Association of Clinical and Neuroanatomic Factors With Response to Ventral Tegmental Area DBS in Chronic Cluster Headache

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Deep brain stimulation (DBS) of the ventral tegmental area (VTA) is a surgical treatment option for selected patients with refractory chronic cluster headache (CCH). We aimed to identify clinical and structural neuroimaging factors associated with response to VTA DBS in CCH.

METHODS

This prospective observational cohort study examines consecutive patients with refractory CCH treated with VTA DBS by a multidisciplinary team in a single tertiary neuroscience center as part of usual care. Headache diaries and validated questionnaires were completed at baseline and regular follow-up intervals. All patients underwent T1-weighted structural MRI before surgery. We compared clinical features using multivariable logistic regression and neuroanatomic differences using voxel-based morphometry (VBM) between responders and nonresponders.

RESULTS

Over a 10-year period, 43 patients (mean age 53 years, SD 11.9), including 29 male patients, with a mean duration of CCH 12 years (SD 7.4), were treated and followed up for at least 1 year (mean follow-up duration 5.6 years). Overall, there was a statistically significant improvement in median attack frequency from 140 to 56 per month (Z = -4.95, p < 0.001), attack severity from 10/10 to 8/10 (Z = -4.83, p < 0.001), and duration from 110 to 60 minutes (Z = -3.48, p < 0.001). Twenty-nine (67.4%) patients experienced ≥50% improvement in attack frequency and were therefore classed as responders. There were no serious adverse events. The most common side effects were discomfort or pain around the battery site (7 patients) and transient diplopia and/or oscillopsia (6 patients). There were no differences in demographics, headache characteristics, or comorbidities between responders and nonresponders. VBM identified increased neural density in nonresponders in several brain regions, including the orbitofrontal cortex, anterior cingulate cortex, anterior insula, and amygdala, which were statistically significant (p < 0.001).

DISCUSSION

VTA DBS showed no serious adverse events, and, although there was no placebo control, was effective in approximately two-thirds of patients at long-term follow-up. This study did not reveal any reliable clinical predictors of response. However, nonresponders had increased neural density in brain regions linked to processing of pain and autonomic function, both of which are prominent in the pathophysiology of CCH.

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.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Management of 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.

Potential predictors for the efficacy of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in patients with migraine

Objectives

To explore potential predictors of the efficacy of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in patients with migraine.

Methods

Consecutive migraine patients were recruited and divided into responders and non-responders to NSAIDs according to follow-up for at least three months. Demographic data, migraine-related disabilities and characteristics, and psychiatric comorbidities were evaluated and used to build multivariable logistic regression models. Subsequently, we generated receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves to explore the performance of these traits in predicting NSAIDs efficacy.

Results

A total of 567 patients with migraine who completed at least three months of follow-up were enrolled. In the multivariate regression analysis, five factors were identified as potential predictors for NSAIDs efficacy in treating migraine. Namely, attack duration (odds ratio (OR) = 0.959; p < 0.001), headache impact (OR = 0.966; p = 0.015), depression (OR = 0.889; p < 0.001), anxiety (OR = 0.748; p < 0.001), and education level (OR = 1.362; p < 0.001) were associated with response to NSAIDs treatment. The area under the curve, sensitivity, and specificity combining these five factors for predicting the efficacy of NSAIDs were 0.834, 0.909 and 0.676.

Conclusions

These findings suggest that migraine-related and psychiatric factors are associated with the response to NSAIDs in migraine management. Identifying such key factors may help to optimize individualized migraine management strategy.

Prediction and associated factors of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs efficacy in migraine treatment

Background: The selection strategy of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for migraine is hard to judge whether it is effective, leading to unnecessary exposure to insufficient or lengthy treatment trials. The goal of the study was to investigate potential predictors of NSAIDs efficacy in migraine therapy and to explore their influence on efficacy. Methods: 610 migraine patients were recruited and assigned into responders and non-responders. Potential predictors among demographic and clinical characteristics for NSAIDs efficacy were extracted using multivariable logistic regression (LR) analysis, and were applied to construct prediction models via machine learning (ML) algorithms. Finally, Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel tests were used to examine the impact of each predictor on drug efficacy. Results: Multivariate LR analysis revealed migraine-related (disease duration, headache intensity and frequency) and psychiatric (anxiety, depression and sleep disorder) characteristics were predictive of NSAIDs efficacy. The accuracies of ML models using support vector machine, decision tree and multilayer perceptron were 0.712, 0.741, and 0.715, respectively. Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test showed that, for variables with homogeneity of odds ratio, disease duration, frequency, anxiety, and depression and sleep disorder were associated with decreased likelihood of response to all NSAIDs. However, the variabilities in the efficacy of acetaminophen and celecoxib between patients with mild and severe headache intensity were not confirmed. Conclusion: Migraine-related and psychiatric parameters play a critical role in predicting the outcomes of acute migraine treatment. These models based on predictors could optimize drug selection and improve benefits from the start of treatment.

Response Predictors of Repetitive Neuromuscular Magnetic Stimulation in the Preventive Treatment of Episodic Migraine

Background

Repetitive neuromuscular magnetic stimulation (rNMS) of the trapezius muscles showed beneficial effects in preventing episodic migraine. However, clinical characteristics that predict a favorable response to rNMS are unknown. The objective of this analysis is to identify such predictors.

