Clinical predictors of therapeutic failure of occipital nerve stimulation in refractory chronic cluster headache

BACKGROUND

Occipital nerve stimulation (ONS) is a treatment with evidence in refractory chronic cluster headache (CCH). However, the variable response rate and cost make it necessary to investigate predictors of response.

METHODS

This is a cross-sectional study conducted through the review of medical records of CCH patients from six hospitals in Madrid. Epidemiological and clinical variables were compared between patients with ONS failure and the rest. ONS failure was defined as the need for device withdrawal or switch off because of lack of response or adverse events.

RESULTS

From a series of 88 CCH, 26 (29.6%) underwent ONS surgery, of whom 13/26 (50.0%) failed because lack of response. ONS failure group had an earlier headache onset (mean ± SD) of 27.7 ± 6.9 vs. 36.7 ± 11.8 years, p = 0.026) and a higher smoking rate (100% vs. 42.9%, p = 0.006). Stational fluctuations (58.3% vs. 7.7%, p = 0.007) and nocturnal exacerbations (91.7% vs. 53.9%, p = 0.035) were more frequent in the ONS failure group as well. There was no difference between groups in diagnostic delay, years of evolution prior to surgery, mental illness, comorbidity with other headache disorders or chronic pain conditions or prior response to occipital nerves anesthetic blocks.

CONCLUSIONS

Some clinical features such as an early debut, smoking and seasonal or circadian fluctuations could be related to failure of ONS in refractory CCH.

Efficacy and safety of galcanezumab as chronic cluster headache preventive treatment under real world conditions: Observational prospective study

BACKGROUND

Calcitonin gene-related peptide has shown to play a central role in cluster headache (CH) pathophysiology. A clinical trial with galcanezumab was carried out in chronic cluster headache (CCH) but did not meet its primay endpoint. However, its off-label use in patients with CCH refractory to other therapies could be considered. We aimed to asses the efficacy and safety of galcanezumab as CCH preventive treatment in a real-life setting.

METHODS

An observational study was conducted. Patients with CCH who received at least one dose of 240 mg of galcanezumab.

RESULTS

Twenty-one patients who tried a mean of 6.3 ± 1.9 preventive therapies, including onabotulinumtoxinA in 90.5%. At baseline, the median of frequency was 60 (37.5-105) monthly attacks with 10 (8.3-10) points in pain intensity (Numerical Rating Scale). After one month, the frequency decreased to 31 (10.5-45) (p = 0.003) with 8.5 (8-9.5) intensity (p = 0.007); 10 (47.6%) patients were 50% responders of whom four (19%) were 75% responders. Of the 15 patients with 3 months of follow-up, seven (46.6%) reduced their frequency by 50% and four (26.6%) by 75%, with 40 (10-60) monthly attacks (p = 0.07) and pain intensity of 8 (5-10) (p = 0.026). Some 52% patients experienced adverse events, mostly mild.

CONCLUSIONS

In our cohort of refractory CCH, galcanezumab was effective in almost 50% of patients. This finding supports individual off-label treatment attempts.

Nonpharmacologic Treatments for Chronic and Episodic Migraine: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive techniques for treatment-resistant migraine have been developed on recent insights into the peripheral pathogenesis of migraines. Although there is a growing body of evidence supporting these techniques, no study has yet compared the effects of these treatments on headache frequency, severity, duration, and cost.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched to identify randomized placebo-controlled trials that compared radiofrequency ablation, botulinum toxin type A (BT-A), nerve block, neurostimulation, or migraine surgery to placebo for preventive treatment. Data on changes from baseline to follow-up in headache frequency, severity, duration, and quality of life were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 30 randomized controlled trials and 2680 patients were included. Compared with placebo, there was a significant decrease in headache frequency in patients with nerve block ( P = 0.04) and surgery ( P < 0.001). Headache severity decreased in all treatments. Duration of headaches was significantly reduced in the BT-A ( P < 0.001) and surgery cohorts ( P = 0.01). Quality of life improved significantly in patients with BT-A, nerve stimulator, and migraine surgery. Migraine surgery had the longest lasting effects (11.5 months) compared with nerve ablation (6 months), BT-A (3.2 months), and nerve block (11.9 days).

CONCLUSIONS

Migraine surgery is a cost-effective, long-term treatment to reduce headache frequency, severity, and duration without significant risk of complication. BT-A reduces headache severity and duration, but it is short-lasting and associated with greater adverse events and lifetime cost. Although efficacious, radiofrequency ablation and implanted nerve stimulators have high risks of adverse events and explantation, whereas benefits of nerve blocks are short in duration.

Efficacy of Occipital Nerve Stimulation in Trigeminal Autonomic Cephalalgias: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Trigeminal autonomic cephalalgias (TACs) are a group of highly disabling primary headache disorders. Although pharmacological treatments exist, they are not always effective or well tolerated. Occipital nerve stimulation (ONS) is a potentially effective surgical treatment.

