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

An Analysis of the Determinants of the Health-Related Quality of Life in Asian Patients With Cluster Headaches During Cluster Periods Using the Time Trade-Off Method

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Patients with cluster headache (CH) exhibit impaired health-related quality of life (HRQoL). However, there have been few studies related to the HRQoL of patients with CH from Asian backgrounds. This study aimed to determine the impact of CH on HRQoL and to identify the factors affecting HRQoL in patients with CH during cluster periods.

METHODS

This prospective study enrolled patients with CH from 17 headache clinics in South Korea between September 2016 and February 2021. The study aimed to determine HRQoL in patients with CH using the EuroQol 5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) index and the time trade-off (TTO) method. Age- and sex-matched headache-free participants were recruited as a control group.

RESULTS

The study included 423 patients with CH who experienced a cluster period at the time. EQ-5D scores were lower in patients with CH (0.88±0.43, mean±standard deviation) than in the controls (0.99±0.33, p<0.001). The TTO method indicated that 58 (13.6%) patients with CH exhibited moderate-to-severe HRQoL deterioration. The HRQoL states in patients with CH were associated with current smoking patterns, headache severity, frequency, and duration, and scores on the Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-item scale (GAD-7), Patient Health Questionnaire 9-item scale (PHQ-9), 6-item Headache Impact Test, and 12-item Allodynia Symptom Checklist. Multivariable logistic regression analyses demonstrated that the HRQoL states in patients with CH were negatively correlated with the daily frequency of headaches, cluster period duration, and GAD-7 and PHQ-9 scores.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with CH experienced a worse quality of life during cluster periods compared with the headache-free controls, but the degree of HRQoL deterioration varied among them. The daily frequency of headaches, cluster period duration, anxiety, and depression were factors associated with HRQoL deterioration severity in patients with CH.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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 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.

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.

Long-Term Efficacy of Occipital Nerve Stimulation for Medically Intractable Cluster Headache

BACKGROUND

Occipital nerve stimulation (ONS) has been proposed to treat refractory chronic cluster headache (rCCH) but its efficacy has only been showed in small short-term series.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate ONS long-term efficacy in rCCH.

METHODS

We studied 105 patients with rCCH, treated by ONS within a multicenter ONS prospective registry. Efficacy was evaluated by frequency, intensity of pain attacks, quality of life (QoL) EuroQol 5 dimensions (EQ5D), functional (Headache Impact Test-6, Migraine Disability Assessment) and emotional (Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale [HAD]) impacts, and medication consumption.

RESULTS

At last follow-up (mean 43.8 mo), attack frequency was reduced >50% in 69% of the patients. Mean weekly attack frequency decreased from 22.5 at baseline to 9.9 (P < .001) after ONS. Preventive and abortive medications were significantly decreased. Functional impact, anxiety, and QoL significantly improved after ONS. In excellent responders (59% of the patients), attack frequency decreased by 80% and QoL (EQ5D visual analog scale) dramatically improved from 37.8/100 to 73.2/100. When comparing baseline and 1-yr and last follow-up outcomes, efficacy was sustained over time. In multivariable analysis, low preoperative HAD-depression score was correlated to a higher risk of ONS failure. During the follow-up, 67 patients experienced at least one complication, 29 requiring an additional surgery: infection (6%), lead migration (12%) or fracture (4.5%), hardware dysfunction (8.2%), and local pain (20%).

CONCLUSION

Our results showed that long-term efficacy of ONS in CCH was maintained over time. In responders, ONS induced a major reduction of functional and emotional headache-related impacts and a dramatic improvement of QoL. These results obtained in real-life conditions support its use and dissemination in rCCH 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.

Mapping Assessments Instruments for Headache Disorders against the ICF Biopsychosocial Model of Health and Disability

Headache disorders have a strong impact on sufferers’ lives. However, the “content” of assessment instruments addressing concepts, such as disability and quality of life (QoL), has not comprehensively been addressed. We searched SCOPUS for research papers in which outcome measures were used in adult populations of patients with migraine, tension-type headache (TTH), and cluster headache (CH). The content of single instruments was then mapped against the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health. A total of 150 papers and 26 instruments were included: 15 addressed disability or impact, two addressed work-related difficulties, and nine addressed QoL. Few instruments were commonly used across the conditions and covered domains of functioning were impact on daily life activities, homework, school, and work-related tasks, leisure time, informal and family relations, pain, emotional difficulties, energy level, and impulse control. Most of the research is based on instruments that were developed for migraine, which is critical for CH, and the impact of headache disorders on work-related activities is poorly acknowledged. Further research is needed to expand the scope of headaches impact on daily life activities, and on environmental factors relevant to headache disorders to raise knowledge on the less represented areas, e.g., TTH impact.

