulation," or "neuromodulation." Publications were chosen based on the quality of data that were provided and their relevance to the chosen topics of interest for this review. Reference lists of chosen articles and the authors' own files were used to identify additional publications. Current clinical trials were identified by searching clinicaltrials.org.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

Neurostimulation of the vagal nerve, supraorbital nerve, occipital nerve and sphenopalatine ganglion, transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), and deep brain stimulation have been investigated for the treatment of migraine and/or cluster. Whereas invasive methods of neurostimulation would be reserved for patients with very severe and treatment refractory migraine or cluster, noninvasive methods of stimulation might serve as useful adjuncts to more conventional therapies. Currently, transcutaneous supraorbital nerve stimulation is FDA approved and commercially available for migraine prevention and TMS is FDA approved for the treatment of migraine with aura. The potential utility of each type of neurostimulation has yet to be completely defined.

Deep brain stimulation for chronic pain

Deep brain stimulation (DBS) is a neurosurgical intervention popularised in movement disorders such as Parkinson's disease, and also reported to improve symptoms of epilepsy, Tourette's syndrome, obsessive compulsive disorders and cluster headache. Since the 1950s, DBS has been used as a treatment to relieve intractable pain of several aetiologies including post stroke pain, phantom limb pain, facial pain and brachial plexus avulsion. Several patient series have shown benefits in stimulating various brain areas, including the sensory thalamus (ventral posterior lateral and medial), the periaqueductal and periventricular grey, or, more recently, the anterior cingulate cortex. However, this technique remains "off label" in the USA as it does not have Federal Drug Administration approval. Consequently, only a small number of surgeons report DBS for pain using current technology and techniques and few regions approve it. Randomised, blinded and controlled clinical trials that may use novel trial methodologies are desirable to evaluate the efficacy of DBS in patients who are refractory to other therapies. New imaging techniques, including tractography, may help optimise electrode placement and clinical outcome.

Deep brain stimulation for chronic pain: intracranial targets, clinical outcomes, and trial design considerations

For over half a century, neurosurgeons have attempted to treat pain from a diversity of causes using acute and chronic intracranial stimulation. Targets of stimulation have included the sensory thalamus, periventricular and periaqueductal gray, the septum, the internal capsule, the motor cortex, posterior hypothalamus, and more recently, the anterior cingulate cortex. The current work focuses on presenting and evaluating the evidence for the efficacy of these targets in a historical context while also highlighting the major challenges to having a double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trial. Considerations for pain research in general and use of intracranial targets specifically are included.

Deep brain and motor cortex stimulation

Deep brain stimulation (DBS) and motor cortex stimulation (MCS) are established surgical modalities that have been successfully used over the last several decades for treatment of numerous chronic pain disorders. Most often, these approaches are reserved for severe, disabling, and medically refractory syndromes after less invasive approaches have been tried and have failed. Although the exact mechanism of action for DBS and MCS remains unknown, it appears that these central neuromodulation processes have multifactorial effects on central pain processing and descending pain inhibition. Clinical studies and laboratory reports have shed some light on stimulation details and optimal parameters, as well as the choice of stimulation targets, best surgical indications, and expected long-term outcomes. Based on the worldwide published experience, it appears that additional data is needed to obtain regulatory approval for both MCS and DBS for the treatment of pain. Following approval, further clinical research will shape the ability to initiate, implement, and update comprehensive patient and procedure selection paradigms.

Neuromodulation in cluster headache

Medically refractory chronic cluster headache (CH) is a severely disabling headache condition for which several surgical procedures have been proposed as a prophylactic treatment. None of them have been evaluated in controlled conditions, only open studies and case series being available. Destructive procedures (radiofrequency lesioning, radiosurgery, section) and microvascular decompression of the trigeminal nerve or the sphenopalatine ganglion (SPG) have induced short-term improvement which did not maintain on long term in most of the patients. They carried a high risk of complications, including severe sensory loss and neuropathic pain, and consequently should not be proposed in first intention.Deep brain stimulation (DBS), targeting the presumed CH generator in the retro-hypothalamic region or fibers connecting it, decreased the attack frequency >50 in 60 % of the 52 patients reported. Complications were infrequent: gaze disturbances, autonomic disturbances, and intracranial hemorrhage (2).Occipital nerve stimulation (ONS) was efficient (decrease of attack frequency >50 %) in about 70 % of the 60 patients reported, with a low risk of complications (essentially hardware related). Considering their respective risks, ONS should be proposed first and DBS only in case of ONS failure.New on-demand chronically implanted SPG stimulation seemed to be efficient to abort CH attacks in a pilot controlled trial, but its long-term safety needs to be further studied.