OBJECTIVE

To perform a systematic review of the efficacy of ONS in treating TACs.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed using Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases. Primary outcomes were reduction in headache intensity, duration, and frequency. Secondary outcomes included adverse event rate and reduction in medication use. Because of large differences in outcome measures, data for patients suffering from short-lasting, unilateral, and neuralgiform headache attacks with conjunctival injection and tearing (SUNCT) and cranial autonomic symptoms (SUNA) were reported separately. Risk of bias was assessed using the NIH Quality Assessment Tools.

RESULTS

A total of 417 patients from 14 published papers were included in the analysis, of which 15 patients were in the SUNCT/SUNA cohort. The mean reduction in headache intensity and duration was 26.2% and 31.4%, respectively. There was a mean reduction in headache frequency of 50%, as well as a 61.2% reduction in the use of abortive medications and a 31.1% reduction in the use of prophylactic medications. In the SUNCT/SUNA cohort, the mean decrease in headache intensity and duration was 56.8% and 42.8%. The overall responder rate, defined as a >50% reduction in attack frequency, was 60.8% for the non-SUNCT/non-SUNA cohort and 66.7% for the SUNCT/SUNA cohort. Adverse events requiring repeat surgery were reported in 33% of cases. Risk of bias assessment suggests that articles included in this review had reasonable internal validity.

CONCLUSION

ONS may be an effective surgical treatment for approximately two thirds of patients with medically refractory TACs.

Management of Trigeminal Autonomic Cephalalgias Including Chronic Cluster: A Review

Importance

Trigeminal autonomic cephalalgias (TACs) comprise a unique collection of primary headache disorders characterized by moderate or severe unilateral pain, localized in in the area of distribution of the first branch of the trigeminal nerve, accompanied by cranial autonomic symptoms and signs. Most TACs are rare diseases, which hampers the possibility of performing randomized clinical trials and large studies. Therefore, knowledge of treatment efficacy must be based only on observational studies, rare disease registries, and case reports, where real-world data and evidence play an important role in health care decisions.

Observations

Chronic cluster headache is the most common of these disorders, and the literature offers some evidence from randomized clinical trials to support the use of pharmacologic and neurostimulation treatments. Galcanezumab, a monoclonal antibody targeting the calcitonin gene-related peptide, was not effective at 3 months in a randomized clinical trial but showed efficacy at 12 months in a large case series. For the other TACs (ie, paroxysmal hemicrania, hemicrania continua, short-lasting unilateral neuralgiform headache attacks with conjunctival injection and tearing, and short-lasting unilateral neuralgiform headache attacks with cranial autonomic symptoms), only case reports and case series are available to guide physicians in everyday management.

Conclusions and Relevance

The accumulation of epidemiologic, pathophysiologic, natural history knowledge, and data from case series and small controlled trials, especially over the past 20 years from investigators around the world, has added to the previously limited evidence and has helped advance and inform the treatment approach to rare TACs, which can be extremely challenging for clinicians.

Preventive treatment of refractory chronic cluster headache: systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Preventive treatment for refractory chronic cluster headache (rCCH) is challenging and many therapies have been tried.

OBJECTIVE

To study what could be considered the therapy of choice in rCCH through a systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

This review was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO (ID CRD42021290983). A systematic search was performed in MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, clinicaltrials.gov, and the WHO's-International-Clinical-Trials-Registry-Platform. Studies on the preventive treatment for rCCH as defined by the European Headache Federation consensus statement were included. A meta-analysis of the pooled response rate was conducted for the different therapies.

RESULTS

Of 336 results, 45 were eligible for inclusion. Most articles studied the effect of neuromodulation as a preventive treatment for rCCH. The most studied neuromodulation technique was occipital nerve stimulation (ONS), with a pooled response rate in the meta-analysis of 57.3% (95% CI 0.481-0.665). Deep brain stimulation (DBS) was the second most studied treatment with a pooled response rate of 77.0% (95% CI 0.594-0.957). DBS results were more heterogeneous than ONS, which could be related to the different stimulation targets in DBS studies, and reported more serious adverse events than in ONS studies. The remaining therapies (anti-CGRP pathway drugs, warfarin, ketamine-magnesium infusions, serial occipital nerve blocks, clomiphene, onabotulinum toxin A, ketogenic diet, sphenopalatine ganglion radiofrequency or stimulation, vagus nerve stimulation, percutaneous bioelectric current stimulation, upper cervical cord stimulation, and vidian neurectomy) present weaker results or have less quality of evidence.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that ONS could be the first therapeutic strategy for patients with rCCH based on the current evidence.

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.

Neuromodulation for Chronic Daily Headache

Purpose of Review

We reviewed the literature that explored the use of central and peripheral neuromodulation techniques for chronic daily headache (CDH) treatment.