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.

Ketamine-Magnesium for Refractory Chronic Cluster Headache: A Case Series

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the safety and efficacy of ketamine-magnesium combination to reduce attacks in a series of patients with refractory chronic cluster headache (rCCH).

BACKGROUND

Refractory chronic cluster headache (CCH) is a rare but highly debilitating condition that needs new treatment options. A previous publication reported that a single infusion of ketamine-magnesium combination was effective in 2 patients with rCCH.

METHODS

The treatment was proposed to consecutive patients with rCCH seen in 2 French hospitals between November 2015 and February 2020 and who were resistant to at least 3 preventive treatments. They received a single ketamine infusion (0.5 mg/kg over 2 hours) combined with magnesium sulfate (3000 mg). The main outcome was a comparison of the number of daily attacks 2 weeks prior to the ketamine-magnesium infusion and 1 week after (on days 7 and 8). The second outcome was the percentage of responders (patients with ≥50% reduction in the frequency of daily attacks). Safety was assessed by the recording of adverse events during infusion. Descriptive statistics are presented as mean ± standard deviation.

RESULTS

Seventeen patients (14 men), with an age of 35.2 ± 8.1 years, were included. They presented with CCH for 6.6 ± 4.3 years. The number of daily attacks decreased from 4.3 ± 2.4 before treatment to 1.3 ± 1.0 after treatment (difference: -3.1 (95% CI: -4.5 to -1.6), P < .001). Seventy six percent (13/17) were responders. Transient and mild sedation was reported by 7/17 patients (41.2%).

CONCLUSIONS

The ketamine-magnesium combination seems an effective and well-tolerated therapy for rCCH. Placebo-controlled studies should be conducted to further confirm these findings.

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.

Pharmacotherapy for Cluster Headache

Cluster headache is characterised by attacks of excruciating unilateral headache or facial pain lasting 15 min to 3 h and is seen as one of the most intense forms of pain. Cluster headache attacks are accompanied by ipsilateral autonomic symptoms such as ptosis, miosis, redness or flushing of the face, nasal congestion, rhinorrhoea, peri-orbital swelling and/or restlessness or agitation. Cluster headache treatment entails fast-acting abortive treatment, transitional treatment and preventive treatment. The primary goal of prophylactic and transitional treatment is to achieve attack freedom, although this is not always possible. Subcutaneous sumatriptan and high-flow oxygen are the most proven abortive treatments for cluster headache attacks, but other treatment options such as intranasal triptans may be effective. Verapamil and lithium are the preventive drugs of first choice and the most widely used in first-line preventive treatment. Given its possible cardiac side effects, electrocardiogram (ECG) is recommended before treating with verapamil. Liver and kidney functioning should be evaluated before and during treatment with lithium. If verapamil and lithium are ineffective, contraindicated or discontinued because of side effects, the second choice is topiramate. If all these drugs fail, other options with lower levels of evidence are available (e.g. melatonin, clomiphene, dihydroergotamine, pizotifen). However, since the evidence level is low, we also recommend considering one of several neuromodulatory options in patients with refractory chronic cluster headache. A new addition to the preventive treatment options in episodic cluster headache is galcanezumab, although the long-term effects remain unknown. Since effective preventive treatment can take several weeks to titrate, transitional treatment can be of great importance in the treatment of cluster headache. At present, greater occipital nerve injection is the most proven transitional treatment. Other options are high-dose prednisone or frovatriptan.

Neurostimulation methods in the treatment of chronic pain

The goal of this narrative review was to give an up-to-date overview of the peripheral and central neurostimulation methods that can be used to treat chronic pain. Special focus has been given to three pain conditions: neuropathic pain, nociplastic pain and primary headaches. Both non-invasive and invasive techniques are briefly presented together with their pain relief potentials. For non-invasive stimulation techniques, data concerning transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS), transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), remote electrical neuromodulation (REN) and vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) are provided. Concerning invasive stimulation techniques, occipital nerve stimulation (ONS), vagus nerve stimulation (VNS), epidural motor cortex stimulation (EMCS), spinal cord stimulation (SCS) and deep brain stimulation (DBS) are presented. The action mode of all these techniques is only partly understood but can be very different from one technique to the other. Patients' selection is still a challenge. Recent consensus-based guidelines for clinical practice are presented when available. The development of closed-loop devices could be of interest in the future, although the clinical benefit over open loop is not proven yet.

