The profile of refractory chronic cluster headache

INTRODUCTION

Chronic cluster headache (CCH) is a relatively rare primary headache disorder whose management is often challenging. The prevalence of refractory CCH (rCCH) is unknown. Our aim is to describe the frequency of rCCH within a population of CCH, define the clinical profile of the refractory patients and the treatments they underwent.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional study through a review of the medical records of CCH patients in six hospitals in Madrid, Spain. Data on epidemiological, clinical presentation, treatment and disease activity at the moment were collected. The European Headache Federation diagnostic criteria were used for rCCH definition. High disease activity was defined as having at least 3 severe attacks per week that impact quality of life despite treatment. Non-rCCH and rCCH groups were compared.

RESULTS

88 CCH patients were analyzed, 68.2% (60/88) met rCCH criteria at some point in their evolution. A longer diagnostic delay (4.6 ± 7.1 vs. 3.2 ± 3.7 years, p = 0.017) was observed in rCCH. All rCCH patients tried therapies without established evidence from randomized clinical trials. OnabotulinumtoxinA and galcanezumab were initiated in 77.3% (68/88) and 5.7% (5/88), but discontinued in 52.9% (36/68) and 60.0% (3/5), respectively. Occipital nerve stimulation (ONS) was implanted in 29.6% (26/88), with 50.0% (13/26) still active. Other treatment options are described and discussed. Despite treatment, 60.2% (53/88) still have high disease activity.

CONCLUSION

CCH is a disorder with poor prognosis, meeting refractoriness criteria in more than half. OnabotulinumtoxinA and ONS could be the effective in refractory patients.

Occipital nerve stimulation: A detailed description of a surgical approach and a discussion on implantation techniques

OBJECTIVE

Occipital Nerve Stimulation (ONS) is increasingly used to treat a range of chronic, refractory headache conditions, most notably chronic cluster headache (CCH). Despite this, there is still no consensus on the optimal implantation technique. Clinical reports and reviews in the field have reported remarkably high complication rates of which several can be directly related to the surgical approach. We here describe a comprehensive and detailed surgical approach used at Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark, aiming to improve paresthesia coverage and minimize complications.

METHODS

The implantation procedure described here is performed with a sleep-awake anesthetic regimen in a lateral position using anatomical landmarks and perioperative testing based on patient feedback. A single lead is subcutaneously implanted from behind the ear and across the back of the head, and the implantable pulse generator (IPG) is placed below the right clavicle.

RESULTS

From March 2018 to June 2024, 45 CCH patients were implanted using this approach and followed up for a total of 86.3 patient years. A total of 22 adverse events (AEs) occurred in 17 patients, with nine AEs requiring revision surgery. Notably, no instances of lead migration, lead breakage, or muscle/neck stiffness were observed. Temporary occipital dysesthesia was the most frequent non-surgical AE, resolving spontaneously within weeks. The rate of serious adverse events (SAEs) was one per 9.6 patient years. Six patients had the ONS system explanted due to lack of efficacy.

CONCLUSIONS

The surgical approach described here in detail offers several advantages, with a favorable complication profile, satisfactory paresthesia coverage, and good perioperative patient comfort. Advances in the surgical technique are vital to both patients and healthcare providers, and we believe this approach is a valuable contribution toward improved patient outcomes and procedural efficiency.

Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation of the occipital nerves as treatment for chronic cluster headache

BACKGROUND

Chronic cluster headache (CCH) is an excruciatingly painful condition that can be difficult to treat sufficiently with the available medical treatment options. The greater occipital nerves (GON) are of major interest in treating CCH, and various invasive treatment modalities, such as stimulating or blocking the nerves, have been applied. Because the terminal segment of the GON has a superficial course, the nerve is also accessible for non-invasive transcutaneous stimulation. Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) has been suggested as a treatment for different chronic headaches, but evidence of the efficacy in patients with CCH is scarce. Additionally, no consensus exists on the optimal placement of the transcutaneous stimulation electrodes or the treatment usage pattern.

METHODS

In this explorative open-label clinical study, 36 patients with CCH were treated with TENS of the GON for 8-12 consecutive weeks between August 2021 and October 2023 as a separate part of the study protocol for a trial on stimulation of the GON (Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT05023460). After a baseline period, TENS was used primarily as a preventive treatment, stimulating for 30 min twice daily at a minimum. The primary outcome was a change in attack frequency and safety with TENS treatment. Secondary outcomes were change in attack duration and pain intensity on the numeric rating scale, abortive treatments, and the Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) with TENS treatment. The change in attack frequency, duration, pain intensity, and use of abortive treatment was analyzed by comparing the baseline data with 4-weekly data from TENS treatment. The study aimed to systematically investigate the effect of TENS of the GON as a preventive treatment for CCH.

RESULTS

Weekly attack frequency decreased from a median of 15.7 (95% confidence interval [CI] 11.2-22.1) at baseline to 11.0 (95% CI 7.4-16.4) with TENS. In all, 13 of the 36 (36%) patients had a minimum 30% reduction in attack frequency. In the group of 30% responders, the number of weekly attacks decreased from 15.8 (95% CI 9.8-24.5) at baseline to 5.8 (95% CI 3.3-10.5) attacks with TENS. Five patients became entirely or nearly attack-free. For the entire cohort, attack duration and pain intensity were also significantly reduced with TENS. The use of oxygen was reduced by 42%, and triptan injections decreased by 55%. Overall, 15 (42%) patients reported a clinically important improvement with TENS treatment, rated on the PGIC scale. The 100 Hz stimulation programs were preferred over 10 Hz. No serious adverse events were registered.