Recent Findings

Although the more invasive deep brain stimulation (DBS) is effective in chronic cluster headache (CCH), it should be reserved for extremely difficult-to-treat patients. Percutaneous occipital nerve stimulation has shown similar efficacy to DBS and is less risky in both CCH and chronic migraine (CM). Non-invasive transcutaneous vagus nerve stimulation is a promising add-on treatment for CCH but not for CM. Transcutaneous external trigeminal nerve stimulation may be effective in treating CM; however, it has not yet been tested for cluster headache. Transcranial magnetic and electric stimulations have promising preventive effects against CM and CCH.

Summary

Although the precise mode of action of non-invasive neuromodulation techniques remains largely unknown and there is a paucity of controlled trials, they should be preferred to more invasive techniques for treating CDH.

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.

Trigger areas nerve decompression for refractory chronic migraine

BACKGROUND

Chronic migraine refractory to medical treatment represents a common debilitating primary neurovascular disorder associated with great disability, high financial costs, reduced rates of productivity and impaired health-related quality of life.

OBJECTIVE

To demonstrate the feasibility of scalp (trigger areas) nerve decompression as a treatment alternative in the management of refractory CM patients METHODS: From January 2005 to January 2020, we retrospectively collected data of 154 patients diagnosed with chronic migraine that underwent trigger site nerve decompression. These trigger areas were divided according the nerve compromise as frontal (supraorbital nerve), temporal (auriculotemporal nerve), occipital (greater occipital nerve). Following extensive clinical evaluation, the surgical treatment was performed after under local anesthesia and required the release of the affected nerve from surrounding connective tissue adhesions, and vascular conflicts.

RESULTS

Of the total amount of patients, 91 (59.09%) patients underwent auriculotemporal nerve decompression, 27 (13.63%) cases supraorbital nerve decompression, 15 (9.74%) patients greater occipital nerve decompression, and the remaining 21 (13.63%) patients had more than one procedure of nerve decompression. At 1-year follow or latest follow-up, 96 (62.2%) patients were considered as cured, 29 cases (18.83%) reported improvement of their symptoms, 21 (13.64%) patients considered only a partial symptomatic remission and 5 (3.25%) patients reported no change or failed surgical treatment.

CONCLUSION

Nerve decompression of trigger site areas (frontal, temporal, occipital) by removal of tissue, muscles and vessels in patients with medically refractory CM is a feasible alternative treatment modality with a high success of up to 80.5.

An unusual case of lead migration in occipital nerve stimulation: A case report and literature review

Background:

Lead migration is a complication associated with occipital nerve stimulation (ONS). We present a rare case in which fibrosis in the stress relief loop caused lead migration in the treatment of occipital neuralgia.

Case Description:

A 30-year-old woman with a 5-year history of refractory occipital neuralgia, who had been under ONS therapy for 2 months, presented with a sudden onset of typical occipital neuralgia pain associated with cervical muscles spasms and myoclonus. A skull radiography showed lead migration. The patient underwent surgery for lead repositioning. During surgery, we identified extensive fibrosis throughout the stress relief loop that produced several constriction points. The fibrosis in the stress relief loop increased tension on the lead during head-and-neck movement, causing progressive migration of the lead.

Conclusion:

Although lead migration is a common complication of ONS, its association with fibrosis in the stress relief loop has not, to the best of our knowledge, been reported before. Lead migration can directly affect treatment outcome and it is, therefore, important to fully understand the possible mechanisms that can cause it and how to promptly manage them.

Long-Term Experience with Occipital and Supraorbital Nerve Stimulation for the Various Headache Disorders-A Retrospective Institutional Case Series of 96 Patients

OBJECTIVE

We have provided long-term data on clinically meaningful pain alleviation for drug-refractory headache disorders using occipital (ONS) and supraorbital nerve stimulation (SONS).

METHODS

We performed a retrospective review of 96 patients with migraine, cervicogenic headache, cluster headache, neuropathic pain of the scalp, tension-type headache, and new daily persistent headache who had undergone ONS (61.5%), SONS (11.5%), or combined ONS plus SONS (27.1%) trial implantation and definitive implantation from 2007 to 2017. Changes in pain perception over time were monitored using the visual analog scale (VAS) for pain.

RESULTS

The cohort consisted of 60.4% women and 39.6% men, with a mean age of 46.9 ± 11.5 years and pain duration of 14 ± 14.1 years. Of the 96 patients, 65 (67.7%) were treatment responders to a trial (≥30% amelioration in the average or maximum VAS score for pain and/or number of headache days) that had lasted 22.5 ± 8.8 days. The reduction in their average VAS score for pain was to 37% ± 24.4% of baseline compared with 99.1% ± 24.1% of baseline for those without a response (P < 0.01). Of the 56 patients who had undergone implantation and had long-term follow-up data available for ≤10 years, 32 (57.1%) reported a ≥50% reduction in their average VAS score for pain. Four patients (6.5%) had requested hardware explantation. Stage II complications included 1 infection (1.6%) and 6 electrode dislocations (9.7%). The study limitations included the retrospective nature, lack of controls receiving placebo intervention, and randomization.