Supraspinal stimulation for treatment of refractory pain

Refractory pain syndromes often have far reaching effects and are quite a challenge for primary care providers and specialists alike to treat. With the help of site-specific neuromodulation and appropriate patient selection these difficult to treat pain syndromes may be managed. In this article, we focus on supraspinal stimulation (SSS) for treatment of intractable pain and discuss off-label uses of deep brain stimulation (DBS) and motor cortex stimulation (MCS) in context to emerging indications in neuromodulation. Consideration for neuromodulatory treatment begins with rigorous patient selection based on exhaustive conservative management, elimination of secondary gains, and a proper psychology evaluation. Trial stimulation prior to DBS is nearly always performed while trial stimulation prior to MCS surgery is symptom dependent. Overall, a review of the literature demonstrates that DBS should be considered for refractory conditions including nociceptive/neuropathic pain, phantom limb pain, and chronic cluster headache (CCH). MCS should be considered primarily for trigeminal neuropathic pain (TNP) and central pain. DBS outcome studies for post-stroke pain as well as MCS studies for complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) show more modest results and are also discussed in detail.

Stimulation of the sphenopalatine ganglion in intractable cluster headache: expert consensus on patient selection and standards of care

CONTEXT AND OVERVIEW

Chronic cluster headache (CCH) is a debilitating headache disorder with a significant impairment of the patients' lives. Within the past decade, various invasive neuromodulatory approaches have been proposed for the treatment of CCH refractory to standard preventive drug, but only very few randomized controlled studies exist in the field of neuromodulation for the treatment of drug-refractory headaches. Based on the prominent role of the cranial parasympathetic system in acute cluster headache attacks, high-frequency sphenopalatine ganglion (SPG) stimulation has been shown to abort ongoing attacks in some patients in a first small study. As preventive effects of SPG-stimulation have been suggested and the rate of long-term side effects was moderate, SPG stimulation appears to be a promising new treatment strategy.

AIMS AND CONCLUSION

As SPG stimulation is effective in some patients and the first commercially available CE-marked SPG neurostimulator system has been introduced for cluster headache, patient selection and care should be standardized to ensure maximal efficacy and safety. As only limited data have been published on SPG stimulation, standards of care based on expert consensus are proposed to ensure homogeneous patient selection and treatment across international headache centres. Given that SPG stimulation is still a novel approach, all expert-based consensus on patient selection and standards of care should be re-reviewed when more long-term data are available.

Pearls and pitfalls: neurostimulation in headache

CONTEXT

A variety of neuromodulatory approaches available today has broadened our therapeutic options significantly especially in drug refractory patients with chronic cluster headache and chronic migraine.

OVERVIEW

It is a dynamic field with a current trend to non-invasive transcutaneous stimulation approaches. However, sound studies providing evidence for the widespread use of these novel approaches are sparse. For invasive approaches, occipital nerve stimulation is now widely considered the treatment of first choice in chronic trigeminal autonomic cephalgias and - with limitations - chronic migraine. Although equally effective, deep brain stimulation is considered second-line treatment in cluster headache because of its potentially life-threatening side effects. Most recently, stimulation of the sphenopalatine ganglion has also been shown to effectively abort acute cluster headache attacks. Interesting other upcoming approaches include transcutaneous supraorbital nerve stimulation and transcutaneous vagal nerve stimulation.

CONCLUSION

Pearls and pitfalls of common invasive and non-invasive neuromodulatory approaches and open questions are summarised in this review along with recommendations for future studies.