CONCLUSION

Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation of the GON significantly reduced the frequency, intensity, and duration of weekly headache attacks in patients with severe CCH. Not all patients benefitted from TENS, but the treatment responders had a substantial improvement in their cluster headache. TENS treatment was well-tolerated with little or no side effects and could be a relevant supplement to conventional preventive treatment. A standard TENS apparatus is low cost, making the treatment accessible to most patients. This paper includes a detailed, comprehensive description of our clinical application of the therapy.

Acute and preventive medical treatment of cluster headache in Taiwan: A narrative review

Cluster headache (CH) is a debilitating neurological disorder characterized by severe, unilateral pain, and ipsilateral autonomic symptoms. Chronic CH is exceedingly rare in Taiwan, constituting approximately 1% of all CH cases. This narrative review provides an up-to-date overview of the acute and preventive treatment strategies for CH in Taiwan, focusing on currently available pharmacological options in the country. The treatment approach for CH in Taiwan involves a stepwise strategy. High-flow oxygen and triptan nasal sprays are the mainstays of acute treatment, providing rapid relief, and good tolerability. Transitional treatments, such as oral steroids and suboccipital steroid injections, serve as a crucial bridge between acute and long-term preventive therapies, offering temporary relief while minimizing side effects through a carefully limited duration. For preventive treatment, verapamil is the first-line option, with lithium and topiramate being the second-line alternatives. Among the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibodies, galcanezumab has demonstrated efficacy in the prevention of episodic CH. Preventive treatments are personalized to individual patients, starting with low doses and close monitoring for adverse effects. Neuromodulatory therapies, such as noninvasive vagus nerve stimulation, show promise for chronic and refractory CH but have limited availability in Taiwan. In conclusion, despite the availability of various acute and preventive treatment options, unmet needs in the management of CH in Taiwan remain. In particular, increased awareness and education among healthcare professionals to improve the diagnosis and management of CH in Taiwan should be implemented.

Four Decades of Occipital Nerve Stimulation for Headache Disorders: A Systematic Review

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Chronic headaches are a significant source of disability worldwide. Despite the development of conventional strategies, a subset of patients remain refractory and/or experience side effects following these treatments. Hence, occipital nerve stimulation (ONS) should be considered as an alternative strategy for intractable chronic headaches. This review aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the effectiveness, safety, mechanisms and practical application of ONS for the treatment of headache disorders.

RECENT FINDINGS

Overall response rate of ONS is 35.7-100%, 17-100%, and 63-100% in patients with cluster headache, chronic migraine and occipital neuralgia respectively. Regarding the long-term effectivity in all groups, 41.6-88.0% of patients remain responders after ≥ 18.3 months. The most frequently reported adverse events include lead migration/fracture (13%) and local pain (7.3%). Based on our results, ONS can be considered a safe and effective treatment for chronic intractable headache disorders. To support more widespread application of ONS, additional research with larger sample sizes should be conducted.

Occipital nerve stimulation for cluster headache: lessons to learn from the 'voltage tuners'

BACKGROUND

Cluster headache (CH) is a significant health concern due to its major socioeconomic consequences and most patients being refractory to conventional strategies. For treatment resistant CH, occipital nerve stimulation (ONS) is considered an effective treatment option. Whereas most patients do not adjust the amplitude of the ONS system, a subset changes the amplitude on a regular basis using their remote control, and are therefore referred to as 'voltage tuners'. Anxiety and self-control are thought to be central themes to this behavior. Research on this voltage tuning behavior could provide new insights in the use of ONS as acute attack treatment. To date, voltage tuning has not been assessed for CH. Hence this is a unique study aiming to investigate the occurrence and efficacy of voltage tuning in patients with CH and ONS.

METHODS

For this analysis, patients with CH who received ONS from 2020-2024, at our university medical center, were included. All patients underwent bilateral ONS implantation. Data on attack frequency, intensity and duration were collected retrospectively. Outcomes on the response, frequency, moment during the day, duration, rationale, sensation, average increase in amplitude, and efficacy of voltage tuning were collected with prospective interviews.

RESULTS

Thirty-three patients (M = 20) (42 ± 12.7 years) were included in the current analysis. At 1y follow-up, an overall response rate of 70% (23/33) was found for ONS. In total, 48% (18/33) of patients were defined as voltage tuners. Voltage tuning was performed with an average increase in amplitude of 92 (20-360)%, a frequency of 1-20 times/month and duration of 20 minutes-48 hours. Sensations of voltage tuning were described as "tingling" and/or "pinching". The rationale for voltage tuning in patients varied from prevention and ceasing to lowering the intensity and enhance control of CH attack.

CONCLUSIONS

Outcomes show that voltage tuning may cease and/or terminate CH attacks and therefore raise interests in the use of ONS as acute attack treatment for patients with resistant CH treated with ONS. Future research on the occurrence and potential of voltage tuning will provide valuable insights for achieving optimal efficacy of ONS and quality of life in patients with CH.