CONCLUSIONS

After careful patient selection according to a positive response to a trial of ONS and/or SONS, clinically meaningful long-term benefit was achieved in 57.1% of our patients with various chronic headache conditions.

Occipital Nerve Stimulation for Refractory Chronic Cluster Headache: A Cost-Effectiveness Study

INTRODUCTION

Occipital nerve stimulation (ONS) is proposed to treat refractory chronic cluster headache (rCCH), but its cost-effectiveness has not been evaluated, limiting its diffusion and reimbursement.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We performed a before-and-after economic study, from data collected prospectively in a nation-wide registry. We compared the cost-effectiveness of ONS associated with conventional treatment (intervention and postintervention period) to conventional treatment alone (preintervention period) in the same patients. The analysis was conducted on 76 rCCH patients from the French healthcare perspective at three months, then one year by extrapolation. Because of the impact of the disease on patient activity, indirect cost, such as sick leave and disability leave, was assessed second.

RESULTS

The average total cost for three months was €7602 higher for the ONS strategy compared to conventional strategy with a gain of 0.07 quality-adjusted life-years (QALY), the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was then €109,676/QALY gained. The average extrapolated total cost for one year was €1344 lower for the ONS strategy (p = 0.5444) with a gain of 0.28 QALY (p < 0.0001), the ICER was then €-4846/QALY gained. The scatter plot of the probabilistic bootstrapping had 80% of the replications in the bottom right-hand quadrant, indicating that the ONS strategy is dominant. The average indirect cost for three months was €377 lower for the ONS strategy (p = 0.1261).

DISCUSSION

This ONS cost-effectiveness study highlighted the limitations of a short-time horizon in an economic study that may lead the healthcare authorities to reject an innovative strategy, which is actually cost-effective. One-year extrapolation was the proposed solution to obtain results on which healthcare authorities can base their decisions.

CONCLUSION

Considering the burden of rCCH and the efficacy and safety of ONS, the demonstration that ONS is dominant should help its diffusion, validation, and reimbursement by health authorities in this severely disabled population.

Peripheral nerve field stimulation in medically refractory trigeminal neuralgia attributed to multiple sclerosis

OBJECTIVE

Case reports and small patient series have suggested peripheral nerve field stimulation (PNFS) as a treatment for refractory trigeminal neuralgia attributed to multiple sclerosis (MS). Here, the authors aimed to assess the effects of this technique on long-term pain severity.

METHODS

Data were prospectively collected on patients with refractory trigeminal neuralgia attributed to MS who underwent PNFS between July 2013 and August 2017 at the authors’ neurosurgical department. Patients were evaluated before and after the first treatment as well as at follow-up at least twice a year. Patients underwent assessment of their pain severity using the Barrow Neurological Institute (BNI) Scale before treatment and at follow-up and were questioned about adverse events following cranial MRI performed after implantation of a permanent PNFS system.

RESULTS

Eight patients (3 women) underwent PNFS trials and their median age was 61 years (IQR 73.75 − 46.5 years). Seven patients proceeded to permanent implantation of the stimulation system. At a median follow-up of 33 months (IQR 42 − 24 months), pain severity decreased from baseline to the last follow-up (BNI score decrease from V [IQR V − V] to III [IQR V − III], p = 0.054). Four patients experienced long-lasting benefit (at 48, 33, 24, and 15 months’ follow-up, respectively), while in 3 patients the treatment eventually failed after an initially successful period. One patient had an infection, requiring system removal and subsequent reimplantation. No other complications occurred. No adverse events were noted in the patients undergoing MRI postimplantation.

CONCLUSIONS

This analysis indicates a possibly beneficial long-term effect of PNFS on refractory trigeminal neuralgia attributed to MS in some patients.

Occipital Nerve Stimulation for Pain Modulation in Drug-Resistant Chronic Cluster Headache

Occipital nerve stimulation (ONS) is a surgical treatment proposed for drug-resistant chronic cluster headache (drCCH). Long-term series assessing its efficacy are scarce. We designed a retrospective observational study with consecutive sampling, evaluating the follow-up of 17 drCCH patients who underwent ONS. Our main endpoint was the reduction the rate of attacks per week. We also evaluated the pain intensity through the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), patient overall perceived improvement and decrease in oral medication intake. After a median follow-up of 6.0 years (4.5–9.0), patients decreased from a median of 30 weekly attacks to 22.5 (5.6–37.5, p = 0.012), 7.5 at 1 year (p = 0.006) and 15.0 at the end of follow-up (p = 0.041). The VAS decreased from a median of 10.0 to 8.0 (p = 0.011) at three months, to 7.0 (p = 0.008) at twelve months and 7.0 (p = 0.003) at the end of the follow-up. A total of 23.5% had an overall perceived improvement of ≥70% at 3 months, 41.2% at 1 year and 27.8% at the end of follow-up. Reducing prophylactic oral medication was possible in 76.5% and it was stopped in 17.7%. Triptan use decreased in all the responder patients and 17.7% stopped its intake. A total of 41.2% presented mild adverse events. In conclusion, our long-term experience suggests that ONS could be an interesting option for drCCH-selected patients, as it is a beneficial and minimally invasive procedure with no serious adverse events.