Neuromodulation of chronic headaches: position statement from the European Headache Federation

The medical treatment of patients with chronic primary headache syndromes (chronic migraine, chronic tension-type headache, chronic cluster headache, hemicrania continua) is challenging as serious side effects frequently complicate the course of medical treatment and some patients may be even medically intractable. When a definitive lack of responsiveness to conservative treatments is ascertained and medication overuse headache is excluded, neuromodulation options can be considered in selected cases. Here, the various invasive and non-invasive approaches, such as hypothalamic deep brain stimulation, occipital nerve stimulation, stimulation of sphenopalatine ganglion, cervical spinal cord stimulation, vagus nerve stimulation, transcranial direct current stimulation, repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation are extensively published although proper RCT-based evidence is limited. The European Headache Federation herewith provides a consensus statement on the clinical use of neuromodulation in headache, based on theoretical background, clinical data, and side effect of each method. This international consensus further gives recommendations for future studies on these new approaches. In spite of a growing field of stimulation devices in headaches treatment, further controlled studies to validate, strengthen and disseminate the use of neurostimulation are clearly warranted. Consequently, until these data are available any neurostimulation device should only be used in patients with medically intractable syndromes from tertiary headache centers either as part of a valid study or have shown to be effective in such controlled studies with an acceptable side effect profile.

Common cerebral networks associated with distinct deep brain stimulation targets for cluster headache

BACKGROUND

Several centers have reported efficacious cluster headache suppression with deep brain stimulation (DBS) of the hypothalamic region using a variety of targets. While the connectivity of some of these targets has individually been studied, commonalities across these targets, especially with respect to network-level connectivity, have not previously been explored.

METHODS

We examined the anatomic connectivity of the four distinct DBS targets reported in the literature using probabilistic diffusion tensor tractography in normal subjects.

RESULTS

Despite being described as hypothalamic, the DBS targets localized in the midbrain tegmentum posterior to the hypothalamus. Common tracts across DBS targets and subjects included projections to the ipsilateral hypothalamus, reticular formation, and cerebellum.

DISCUSSION

Although DBS target coordinates are not located within the hypothalamus, a strong connection between DBS targets and the hypothalamus likely exists. Moreover, a common projection to the medial ipsilateral cerebellum was identified. Understanding the common connectivity of DBS-targeted regions may elucidate anatomic pathways that are involved in modulating cluster headache attacks and facilitate more precise patient-specific targeting of DBS.

Neurostimulators for the treatment of primary headaches

Neurostimulation techniques have increased our therapeutic armamentarium, providing additional options for the treatment of patients with drug-resistant headache. Occipital nerve stimulation can be considered in drug-resistant chronic cluster headache and, with more caution, in drug-resistant chronic migraine. Approximately 12 years after its introduction, hypothalamic stimulation is a valid option for drug-resistant chronic cluster headache to be considered when occipital nerve stimulation fails. Several other peripheral stimulation approaches (in addition to occipital nerve stimulation) have been introduced in recent years; however, for the most part, appropriate studies supporting their efficacy are lacking. Transcranial magnetic stimulation, transcutaneous supraorbital nerve stimulation, sphenopalatine ganglion stimulation and vagal nerve stimulation have all been tried, but results are not wholly convincing, and more extensive evaluations are required.

Long-term results of posteromedial hypothalamic deep brain stimulation for patients with resistant aggressiveness

OBJECT

Erethism describes severe cases of unprovoked aggressive behavior, usually associated with some degree of mental impairment and gross brain damage. The etiology can be epileptic, postencephalitic, or posttraumatic, or the condition can be caused by brain malformations or perinatal insults. Erethism is often refractory to medication, and patients must often be interned in institutions, where they are managed with major restraining measures. The hypothalamus is a crucial group of nuclei that coordinate behavioral and autonomic responses and play a central role in the control of aggressive behavior. Deep brain stimulation (DBS) of the posteromedial hypothalamus (PMH) has been proposed as a treatment for resistant erethism, although experience with this treatment around the world is scarce. The objective of this study was to examine the long-term outcome of PMH DBS in 6 patients with severe erethism treated at the authors' institution.

METHODS

Medical records of 6 patients treated with PMH DBS for intractable aggressiveness were reviewed. The therapeutic effect on behavior was assessed by the Inventory for Client and Agency Planning preoperatively and at the last follow-up visit.

RESULTS

Two patients died during the follow-up period due to causes unrelated to the neurosurgical treatment. Five of 6 patients experienced a significant reduction in aggressiveness (the mean Inventory for Client and Agency Planning general aggressiveness score was -47 at baseline and -25 at the last follow-up; mean follow-up 3.5 years). Similar responses were obtained with low- and high-frequency stimulation. In 4 cases, the patients' sleep patterns became more regular, and in 1 case, binge eating and polydipsia ceased. One of the 3 patients who had epilepsy noticed a 30% reduction in seizure frequency. Another patient experienced a marked sympathetic response with high-frequency stimulation during the first stimulation trial, but this subsided when stimulation was set at low frequency. A worsening of a previous headache was noted by 1 patient. There were no other side effects.