Cluster headache: understandings of current knowledge and directions for whole process management

Cluster headache (CH) is a common primary headache that severely impacts patients' quality of life, characterized by recurrent, severe, unilateral headaches often centered around the eyes, temples, or forehead. Distinguishing CH from other headache disorders is challenging, and its pathogenesis remains unclear. Notably, patients with CH often experience high levels of depression and suicidal tendencies, necessitating increased clinical attention. This comprehensive assessment combines various reports and the latest scientific literature to evaluate the current state of CH research. It covers epidemiology, population characteristics, predisposing factors, and treatment strategies. Additionally, we provide strategic insights into the holistic management of CH, which involves continuous, individualized care throughout the prevention, treatment, and rehabilitation stages. Recent advances in the field have revealed new insights into the pathophysiology of CH. While these findings are still evolving, they offer a more detailed understanding of the neurobiological mechanisms underlying this disorder. This growing body of knowledge, alongside ongoing research efforts, promises to lead to the development of more targeted and effective treatments in the future.

The Untold Story of Occipital Nerve Stimulation in Patients With Cluster Headache: Surgical Technique in Relation to Clinical Efficacy

OBJECTIVES

Approximately one in every 1000 adults experiences cluster headache (CH). Although occipital nerve stimulation (ONS) appears encouraging in treatment for most patients with refractory CH, some patients do not reach adequate pain relief with ONS. A reason for failure of ONS might be anatomical variations and different surgical approaches. Therefore, an extensive literature analysis was performed, and cadaveric experimentation was combined with our clinical experience to provide a standardized proposal for ONS and obtain optimal management of patients with refractory CH.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data from 36 articles published between 1998 and 2023 were analyzed to retrieve information on the anatomical landmarks and surgical technique of ONS. For the cadaveric experimentation (N = 1), two electrodes were inserted from the region over the foramen magnum and projected toward the lower third of the mastoid process.

RESULTS

The existence of multiple approaches of ONS has been confirmed by the present analysis. Discrepancies have been found in the anatomical locations and corresponding landmarks of the greater and lesser occipital nerve. The surgical approaches differed in patient positioning, electrode placement, and imaging techniques, with an overall efficacy range of 35.7% to 90%.

CONCLUSIONS

Reports on the surgical approach of ONS remain contradictory, hence emphasizing the need for standardization. Only if all implanting physicians perform the ONS surgery using a standardized protocol, can future data be combined and outcomes compared and analyzed.

Neuromodulation for Craniofacial Pain and Headaches

Headaches and facial pain are highly prevalent diseases but are often difficult to treat. Though there have been significant advances in medical management, many continue to suffer from refractory pain. Neuromodulation has been gaining interest for its therapeutic purposes in many chronic pain conditions, including headaches and facial pain. There are many potential targets of neuromodulation for headache and facial pain, and some have more robust evidence in favor of their use than others. Despite the need for more high-quality research, the available evidence for the use of neuromodulation in treating headaches and facial pain is promising. Considering the suffering that afflicts patients with intractable headache, neuromodulation may be an appropriate tool to improve not only pain but also disability and quality of life.

Occipital Nerve Stimulation for Recurrent Trigeminal Neuralgia Without Occipital Pain

OBJECTIVES

Trigeminal neuralgia (TN) is a severe, debilitating pain condition causing physical and emotional distress. Although the management of TN is well codified with medical and then surgical treatments, 15% to 30% of patients will experience intractable pain. Neuromodulation techniques have been scarcely used for refractory TN, with only small case series and short-term follow-up.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a retrospective study of patients treated with occipital nerve stimulation (ONS) for medically and surgically resistant TN without painful trigeminal neuropathy. The effectiveness of the ONS was evaluated using the Barrow Neurological Institute (BNI) pain score and the pain relief (0%-100%) at best and at last follow-up.

RESULTS

Seven patients who have refractory TN were included. The mean age at ONS was 49 years. The mean pain duration was 8.6 years. The mean number of medical and surgical treatments before ONS was six and five, respectively. A percutaneous trial was performed in five of seven patients; all responded (pain relief > 40%), and four of five patients experienced pain recurrence after explantation. Eventually, six patients had a permanent ONS implantation. The average BNI pain score before implantation was V. The mean follow-up after implantation was 59 months. All patients reported an improvement after implantation. The average BNI score and mean pain relief at best were IIIa and 86.7%, respectively. At last follow-up, the average BNI score and mean pain relief were IIIa and 58.0%, respectively, with three patients experiencing pain recurrence. Adverse events were reported for four patients who required surgical revision for lead breakage (1), erosion (1), migration (1), or hardware-related discomfort (1). One patient finally underwent explantation because of infection.

CONCLUSIONS

Although ONS is not validated in this indication, these results suggest that it can induce an improvement in TN recurring after several surgical treatments, and the benefit of the stimulation can be sustained in the long term.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

The Clinicaltrials.gov registration number for the study is NCT01842763.

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.

Cluster headache: state of the art in treatment

Cluster headache (CH) is the most common and devastating autonomic headache with multiple and recent advances in treatment. However, it usually goes unrecognized and is found to have a delayed and inappropriate treatment. This paper aims to review the current therapeutic options for patients with CH. We conducted a narrative literature review on the treatments available for this condition using the American Academy of Neurology (AAN) classification of therapeutic evidence. We found effective and safe pharmacological and non-pharmacological therapies with heterogeneity of clinical trial designs for patients with CH, and they are divided into three phases, namely, transitional, acute, and preventive interventions. Prednisone (A) is the most studied treatment in the transitional phase; acute attacks are treated using triptans (A), oxygen (A), and non-invasive transcutaneous vagal nerve stimulation (A). Verapamil (A) and monoclonal antibodies (possible A) are considered the first options in preventive treatments, followed by multiple pharmacological and non-pharmacological options in prophylactic treatments. In conclusion, numerous effective and safe treatments are available in treating patients with episodic, chronic, and pharmacoresistant CH according to the clinical profile of each patient.