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.

Percutaneous Bioelectric Current Stimulation for Chronic Cluster Headache - A Possible Transformative Approach to Cluster Headache

Background

Cluster headache (CH) is considered to be a catastrophic disease presenting the most severe human pain condition. Available pharmacological treatments are hampered by unwanted side effects, and there is an urgent need for non-pharmacological treatment alternatives. We present a novel therapeutic approach for chronic CH, having evolved from an episodic CH, using a non-invasive percutaneous bioelectric current stimulation (PBCS), which generates static electric fields in the range of the naturally occurring electric potentials.

Patients and Methods

This study employed a retrospective data analysis of 20 cases of chronic cluster headache (CCH) patients, four of those having had cluster-related surgery (SPG, ONS). All patients were treated with PBCS between 2014 and 2018. Data of these patients were analyzed with respect to frequency of CH attacks and triptan application and followed up for one (20 cases) or two (12 cases) years.

Results

Four weeks after the first PBCS treatment, cluster headache attacks were reduced from 2.8 to 1.7 per day and triptan application decreased from 2.5 to 1.5 times/day. Six non-responders, 4 of which had pre-CH surgery, did not show any reaction to PBCS, while 14 responders improved within 4 weeks from 2.2 to 0.7 attacks/day and 2.0 to 0.4 triptan applications/day. A 50% or greater reduction of attack frequency was observed in 10 patients after 4 weeks and in 11 patients after 12 weeks. One year after the first treatment, 13/20 patients experienced a reduction of attack frequency of 50% or more, while remarkably 10 patients were completely free of attack. After 2 years, 8 of 12 patients experienced a reduction of attack frequency of 50% or more and 7 of those were completely symptom-free. No serious adverse effects were observed.

Conclusion

PBCS is a promising transformative treatment approach for CCH patients. Drug consumption was reduced significantly, and the CCH may revert back to an episodic cluster headache with increasingly long times of remission. Responders can be clearly differentiated from non-responders. The data support the need for randomized controlled trials.

Treatment of migraine attacks and prevention of migraine: Guidelines by the German Migraine and Headache Society and the German Society of Neurology

In collaboration with some of the leading headache centres in Germany, Switzerland and Austria, we have established new guidelines for the treatment of migraine attacks and the prevention of migraine. A thorough literature research of the last 10 years has been the basis of the current recommendations. At the beginning, we present therapeutic novelties, followed by a summary of all recommendations. After an introduction, we cover topics like drug therapy and practical experience, non-effective medication, migraine prevention, interventional methods, non-medicational and psychological methods for prevention and therapies without proof of efficacy.

Neurostimulation for the treatment of chronic migraine and cluster headache

Small subsets of patients who fail to respond to pharmacological treatment may benefit from alternative treatment methods. In the last decade, neurostimulation is being explored as a potential treatment option for the patients with chronic, severely disabling refractory primary headaches. To alleviate pain, specific nerves and brain areas have been stimulated, and various methods have been explored: deep brain stimulation, occipital nerve stimulation, and sphenopalatine ganglion stimulation are among the more invasive ones, whereas transcranial magnetic stimulation and supraorbital nerve stimulation are noninvasive. Vagal nerve stimulation can be invasive or noninvasive, though this review included only data for noninvasive VNS. Most of these methods have been tested in small open-label patient series; recently, more data from randomized, controlled, and blinded studies are available. Although neurostimulation treatments have demonstrated good efficacy in many studies, it still has not been established as a standard treatment in refractory patients. This review analyzes the available evidence regarding efficacy and safety of different neurostimulation modalities for the treatment of chronic migraine and cluster headache.