CONCLUSIONS

In this case series, 5 of 6 patients with pathological aggressiveness had a reduction of their outbursts of violence after PMH DBS, without significant adverse effects. Prospective controlled studies with a larger number of patients are needed to confirm these results.

Neurostimulation in cluster headache: A review of current progress

Purpose of review

Neurostimulation has emerged as a viable treatment for intractable chronic cluster headache. Several therapeutic strategies are being investigated including stimulation of the hypothalamus, occipital nerves and sphenopalatine ganglion. The aim of this review is to provide an overview of the rationale, methods and progress for each of these.

Latest findings

Results from a randomized, controlled trial investigating sphenopalatine ganglion stimulation have just been published. Reportedly the surgery is relatively simple and it is apparently the only therapy that provides relief acutely.

Summary

The rationale behind these therapies is based on growing evidence from clinical, hormonal and neuroimaging studies. The overall results are encouraging, but unfortunately not all patients have benefited. All the mentioned therapies require weeks to months of stimulation for a prophylactic effect to occur, suggesting brain plasticity as a possible mechanism, and only stimulation of the sphenopalatine ganglion has demonstrated an acute, abortive effect. Predictors of effect for all modes of neurostimulation still need to be identified and in the future, the least invasive and most effective strategy must be preferred as first-line therapy for intractable chronic cluster headache.

Neuromodulation for cephalgias

Headaches (cephalgias) are a common reason for patients to seek medical care. There are groups of patients with recurrent headache and craniofacial pain presenting with malignant course of their disease that becomes refractory to pharmacotherapy and other medical management options. Neuromodulation can be a viable treatment modality for at least some of these patients. We review the available evidence related to the use of neuromodulation modalities for the treatment of medically refractory craniofacial pain of different nosology based on the International Classification of Headache Disorders, 2(nd) edition (ICHD-II) classification. This article also reviews the scientific rationale of neuromodulation application in management of cephalgias.

Advances and challenges in neurostimulation for headaches

Many people who suffer from primary headache (ie, headache without an identifiable cause) are resistant or intolerant to available drugs. During the past decade, central and peripheral neurostimulation procedures have been investigated in such individuals--up to now, about 1200 worldwide. Techniques used range from invasive methods such as deep brain stimulation of the posterior hypothalamus, to minimally invasive percutaneous electrode implantation used in occipital nerve stimulation, or non-invasive methods such as transcranial magnetic stimulation. Although some of these procedures have been studied extensively, sham-controlled trials are sparse and the precise mode of action of such stimulation remains largely unknown. Nonetheless, occipital nerve stimulation and deep brain stimulation of the posterior hypothalamus seem to be effective in people with chronic cluster headache, and occipital nerve stimulation is promising in chronic migraine. Trial data for other techniques are scarce, but external and minimally invasive approaches should be privileged in future studies.

Neurostimulation therapies for primary headache disorders: present and future

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Most pharmacological treatments of primary headache disorders are partially effective and have cumbersome side effects. Therapies with better efficacy and tolerance are needed. Neurostimulation techniques may have this potential. This is an attempt to summarize the latest clinical trial results published in the field.

RECENT FINDINGS

Hypothalamic deep brain stimulation is effective in drug-resistant chronic cluster headache (drCCH) but not riskless. Recent anatomical MRI studies indicate that the effective stimulation sites are rather widespread. Occipital nerve stimulation (ONS) seems to be effective in up to 76% of drCCH patients and its benefit long-lasting. A minority of patients are able to abandon preventive drugs. Its mechanism of action appears nonspecific. In chronic migraine, randomized controlled trials of ONS showed recently encouraging results, but long-term studies are missing. An ongoing sham-controlled trial suggests sphenopalatine ganglion neurostimulation (SPGS) efficacy in drCCH acute treatment, but possibly also in preventive therapy. Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) modulate cortical excitability and connectivity. TMS could prevent headache when applied over the occipital cortex during the migraine aura. Repetitive TMS and tDCS have provided mixed results in a few small studies and warrant further trials.

SUMMARY

Neurostimulation therapies inaugurate a new era in headache management and offer a promising alternative to medications. Future studies are necessary to provide evidence-based efficacy data, knowledge on their mode of action and information about their pharmaco-economic advantages.