The HortONS study. Treatment of chronic cluster headache with transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation and occipital nerve stimulation: study protocol for a prospective, investigator-initiated, double-blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Chronic cluster headache (CCH) is a debilitating primary headache disorder. Occipital nerve stimulation (ONS) has shown the potential to reduce attack frequency, but the occipital paresthesia evoked by conventional (tonic) stimulation challenges a blinded comparison of active stimulation and placebo. Burst ONS offers paresthesia-free stimulation, enabling a blinded, placebo-controlled study. Identification of a feasible preoperative test would help select the best candidates for implantation. This study aims to explore ONS as a preventive treatment for CCH, comparing burst stimulation to tonic stimulation and placebo, and possibly identifying a potential preoperative predictor.

METHODS

An investigator-initiated, double-blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled trial is conducted, including 40 patients with CCH. Eligible patients complete a trial with the following elements: I) four weeks of baseline observation, II) 12 weeks of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) of the occipital nerves, III) implantation of a full ONS system followed by 2 week grace period, IV) 12 weeks of blinded trial with 1:1 randomization to either placebo (deactivated ONS system) or burst (paresthesia-free) stimulation, and V) 12 weeks of tonic stimulation. The primary outcomes are the reduction in headache attack frequency with TENS and ONS and treatment safety. Secondary outcomes are treatment efficacy of burst versus tonic ONS, the feasibility of TENS as a predictor for ONS outcome, reduction in headache pain intensity (numeric rating scale), reduction in background headache, the patient's impression of change (PGIC), health-related quality of life (EuroQoL-5D), self-reported sleep quality, and symptoms of anxiety and depression (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, HADS). Data on headache attack characteristics are registered weekly. Data on patient-reported outcomes are assessed after each trial phase.

DISCUSSION

The study design allows a comparison between burst ONS and placebo in refractory CCH and enables a comparison of the efficacy of burst and tonic ONS. It will provide information about the effect of burst ONS and explore whether the addition of this stimulation paradigm may improve stimulation protocols. TENS is evaluated as a feasible preoperative screening tool for ONS outcomes by comparing the effect of attack prevention of TENS and tonic ONS.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The study is registered at Clinicaltrials.gov (trial registration number NCT05023460, registration date 07-27-2023).

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.

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.

Current treatment options for cluster headache: limitations and the unmet need for better and specific treatments-a consensus article

AIM

Treatment for cluster headache is currently based on a trial-and-error approach. The available preventive treatment is unspecific and based on few and small studies not adhering to modern standards. Therefore, the authors collaborated to discuss acute and preventive treatment in cluster headache, addressing the unmet need of safe and tolerable preventive medication from the perspectives of people with cluster headache and society, headache specialist and cardiologist.

FINDINGS

The impact of cluster headache on personal life is substantial. Mean annual direct and indirect costs of cluster headache are more than 11,000 Euros per patient. For acute treatment, the main problems are treatment response, availability, costs and, for triptans, contraindications and the maximum use allowed. Intermediate treatment with steroids and greater occipital nerve blocks are effective but cannot be used continuously. Preventive treatment is sparsely studied and overall limited by relatively low efficacy and side effects. Neurostimulation is a relevant option for treatment-refractory chronic patients. From a cardiologist's perspective use of verapamil and triptans may be worrisome and regular follow-up is essential when using verapamil and lithium.

CONCLUSION

We find that there is a great and unmet need to pursue novel and targeted preventive modalities to suppress the horrific pain attacks for people with cluster headache.

Treatment of chronic cluster headache with burst and tonic occipital nerve stimulation: A case series

OBJECTIVES AND BACKGROUND

Chronic cluster headache (CCH) is a rare but severely debilitating primary headache condition. A growing amount of evidence suggests that occipital nerve stimulation (ONS) can offer effective treatment in patients with severe CCH for whom conventional medical therapy does not have a sufficient effect. The paresthesia evoked by conventional (tonic) stimulation can be bothersome and may thus limit therapy. Burst ONS produces paresthesia-free stimulation, but the amount of evidence on the efficacy of burst ONS as a treatment for intractable CCH is scarce.

METHODS

In this case series, we report 15 patients with CCH treated with ONS at Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark, from 2013 to 2020. Nine of these received burst stimulation either as primary treatment or as a supplement to tonic stimulation. The results were assessed in terms of the frequency of headache attacks per week and their intensity on the Numeric Rating Scale, as well as the Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) with ONS treatment.

RESULTS

At a median (range) follow-up of 38 (16-96) months, 12 of the 15 patients (80%) reported a reduction in attack frequency of ≥50% (a reduction from a median of 35 to 1 attack/week, p < 0.001). Seven of these patients were treated with burst ONS. A significant reduction was also seen in maximum pain intensity. Overall, 10 patients stated a clinically important improvement in their headache condition following ONS treatment, rated on the PGIC scale. A total of 16 adverse events (nine of which were in the same patient) were registered.

CONCLUSION

Occipital nerve stimulation significantly reduced the number of weekly headache attacks and their intensity. Burst ONS seems to function well alone or as a supplement to conventional tonic ONS as a preventive treatment for CCH; however, larger prospective studies are needed to determine whether the effect can be confirmed and whether the efficacy of the two stimulation paradigms is even.