Therapeutic Approaches for the Management of Trigeminal Autonomic Cephalalgias

Trigeminal autonomic cephalalgia (TAC) encompasses 4 unique primary headache types: cluster headache, paroxysmal hemicrania, hemicrania continua, and short-lasting unilateral neuralgiform headache attacks with conjunctival injection and tearing and short-lasting unilateral neuralgiform headache attacks with cranial autonomic symptoms. They are grouped on the basis of their shared clinical features of unilateral headache of varying durations and ipsilateral cranial autonomic symptoms. The shared clinical features reflect the underlying activation of the trigeminal-autonomic reflex. The treatment for TACs has been limited and not specific to the underlying pathogenesis. There is a proportion of patients who are refractory or intolerant to the current standard medical treatment. From instrumental bench work research and neuroimaging studies, there are new therapeutic targets identified in TACs. Treatment has become more targeted and aimed towards the pathogenesis of the conditions. The therapeutic targets range from the macroscopic and structural level down to the molecular and receptor level. The structural targets for surgical and noninvasive neuromodulation include central neuromodulation targets: posterior hypothalamus and, high cervical nerves, and peripheral neuromodulation targets: occipital nerves, sphenopalatine ganglion, and vagus nerve. In this review, we will also discuss the neuropeptide and molecular targets, in particular, calcitonin gene-related peptide, somatostatin, transient receptor potential vanilloid-1 receptor, nitric oxide, melatonin, orexin, pituitary adenylate cyclase-activating polypeptide, and glutamate.

Diagnosis, pathophysiology, and management of cluster headache

Cluster headache is a trigeminal autonomic cephalalgia characterised by extremely painful, strictly unilateral, short-lasting headache attacks accompanied by ipsilateral autonomic symptoms or the sense of restlessness and agitation, or both. The severity of the disorder has major effects on the patient's quality of life and, in some cases, might lead to suicidal ideation. Cluster headache is now thought to involve a synchronised abnormal activity in the hypothalamus, the trigeminovascular system, and the autonomic nervous system. The hypothalamus appears to play a fundamental role in the generation of a permissive state that allows the initiation of an episode, whereas the attacks are likely to require the involvement of the peripheral nervous system. Triptans are the most effective drugs to treat an acute cluster headache attack. Monoclonal antibodies against calcitonin gene-related peptide, a crucial neurotransmitter of the trigeminal system, are under investigation for the preventive treatment of cluster headache. These studies will increase our understanding of the disorder and perhaps reveal other therapeutic targets.

Predictors of response to occipital nerve stimulation in refractory chronic headache

Background

Occipital nerve stimulation is a promising treatment for refractory chronic headache disorders, but is invasive and costly. Identifying predictors of response would be useful in selecting patients. We present the results of an open-label prospective cohort study of 100 patients (35 chronic migraine, 33 chronic cluster headache, 20 short-lasting unilateral neuralgiform headache attacks and 12 hemicrania continua) undergoing occipital nerve stimulation, using a multivariate binary regression analysis to identify predictors of response.

Results

Response rate of the cohort was 48%. Multivariate analysis showed short lasting unilateral neuralgiform headache attacks (OR 6.71; 95% CI 1.49–30.05; p = 0.013) and prior response to greater occipital nerve block (OR 4.22; 95% CI 1.35–13.21; p = 0.013) were associated with increased likelihood of response. Presence of occipital pain (OR 0.27; 95% CI 0.09–0.76; p = 0.014) and the presence of severe anxiety and/or depression (as measured on hospital anxiety and depression score) at time of implantation (OR 0.32; 95% CI 0.11–0.91; p = 0.032) were associated with reduced likelihood of response.

Conclusion

Possible clinical predictors of response to occipital nerve stimulation for refractory chronic headaches have been identified. Our data shows that those with short-lasting unilateral neuralgiform headache attacks respond better than those with chronic migraine, and that a prior response to greater occipital nerve block is associated with positive outcomes. This study suggests that the presence of occipital pain and severe mood disorder at time of implant are both associated with poor outcomes to occipital nerve stimulation.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

[Botulinum toxin type A in headache treatment : Established and experimental indications]

In recent years botulinum toxin type A has been used increasingly more in the treatment of specific headache disorders. Especially regarding chronic migraine with and without combined medication overuse, convincing randomized studies have proven the efficacy of this treatment option and have led to approval for this indication. Regarding other headache entities, such as episodic migraine, tension-type headache, trigeminal autonomic cephalalgia (TAC), neuralgic, neuropathic and myofascial pain, currently available scientific data on the efficacy of botulinum toxin type A are scarce and often ambiguous. The exact underlying mechanisms of the influence of botulinum toxin type A on the pathophysiology of headache are not completely clear but an influence on the release of calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) seems to play a crucial role. This article summarizes the most important studies as well as experiences of treatment with botulinum toxin type A regarding different headache entities.

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

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

Invasive pericranial nerve interventions

Background

In many patients suffering from primary headaches, the available pharmacological and behavioural treatments are not satisfactory. This is a review of (minimally) invasive interventions targeting pericranial nerves that could be effective in refractory patients.

Methods

The interventions we will cover have in common pericranial nerves as targets, but are distinct according to their rationale, modality and invasiveness. They range from nerve blocks/infiltrations to the percutaneous implantation of neurostimulators and surgical decompression procedures. We have critically analysed the published data (PubMed) on their effectiveness and tolerability.