Chronic Headache: a Review of Interventional Treatment Strategies in Headache Management

PURPOSE OF THE REVIEW

To provide an overview of current interventional pain management techniques for primary headaches with a focus on peripheral nerve stimulation and nerve blocks.

RECENT FINDINGS

Despite a plethora of treatment modalities, some forms of headaches remain intractable to conservative therapies. Interventional pain modalities have found a niche in treating headaches. Individuals resistant to common regimens, intolerant to pharmaceutical agents, or those with co-morbid factors that cause interactions with their therapies are some instances where interventions could be considered in the therapeutic algorithm. In this review, we will discuss these techniques including peripheral nerve stimulation, third occipital nerve block (TON), lesser occipital nerve block (LON), greater occipital nerve block (GON), sphenopalatine block (SPG), radiofrequency ablation (RFA), and cervical epidural steroid injections (CESI). Physicians have used several interventional techniques to treat primary headaches. While many can be treated pharmacologically, those who continue to suffer from refractory or severe headaches may see tremendous benefit from a range of more invasive treatments which focus on directly inhibiting the painful nerves. While there is a plethora of evidence suggesting these methods are effective and possibly durable interventions, there is still a need for large, prospective, randomized trials to clearly demonstrate their efficacy.

Suboccipital steroid injection alone as a preventive treatment for cluster headache

BACKGROUND

Suboccipital steroid injection can be used as a preventive treatment for episodic and chronic cluster headache (CH). In recent studies, prophylactic treatment has been used in addition to suboccipital steroid injection. In this study, we aimed to investigate the effectivity of the sole use of rapid- and long-acting steroid injections without prophylactic treatment in patients with episodic and chronic CH.

METHODS

The retrospective study included 51 patients with episodic and chronic CH that underwent greater occipital nerve (GON) blockade with a single dose of rapid- and long-acting steroid injection without additional prophylactic treatment. The frequency, severity, and duration of attacks after GON blockade as well as the side effects and long-term outcomes were reviewed.

RESULTS

In 28 (54.9%) patients, no attack occurred after GON blockade and cluster bouts were aborted. Mean duration of attacks was 86.67 ± 37.45 min before the treatment. However, in the 23 patients that had at least one attack after GON blockade, the mean duration of attacks was 31.73 ± 36.10 min between post-treatment days 0-3, 29.35 ± 40.49 min between post-treatment days 4-10, 28.48 ± 42.17 min between post-treatment days 11-28, and 35.65 ± 46.55 min after the post-treatment day 28 (p < 0.001). Moreover, 10 (37.04%) out of 27 patients with episodic CH who periodically had one or two cluster bouts in a year had no CH attack at the time of the expected subsequent cluster bout.

CONCLUSION

GON blockade is a practical, reliable, and cost-effective treatment option for patients with episodic and chronic CH. Moreover, GON blockade is highly effective in reducing headache attacks and even aborting cluster bouts in CH patients without requiring additional prophylactic treatment.

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.

Emerging treatments for cluster headache: hopes and disappointments

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Cluster headache stands among the worst debilitating pain conditions. Available treatments for cluster headache have often disabling side effects, are not tolerated, or are ineffective. The management of drug-refractory chronic forms is challenging. New treatments are warranted and reported here.

RECENT FINDINGS

In cluster headache acute treatment, delivery systems like Demand Valve Oxygen or nonrebreather-type masks could enhance the effectiveness of inhaled oxygen therapy. Noninvasive vagus nerve stimulation relieves cluster headache pain at short-term in episodic patients. Sphenopalatine ganglion stimulation combines acute and preventive properties in subsets of patients and is of interest in selected refractory chronic forms. In cluster headache prevention, 'hypothalamic' deep brain stimulation is being refined using slightly different stereotactic coordinates or lower risk methods like endoventricular stimulation. Anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies provide interesting results in episodic cluster headache, have a good safety profile, but do not appear effective in chronic cluster headache.

SUMMARY

These novel approaches provide additional alternatives to conventional cluster headache management, but results obtained in chronic forms are often disappointing. Research on cluster headache is often hampered by the lack of awareness in the medical world and by the relatively low prevalence of cluster headache compared with migraine. However, common features shared by these two primary headaches could help developing disease-specific therapies.

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.