Management of cluster headache: Treatments and their mechanisms

BACKGROUND

The management of cluster headache is similar to that of other primary headache disorders and can be broadly divided into acute and preventive treatments. Acute treatments for cluster headache are primarily delivered via rapid, non-oral routes (such as inhalation, nasal, or subcutaneous) while preventives include a variety of unrelated treatments such as corticosteroids, verapamil, and galcanezumab. Neuromodulation is becoming an increasingly popular option, both non-invasively such as vagus nerve stimulation when medical treatment is contraindicated or side effects are intolerable, and invasively such as occipital nerve stimulation when medical treatment is ineffective. Clinically, this collection of treatment types provides a range of options for the informed clinician. Scientifically, this collection provides important insights into disease mechanisms.

METHODS

Two authors performed independent narrative reviews of the literature on guideline recommendations, clinical trials, real-world data, and mechanistic studies.

RESULTS

Cluster headache is treated with acute treatments, bridge treatments, and preventive treatments. Common first-line treatments include subcutaneous sumatriptan and high-flow oxygen as acute treatments, corticosteroids (oral or suboccipital injections) as bridge treatments, and verapamil as a preventive treatment. Some newer acute (non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation) and preventive (galcanezumab) treatments have excellent clinical trial data for episodic cluster headache, while other newer treatments (occipital nerve stimulation) have been specifically tested in treatment-refractory chronic cluster headache. Most treatments are suspected to act on the trigeminovascular system, the autonomic system, or the hypothalamus.

CONCLUSIONS

The first-line treatments have not changed in recent years, but new treatments have provided additional options for patients.

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.

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.

Long term outcomes of occipital nerve stimulation

Background

Occipital nerve stimulation (ONS) has been investigated as a potential treatment for disabling headaches and has shown promise for disorders such as chronic migraine and cluster headache. Long term outcomes stratified by headache subtype have had limited exploration, and literature on outcomes of this neuromodulatory intervention spanning 2 or more years is scarce.

Measures

We performed a narrative review on long term outcomes with ONS for treatment of headache disorders. We surveyed the available literature for studies that have outcomes for 24 months or greater to see if there is a habituation in response over time. Review of the literature revealed evidence in treatment of occipital neuralgia, chronic migraine, cluster headache, cervicogenic headache, short lasting unilateral neuralgiform headache attacks (SUNHA) and paroxysmal hemicrania. While the term "response" varied per individual study, a total of 17 studies showed outcomes in ONS with long term sustained responses (as defined per this review) in the majority of patients with specific headache types 177/311 (56%). Only 7 studies in total (3 cluster, 1 occipital neuralgia, 1 cervicogenic headache, 1 SUNHA, 1 paroxysmal hemicrania) provided both short-term and long-term responses up to 24 months to ONS. In cluster headache, the majority of patients (64%) were long term responders (as defined per this review) and only a minority of patients 12/62 (19%) had loss of efficacy (e.g., habituation). There was a high number 313/439 (71%) of adverse events per total number of patients in the studies including lead migration, requirements of revision surgery, allergy to surgical materials, infection and intolerable paresthesias.

Conclusions

With the evidence available, the response to ONS was sustained in the majority of patients with cluster headache with low rates of loss of efficacy in this patient population. There was a high percent of adverse events per number of patients in long term follow-up and likely related to the off-label use of leads typically used for spinal cord stimulation. Further longitudinal assessments of outcomes in occipital nerve stimulation with devices labelled for use in peripheral nerve stimulation are needed to evaluate the extent of habituation to treatment in headache.

Complete resolution of chronic cluster headache following central lateral thalamotomy using incisionless MRI-guided focused ultrasound with 6 years of follow-up: illustrative case

BACKGROUND

The authors reported the case of a 66-year-old male patient with a 14-year history of right-sided severe episodic and therapy-resistant cluster headache (CH) who underwent bilateral central lateral thalamotomy (CLT) using incisionless transcranial magnetic resonance imaging-guided focused ultrasound (MRgFUS).

OBSERVATIONS

The patient experienced a single cluster headache attack 5 weeks after the procedure. There were no more pain attacks over the next 6 years of follow-up.

LESSONS

This treatment success may indicate a common pathophysiology for CH and neurogenic (neuropathic) pain, which has been treated with CLT for more than 30 years. Further experience is needed to assess the reproducibility of this case.

Recent advances in the diagnosis and management of cluster headache

Cluster headache, a primary headache disorder, consists of short (15-180 minutes), frequent (up to eight a day), unilateral attacks of facial pain with associated ipsilateral autonomic features and restlessness. The attacks are suspected to be one of the most painful human experiences, and the disorder is associated with a high rate of suicidal ideation. Proper diagnosis is key, as some of the most effective treatments, such as high flow oxygen gas, are rarely used in other headache disorders. Yet diagnostic delay is typically years for this disorder, as it is often confused with migraine and trigeminal neuralgia, and secondary causes may be overlooked. This review covers the clinical, pathophysiologic, and therapeutic features of cluster headache. Recent updates in diagnosis include the redefinition of chronic cluster headache (remission periods lasting less than three months instead of the previous one month), and recent advances in management include new treatments for episodic cluster headache (galcanezumab and non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation).

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.