Results and conclusions

There is clear evidence for a preventative effect of suboccipital injections of local anaesthetics and/or steroids in cluster headache, while evidence for such an effect is weak in migraine. Percutaneous occipital nerve stimulation (ONS) provides significant long-term relief in more than half of drug-resistant chronic cluster headache patients, but no sham-controlled trial has tested this. The evidence that ONS has lasting beneficial effects in chronic migraine is at best equivocal. Suboccipital infiltrations are quasi-devoid of side effects, while ONS is endowed with numerous, though reversible, adverse events. Claims that surgical decompression of multiple pericranial nerves is effective in migraine are not substantiated by large, rigorous, randomized and sham-controlled trials.

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

Electronic supplementary material

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

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

Introduction

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

Patients and methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

Neurostimulation in the treatment of primary headaches

There is increasing interest in using neurostimulation to treat headache disorders. There are now several non-invasive and invasive stimulation devices available with some open-label series and small controlled trial studies that support their use. Non-invasive stimulation options include supraorbital stimulation (Cefaly), vagus nerve stimulation (gammaCore) and single-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation (SpringTMS). Invasive procedures include occipital nerve stimulation, sphenopalatine ganglion stimulation and ventral tegmental area deep brain stimulation. These stimulation devices may find a place in the treatment pathway of headache disorders. Here, we explore the basic principles of neurostimulation for headache and overview the available methods of neurostimulation.

Implantable Neurostimulation for Headache Disorders: Effect on Healthcare Utilization and Expenditures

OBJECTIVES

Chronic daily headache is a considerable source of morbidity for patients and also carries an enormous economic burden. Patients who fail standard medication regimens lack well-defined therapies, and neurostimulation is an emerging option for these patients. The purpose of this study was to analyze the cost utility of implantable neurostimulation for treatment of headache.

METHODS

We utilized the Thompson Reuters Marketscan Data base to identify individuals diagnosed with headache disorders who underwent percutaneous neurostimulation. Healthcare expenditures for individuals who subsequently received permanent, surgically implanted neurostimulatory devices were compared to those who did not. Only individuals who sought implantable neurostimulation were included to account for headache severity. The cohorts were adjusted for comorbidity and prior headache-related expenses. Costs were modeled longitudinally using a generalized estimating equation.

RESULTS

A total of 579 patients who underwent percutaneous trial of neurostimulation were included, of which 324 (55.96%) converted to permanent neurostimulation within one year. Unadjusted expenditures were greater for patients who underwent conversion to the permanent neurostimulation device, as expected. Costs grew at a lower rate for patients who converted to permanent device implantation. Cost neutrality for patients receiving the permanent device was reached in less than five years after the enrollment date. The mean cost of conversion to a permanent implantation was $18,607.53 (SD $26,441.34).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study suggests that implantable neurostimulation reduces healthcare expenditures within a relatively short time period in patients with severe refractory headache.

Non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation for PREVention and Acute treatment of chronic cluster headache (PREVA): A randomised controlled study

Background

Chronic cluster headache (CH) is a debilitating disorder for which few well-controlled studies demonstrate effectiveness of available therapies. Non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation (nVNS) was examined as adjunctive prophylactic treatment of chronic CH.

Methods

PREVA was a prospective, open-label, randomised study that compared adjunctive prophylactic nVNS (n = 48) with standard of care (SoC) alone (control (n = 49)). A two-week baseline phase was followed by a four-week randomised phase (SoC plus nVNS vs control) and a four-week extension phase (SoC plus nVNS). The primary end point was the reduction in the mean number of CH attacks per week. Response rate, abortive medication use and safety/tolerability were also assessed.

Results

During the randomised phase, individuals in the intent-to-treat population treated with SoC plus nVNS (n = 45) had a significantly greater reduction in the number of attacks per week vs controls (n = 48) (−5.9 vs −2.1, respectively) for a mean therapeutic gain of 3.9 fewer attacks per week (95% CI: 0.5, 7.2; p = 0.02). Higher ≥50% response rates were also observed with SoC plus nVNS (40% (18/45)) vs controls (8.3% (4/48); p < 0.001). No serious treatment-related adverse events occurred.

Conclusion

Adjunctive prophylactic nVNS is a well-tolerated novel treatment for chronic CH, offering clinical benefits beyond those with SoC.

Peripheral nerve field stimulation for trigeminal neuralgia, trigeminal neuropathic pain, and persistent idiopathic facial pain

Objective

Peripheral nerve field stimulation (PNFS) is a promising modality for treatment of intractable facial pain. However, evidence is sparse. We are therefore presenting our experience with this technique in a small patient cohort.

Methods

Records of 10 patients (five men, five women) with intractable facial pain who underwent implantation of one or several subcutaneous electrodes for trigeminal nerve field stimulation were retrospectively analyzed. Patients’ data, including pain location, etiology, duration, previous treatments, long-term effects and complications, were evaluated.