Location and Volume of MRI Artifacts in Patients With Implanted Sphenopalatine Ganglion Neurostimulators for Treatment of Chronic Cluster Headache

INTRODUCTION

Sphenopalatine ganglion stimulation (SPG-S) is an invasive form of neuromodulation by which a neurostimulator is implanted into the pterygopalatine fossa to treat refractory chronic cluster headache. The implant is MRI conditional, up to 3 T, however there is no clinical data on the shape, size, and location of the artifact produced by the implant.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Records of patients with SPG-S were analyzed for postoperative cranial MRI scans. MRI and intraoperative CT scans for visualization of the implant were fused and volumetry was performed for both the implant and the MRI artifact in different MRI sequences.

RESULTS

In total, n = 3 patients with postoperative MRI scans were identified. The mean CT artifact volume was 0.73 cm³ (±0.15 cm³ ). MRI artifact volume differed between sequences (range: 25.2-220.7 cm³ ). The intracranial space was largely unaffected besides the pole of the ipsilateral temporal lobe and the basal frontal gyrus. MRI artifacts affected the extracranial space (orbit, maxillary and ethmoid sinuses, and parts of the parotid gland). No adverse events occurred during or after MRI scans.

CONCLUSIONS

Cranial MRI scans with SPG-S implants were safely performed in three patients following the manufacturer's MRI conditions. MRI artifacts were mostly located in the extracranial space. Brain MRI imaging is largely unaffected.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

The authors declare no potential conflicts of interest with respect to research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Migraine and cluster headache - the common link

Although clinically distinguishable, migraine and cluster headache share prominent features such as unilateral pain, common pharmacological triggers such glyceryl trinitrate, histamine, calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) and response to triptans and neuromodulation. Recent data also suggest efficacy of anti CGRP monoclonal antibodies in both migraine and cluster headache. While exact mechanisms behind both disorders remain to be fully understood, the trigeminovascular system represents one possible common pathophysiological pathway and network of both disorders. Here, we review past and current literature shedding light on similarities and differences in phenotype, heritability, pathophysiology, imaging findings and treatment options of migraine and cluster headache. A continued focus on their shared pathophysiological pathways may be important in paving future treatment avenues that could benefit both migraine and cluster headache patients.

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.

Cluster headache

Cluster headache is an excruciating, strictly one-sided pain syndrome with attacks that last between 15 minutes and 180 minutes and that are accompanied by marked ipsilateral cranial autonomic symptoms, such as lacrimation and conjunctival injection. The pain is so severe that female patients describe each attack as worse than childbirth. The past decade has seen remarkable progress in the understanding of the pathophysiological background of cluster headache and has implicated the brain, particularly the hypothalamus, as the generator of both the pain and the autonomic symptoms. Anatomical connections between the hypothalamus and the trigeminovascular system, as well as the parasympathetic nervous system, have also been implicated in cluster headache pathophysiology. The diagnosis of cluster headache involves excluding other primary headaches and secondary headaches and is based primarily on the patient's symptoms. Remarkable progress has been achieved in developing effective treatment options for single cluster attacks and in developing preventive measures, which include pharmacological therapies and neuromodulation.

Managing cluster headache with sphenopalatine ganglion stimulation: a review

Cluster headache (CH) is a primary headache and considered as one of the worst pains known to man. The sphenopalatine ganglion (SPG) plays a pivotal role in cranial autonomic symptoms associated with pain. Lesioning procedures involving the SPG and experimental acute SPG stimulation have shown some degree of efficacy with regard to CH. A neuromodulation device, chronically implanted in the pterygopalatine fossa, has been specifically designed for acute on-demand SPG stimulation. In a pilot placebo-controlled study in 28 patients suffering from refractory chronic CH, alleviation of pain was achieved in 67.1% of full stimulation-treated attacks compared to 7% of sham stimulation-treated attacks (p<0.0001). Long-term results (24 months; 33 patients) confirmed the efficacy of SPG stimulation as an abortive treatment for CH attacks. Moreover, 35% of the patients observed a >50% reduction in attack frequency, suggesting that repeated use of SPG stimulation might act as a CH-preventive treatment. Globally, 61% of the patients were acute responders, frequency responders, or both, and 39% did not respond to SPG stimulation. The safety of SPG microstimulator implantation procedure was evaluated in a cohort of 99 patients; facial sensory disturbances were observed in 67% of the patients (46% of them being transient), transient allodynia in 3%, and infection in 5%. SPG stimulation appears as a promising innovative, efficient, and safe therapeutic solution for patients suffering from severe CH. It has shown its efficacy in aborting CH attacks compared to placebo stimulation, suggesting that it is particularly adapted for CH patients who are not sufficiently improved by abortive treatments such as sumatriptan and oxygen. However, further studies comparing SPG stimulation with standard abortive and/or preventive CH treatments will be necessary to define more precisely its place within the management of severe chronic and/or episodic CH.