Peripheral Nerve Stimulation for Treatment of Headaches: An Evidence-Based Review

Headaches are one of the most common medical complaints worldwide, and treatment is often made difficult because of misclassification. Peripheral nerve stimulation has emerged as a novel treatment for the treatment of intractable headaches in recent years. While high-quality evidence does exist regarding its use, efficacy is generally limited to specific nerves and headache types. While much research remains to bring this technology to the mainstream, clinicians are increasingly able to provide safe yet efficacious pain control.

Cluster Headache: What's New?

Background

Cluster headache is a highly disabling primary headache disorder which is widely described as the most painful condition a human can experience.

Aim

To provide an overview of the clinical characteristics, epidemiology, risk factors, differential diagnosis, pathophysiology and treatment options of cluster headache, with a focus on recent developments in the field.

Methods

Structured review of the literature on cluster headache.

Results

Cluster headache affects approximately one in 1000 of the population. It is characterised by attacks of severe unilateral head pain associated with ipsilateral cranial autonomic symptoms, and the tendency for attacks to occur with circadian and circannual periodicity. The pathophysiology of cluster headache and other primary headache disorders has recently become better understood and is thought to involve the hypothalamus and trigeminovascular system. There is good quality evidence for acute treatment of attacks with parenteral triptans and high flow oxygen; preventive treatment with verapamil; and transitional treatment with oral corticosteroids or greater occipital nerve injection. New pharmacological and neuromodulation therapies have recently been developed.

Conclusion

Cluster headache causes distinctive symptoms, which once they are recognised can usually be managed with a variety of established treatments. Recent pathophysiological understanding has led to the development of newer pharmacological and neuromodulation therapies, which may soon become established in clinical practice.

Cluster headache pathophysiology - insights from current and emerging treatments

Cluster headache is a debilitating primary headache disorder that affects approximately 0.1% of the population worldwide. Cluster headache attacks involve severe unilateral pain in the trigeminal distribution together with ipsilateral cranial autonomic features and a sense of agitation. Acute treatments are available and are effective in just over half of the patients. Until recently, preventive medications were borrowed from non-headache indications, so management of cluster headache is challenging. However, as our understanding of cluster headache pathophysiology has evolved on the basis of key bench and neuroimaging studies, crucial neuropeptides and brain structures have been identified as emerging treatment targets. In this Review, we provide an overview of what is known about the pathophysiology of cluster headache and discuss the existing treatment options and their mechanisms of action. Existing acute treatments include triptans and high-flow oxygen, interim treatment options include corticosteroids in oral form or for greater occipital nerve block, and preventive treatments include verapamil, lithium, melatonin and topiramate. We also consider emerging treatment options, including calcitonin gene-related peptide antibodies, non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation, sphenopalatine ganglion stimulation and somatostatin receptor agonists, discuss how evidence from trials of these emerging treatments provides insights into the pathophysiology of cluster headache and highlight areas for future research.

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.

Pain localization in cluster headache patients: Onset, peak, and radiation

OBJECTIVE AND AIM

To describe differences in pain locations for onset, peak, and radiation aspects of cluster headache (CH) attacks.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Data were collected for 23 months using a cross-sectional online survey composed of 117 questions on pain location, demographics, and clinical features. 5260 datapoints on 44 pain locations from 631 respondents were analyzed.

RESULTS

During the onset and peak of attacks, pain is concentrated periorbitally. Pain locations outside the periorbital region were reported more frequently for radiation than for onset and peak of attacks. Dorsal (occipital, neck, shoulder) pain was reported more frequently in connection with onset and radiation than during peak: onset (13%) versus peak (6%), p < 0.001, and radiation (22%) versus peak (6%), p < 0.001. There was no significant difference in dorsal pain frequencies for onset (13%) vs. radiation (22%), p = 0.552. Furthermore, the frequency with which individual pain locations were reported differed significantly for onset, peak, and radiation in CH.

CONCLUSIONS

Analysis of the pain location data shows specific frequencies and distributions of pain location for three aspects of CH attacks. The frequency with which individual pain points were reported differed significantly for onset, peak, and radiation. In general, dorsal pain points were reported more frequently for onset and radiation than for peak pain. Pain locations beyond the eye (extraorbital points) were more frequently reported in connection with radiating pain. Our findings could serve as a basis for future research, correlating CH pain patterns with the outcome of treatment approaches.

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.

Spinal manipulation and perineural electrical dry needling in patients with cervicogenic headache: a multicenter randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Spinal manipulation, spinal mobilization, and exercise are commonly used in individuals with cervicogenic headache (CH). Dry needling is being increasingly used in the management of CH. However, questions remain about the effectiveness of these therapies and how they compare to each other.

PURPOSE

The present study aims to compare the combined effects of spinal manipulation and dry needling with spinal mobilization and exercise on pain and disability in individuals with CH.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

Randomized, multicenter, parallel-group trial.

PATIENT SAMPLE

One hundred forty-two patients (n=142) with CH from 13 outpatient clinics in 10 different states were recruited over a 36-month period.

OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was headache intensity as measured by the Numeric Pain Rating Scale. Secondary outcomes included headache frequency and duration, disability (Neck Disability Index), medication intake, and the Global Rating of Change (GROC). Follow-up assessments were taken at 1 week, 4 weeks, and 3 months.