Results

Four patients suffered from recurrent classical trigeminal neuralgia, one had classical trigeminal neuralgia and was medically unfit for microvascular decompression. Two patients suffered from trigeminal neuropathy attributed to multiple sclerosis, one from post-herpetic neuropathy, one from trigeminal neuropathy following radiation therapy and one from persistent idiopathic facial pain. Average patient age was 74.2 years (range 57–87), and average symptom duration was 10.6 years (range 2–17). Eight patients proceeded to implantation after successful trial. Average follow-up after implantation was 11.3 months (range 5–28). Using the visual analog scale, average pain intensity was 9.3 (range 7–10) preoperatively and 0.75 (range 0–3) postoperatively. Six patients reported absence of pain with stimulation; two had only slight constant pain without attacks.

Conclusion

PNFS may be an effective treatment for refractory facial pain and yields high patient satisfaction.

Occipital Nerve Stimulation for Migraine: A Systematic Review

Patients who suffer from migraines often report impaired quality of life. Occipital nerve stimulation (ONS) is a novel treatment modality for migraines, although few systematic reviews have evaluated whether this therapy is efficacious. The objective of this study was to evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of ONS for treating migraine through a literature review. We performed a literature search to identify studies that investigated ONS for migraine treatment. Evidence levels of these studies were assessed by recommendations set by the University of Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. Five randomized controlled trials, 4 retrospective studies, and one prospective study met the inclusion criteria. Results from the retrospective studies and case series indicated that ONS significantly reduced the pain intensity and the number of days with headache in patients with migraine. However, the evidence of ONS efficacy established by randomized controlled trials was limited. Improvement in the migraine disability assessment (MIDAS) score was more dramatic than improvement in the SF-36 score at follow-up. The mean complication incidence of ONS was 66% for the reviewed studies. Future clinical studies should optimize and standardize the ONS intervention process and identify the relationship among the surgical process, efficacy, and complications resulting from the procedure.

Safety and efficacy of peripheral nerve stimulation of the occipital nerves for the management of chronic migraine: long-term results from a randomized, multicenter, double-blinded, controlled study

BACKGROUND

Recent studies evaluated short-term efficacy and safety of peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) of the occipital nerves for managing chronic migraine. We present 52-week safety and efficacy results from an open-label extension of a randomized, sham-controlled trial.

METHODS

In this institutional review board-approved, randomized, multicenter, double-blinded study, patients were implanted with a neurostimulation system, randomized to an active or control group for 12 weeks, and received open-label treatment for an additional 40 weeks. Outcomes collected included number of headache days, pain intensity, migraine disability assessment (MIDAS), Zung Pain and Distress (PAD), direct patient reports of headache pain relief, quality of life, satisfaction and adverse events. Statistical tests assessed change from baseline to 52 weeks using paired t-tests. Intent-to-treat (ITT) analyses of all patients (N = 157) and analyses of only patients who met criteria for intractable chronic migraine (ICM; N = 125) were performed.

RESULTS

Headache days were significantly reduced by 6.7 (±8.4) days in the ITT population (p < 0.001) and by 7.7 (±8.7) days in the ICM population (p < 0.001). The percentages of patients who achieved a 30% and 50% reduction in headache days and/or pain intensity were 59.5% and 47.8%, respectively. MIDAS and Zung PAD scores were significantly reduced for both populations. Excellent or good headache relief was reported by 65.4% of the ITT population and 67.9% of the ICM population. More than half the patients in both cohorts were satisfied with the headache relief provided by the device. A total of 183 device/procedure-related adverse events occurred during the study, of which 18 (8.6%) required hospitalization and 85 (40.7%) required surgical intervention; 70% of patients experienced an adverse event.

CONCLUSION

Our results support the 12-month efficacy of PNS of the occipital nerves for headache pain and disability associated with chronic migraine. More emphasis on adverse event mitigation is needed in future research.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinical trials.gov (NCT00615342).

Orofacial pain management: current perspectives

Some of the most prevalent and debilitating pain conditions arise from the structures innervated by the trigeminal system (head, face, masticatory musculature, temporomandibular joint and associated structures). Orofacial pain (OFP) can arise from different regions and etiologies. Temporomandibular disorders (TMD) are the most prevalent orofacial pain conditions for which patients seek treatment. Temporomandibular disorders include a number of clinical problems that involve the masticatory musculature, the temporomandibular joint (TMJ) or both. Trigeminal neuropathic pain conditions can arise from injury secondary to dental procedures, infection, neoplasias, or disease or dysfunction of the peripheral and/or central nervous system. Neurovascular disorders, such as primary headaches, can present as chronic orofacial pain, such as in the case of facial migraine, where the pain is localized in the second and third division of the trigeminal nerve. Together, these disorders of the trigeminal system impact the quality of life of the sufferer dramatically. A multidisciplinary pain management approach should be considered for the optimal treatment of orofacial pain disorders including both non-pharmacological and pharmacological modalities.