METHODS

Patients were randomized to receive upper cervical and upper thoracic spinal manipulation plus electrical dry needling (n=74) or upper cervical and upper thoracic spinal mobilization and exercise (n=68). In addition, the mobilization group also received a program of craniocervical and peri-scapular resistance exercises; whereas, the spinal manipulation group also received up to eight sessions of perineural electrical dry needling. The treatment period for both groups was 4 weeks. The trial was prospectively registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02373605). Drs Dunning, Butts and Young are faculty within the AAMT Fellowship and teach postgraduate courses in spinal manipulation, spinal mobilization, dry needling, exercise and differential diagnosis. The other authors declare no conflicts of interest. None of the authors received any funding for this study.

RESULTS

The 2 × 4 analysis of covariance revealed that individuals with CH who received thrust spinal manipulation and electrical dry needling experienced significantly greater reductions in headache intensity (F=23.464; p<.001), headache frequency (F=13.407; p<.001), and disability (F=10.702; p<.001) than those who received nonthrust mobilization and exercise at a 3-month follow-up. Individuals in the spinal manipulation and electrical dry needling group also experienced shorter duration of headaches (p<.001) at 3 months. Based on the cutoff score of ≥+5 on the GROC, significantly (X²=54.840; p<.001) more patients (n=57, 77%) within the spinal manipulation and electrical dry needling group achieved a successful outcome compared to the mobilization and exercise group (n=10, 15%) at 3-month follow-up. Between-groups effect sizes were large (0.94<standardized mean score difference<1.25) in all outcomes in favor of the spinal manipulation and electrical dry needling group at 3 months. In addition, significantly (X²=29.889; p<.001) more patients in the spinal manipulation and electrical dry needling group (n=49, 66%) completely stopped taking medication for their pain compared to the spinal mobilization and exercise group (n=14, 21%) at 3 months.

CONCLUSION

Upper cervical and upper thoracic high-velocity low-amplitude thrust spinal manipulation and electrical dry needling were shown to be more effective than nonthrust mobilization and exercise in patients with CH, and the effects were maintained at 3 months.

Occipital nerve stimulation and deep brain stimulation for refractory cluster headache: a prospective analysis of efficacy over time

OBJECTIVE

Occipital nerve stimulation (ONS) and deep brain stimulation (DBS) are widely used surgical treatments for chronic refractory cluster headache (CH). However, there is little literature regarding long-term follow-up of these treatments.

METHODS

The authors describe two prospective cohorts of patients with refractory CH treated with ONS and DBS and compare preoperative to postoperative status at 6 and 12 months after the surgery and at final follow-up. Efficacy analysis using objective and subjective variables is reported, as well as medication reduction and complications.

RESULTS

The ONS group consisted of 13 men and 4 women, with a median age of 44 years (range 31-61 years). The median number of attacks per week (NAw) before surgery was 28 (range 7-70), and the median follow-up duration was 48 months. The DBS group comprised 5 men and 2 women, with a median age of 50 years (range 29-64 years). The median NAw before surgery was 56 (range 14-140), and the median follow-up was 36 months. The NAw and visual analog scale score were significantly reduced for the ONS and DBS groups after surgery. However, while all the patients from the DBS group were considered responders at final follow-up, with more than 85% being satisfied with the treatment, approximately 29% of initial responders to ONS became resistant by the final follow-up (p = 0.0253).

CONCLUSIONS

ONS is initially effective as a treatment for refractory CH, although a trend toward loss of efficacy was observed. No clear predictors of good clinical response were found in the present study. Conversely, DBS appears to be effective and provide a more stable clinical response over time with an acceptable rate of surgical complications.

Peripheral Neuromodulation for the Management of Headache

Context

Neuromodulation is an expanding field of study for headache treatment to reduce pain by targeting structures within the nervous system that are commonly involved in headache pathophysiology, such as the vagus nerve (VNS), occipital nerves, or sphenopalatine ganglion (SPG) for stimulation. Pharmaceutical medical therapies for abortive and prophylactic treatment, such as triptans, NSAIDs, beta-blockers, TCAs, and antiepileptics, are effective for some individuals, but the role that technology plays in investigating other therapeutic modalities is essential. Peripheral neuromodulation has gained popularity and FDA approval for use in treating certain headaches and migraine headache conditions, particularly in those who are refractory to treatment. Early trials found FDA approved neurostimulatory implant devices, including Cephaly and SpringTMS, improved patient-oriented outcomes with reductions in headaches per month (frequency) and severity.

Evidence Acquisition

This was a narrative review. The sources for this review are as follows: Searching on PubMed, Google Scholar, Medline, and ScienceDirect from 1990 - 2019 using keywords: Peripheral Neuromodulation, Headache, vagus nerve, occipital nerves, sphenopalatine ganglion.

Results

The first noninvasive neurostimulator device approved for migraine treatment was the Cefaly device, an external trigeminal nerve stimulation device (e-TNS) that transcutaneously excites the supratrochlear and supraorbital branches of the ophthalmic nerve. The second noninvasive neurostimulation device receiving FDA approval was the single-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulator, SpringTMS, positioned at the occiput to treat migraine with aura. GammaCore is a handheld transcutaneous vagal nerve stimulator applied directly to the neck at home by the patient for treatment of cluster headache (CH) and migraine. Several other devices are in development for the treatment of headaches and target headache evolution at different levels and inputs. The Scion device is a caloric vestibular stimulator (CVS) which interfaces with the user through a set of small cones resting in the ear canal on either side and held in place by modified over-ear headphones. The pulsante SPG Microstimulator is a patient-controlled device implanted in the patient’s upper jaw via an hour-long oral procedure to target the sphenopalatine ganglion. The occipital nerve stimulator (ONS) is an invasive neuromodulation device for headache treatment that consists of an implanted pulse generator on the chest wall connected to a subcutaneous lead with 4 - 8 electrodes that is tunneled the occiput.

Conclusions

The aim of this review is to provide a comprehensive overview of the efficacy, preliminary outcomes, and limitations of neurostimulatory implants available for use in the US and those pending further development.

Primaries non-migraine headaches treatment: a review

In the "headache world," great attention has always been paid to migraine patients, especially for the research and development of new therapies. For the other forms of primary headaches, especially those of Chapters 2 and 3 of the classification, there are however therapies that, even if not specific, can give significant results. Tension-type headache recognizes in NSAIDs the most effective drugs to treat acute attack, while prevention is based on the use of tricyclic antidepressants and muscle relaxants. For TACs, the discussion is more complex: first of all, there are two forms of primary headache that respond absolutely to indomethacin. For these, the main problem is how to manage the possible side effects arising from prolonged treatments and possibly what to use as an alternative. For cluster headaches and short-lasting unilateral neuralgiform headache attacks, we have drugs with good efficacy as regards medical therapy, such as verapamil or lamotrigine, but in recent years, neuromodulation techniques, both surgical and non-invasive, have also been affirming themselves, which represent a more possibility for forms of headache that are often very disabling and resistant to common analgesics.

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.

Sphenopalatine Ganglion Pulsed Radiofrequency for the Treatment of Refractory Chronic SUNCT and SUNA: A Prospective Case Series

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of sphenopalatine ganglion pulsed radiofrequency (SPG-PRF) for the treatment of patients with refractory chronic short-lasting unilateral neuralgiform headache attacks with conjunctival injection and tearing (SUNCT) and with cranial autonomic symptoms (SUNA).

BACKGROUND

SPG-PRF is a minimally invasive, non-neurodestructive procedure already tested in refractory chronic cluster headache with mixed outcomes. However, no data have been produced in SUNCT/SUNA.

METHODS

This was a prospective clinical audit of outcomes. Consecutive patients with chronic SUNCT/SUNA refractory to medical treatments and treated with SPG-PRF, were included in the analysis. The SPG-PRF was performed percutaneously via a lateral, infra-zygomatic approach. Responders were defined as patients with a reduction in number and/or severity of headache episodes by ≥30% for ≥3 months. Responders to the first procedure were offered to have the treatment repeated.

RESULTS

Nine patients (6 female) were analyzed. After a median follow-up of 30 months (range 2-30), 7 patients were considered responders to the treatment (77.8%) for a median of 6 months (range: 4-10), 1 patient obtained 40% improvement for 2 months, and 1 patient did experience any improvement. No procedure-related immediate or delayed side effects were reported. Three patients (33.3%) experienced a worsening of the head pain for 2-4 weeks immediately after the procedure. Four responders had SPG-PRF repeated; a reproducible response was obtained in two of them.

CONCLUSIONS

In our small series of patients with refractory chronic SUNCT/SUNA, SPG-PRF was a safe and effective treatment modality. The potential reproducible positive effect of subsequent treatments may prevent or delay the use of more invasive and costly interventions for at least a proportion of these patients.

[Peripheral neurostimulation in headache treatment]

According to rough estimates, at least one third of the population in developed countries suffers, to varying degrees, from certain forms of primary headache, the modern pharmacotherapy of which is not always effective and has a number of limitations. The non-pharmacological treatment of headache can be an alternative to the prescription of pharmacological agents and the only possible assistance option for patients developing drug-resistant cephalalgias. This review describes various methods of electrical neuromodulation that are used for the management of primary headaches. The authors provide information on current stages in implementation of implantable and non-invasive equipment into clinical practice, which makes possible electrical stimulations of peripheral nerves and of the sphenopalatine ganglion, as well as allows transcranial magnetic stimulation. Also the appearance and usage of portable electrical devices available on the world market are described, and mechanisms that can underlie anticephalgic action of neuromodulation therapy are discussed. Special attention is paid to the methods that are applied for electrostimulation of the vagus nerve and occipital nerves.

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.

Burst Occipital Nerve Stimulation for Chronic Migraine and Chronic Cluster Headache

BACKGROUND

Occipital nerve stimulation (ONS) is widely used for headache syndromes including chronic migraine (CM) and chronic cluster headache (CCH). The paraesthesia associated with tonic stimulation can be bothersome and can limit therapy. It is now clear in spinal cord stimulation that paraesthesia-free waveforms can produce effective analgesia, but this has not been reported in ONS for CM or CCH.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Seventeen patients (12 CM and 5 CCH) were treated with bilateral burst pattern ONS, including 4 who had previously had tonic ONS. Results were assessed in terms of the frequency of headaches (number of headache days per month for CM, and number of attacks per day for CCH) and their intensity on the numeric pain rating scale.

RESULTS

Burst ONS produced a statistically significant mean reduction of 10.2 headache days per month in CM. In CCH, there were significant mean reductions in headache frequency (92%) and intensity (42%).

CONCLUSION

Paraesthesia is not necessary for good quality analgesia in ONS. Larger studies will be required to determine whether the efficacies of the two stimulation modes differ. Burst ONS is imperceptible and therefore potentially amenable to robustly blinded clinical trials.