Methods

Thirty participants with a diagnosis of episodic migraine (mean age: 24.8 ± 4.0 years, 29 females), who were prospectively enrolled in two non-sham-controlled studies evaluating the effects of rNMS were analyzed. In these studies, the interventional stimulation of the bilateral trapezius muscles was applied in six sessions and distributed over two consecutive weeks. Baseline and follow-up assessments included the continuous documentation of a headache calendar over 30 days before and after the stimulation period, the Migraine Disability Assessment Score (MIDAS) questionnaire (before stimulation and 90 days after stimulation), and measurements of pain pressure thresholds (PPTs) above the trapezius muscles by algometry (before and after each stimulation session). Participants were classified as responders based on a ≥25% reduction in the variable of interest (headache frequency, headache intensity, days with analgesic intake, MIDAS score, left-sided PPTs, right-sided PPTs). Post-hoc univariate and multivariate binary logistic regression analyses were performed.

Results

Lower headache frequency (P = 0.016) and intensity at baseline (P = 0.015) and a migraine diagnosis without a concurrent tension-type headache component (P = 0.011) were significantly related to a ≥25% reduction in headache frequency. Higher headache frequency (P = 0.052) and intensity at baseline (P = 0.014) were significantly associated with a ≥25% reduction in monthly days with analgesic intake. Lower right-sided PPTs at baseline were significantly related to a ≥25% increase in right-sided PPTs (P = 0.0.015) and left-sided PPTs (P =0.030). Performance of rNMS with higher stimulation intensities was significantly associated with a ≥25% reduction in headache intensity (P = 0.046).

Conclusions

Clinical headache characteristics at baseline, the level of muscular hyperalgesia, and stimulation intensity may inform about how well an individual patient responds to rNMS. These factors may allow an early identification of patients that would most likely benefit from rNMS.

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.

Safety and efficacy of occipital nerve stimulation for attack prevention in medically intractable chronic cluster headache (ICON): a randomised, double-blind, multicentre, phase 3, electrical dose-controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Occipital nerve stimulation (ONS) has shown promising results in small uncontrolled trials in patients with medically intractable chronic cluster headache (MICCH). We aimed to establish whether ONS could serve as an effective treatment for patients with MICCH.

METHODS

The ONS in MICCH (ICON) study is an investigator-initiated, international, multicentre, randomised, double-blind, phase 3, electrical dose-controlled clinical trial. The study took place at four hospitals in the Netherlands, one hospital in Belgium, one in Germany, and one in Hungary. After 12 weeks' baseline observation, patients with MICCH, at least four attacks per week, and history of being non-responsive to at least three standard preventive drugs, were randomly allocated (at a 1:1 ratio using a computer-generated permuted block) to 24 weeks of occipital nerve stimulation at either 100% or 30% of the individually determined range between paraesthesia threshold and near-discomfort (double-blind study phase). Because ONS causes paraesthesia, preventing masked comparison versus placebo, we compared high-intensity versus low-intensity ONS, which are hypothesised to cause similar paraesthesia, but with different efficacy. In weeks 25-48, participants received individually optimised open-label ONS. The primary outcome was the weekly mean attack frequency in weeks 21-24 compared with baseline across all patients and, if a decrease was shown, to show a group-wise difference. The trial is closed to recruitment (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01151631).

FINDINGS

Patients were enrolled between Oct 12, 2010, and Dec 3, 2017. We enrolled 150 patients and randomly assigned 131 (87%) to treatment; 65 (50%) patients to 100% ONS and 66 (50%) to 30% ONS. One of the 66 patients assigned to 30% ONS was not implanted and was therefore excluded from the intention-to-treat analysis. Because the weekly mean attack frequencies at baseline were skewed (median 15·75; IQR 9·44 to 24·75) we used log transformation to analyse the data and medians to present the results. Median weekly mean attack frequencies in the total population decreased from baseline to 7·38 (2·50 to 18·50; p<0·0001) in weeks 21-24, a median change of -5·21 (-11·18 to -0·19; p<0·0001) attacks per week. In the 100% ONS stimulation group, mean attack frequency decreased from 17·58 (9·83 to 29·33) at baseline to 9·50 (3·00 to 21·25) at 21-24 weeks (median change from baseline -4·08, -11·92 to -0·25), and for the 30% ONS stimulation group, mean attack frequency decreased from 15·00 (9·25 to 22·33) to 6·75 (1·50 to 16·50; -6·50, -10·83 to -0·08). The difference in median weekly mean attack frequency between groups at the end of the masked phase in weeks 21-24 was -2·42 (95% CI -5·17 to 3·33). In the masked study phase, 129 adverse events occurred with 100% ONS and 95 occurred with 30% ONS. None of the adverse events was unexpected but 17 with 100% ONS and eight with 30% ONS were labelled as serious, given they required brief hospital admission for minor hardware-related issues. The most common adverse events were local pain, impaired wound healing, neck stiffness, and hardware damage.

INTERPRETATION

In patients with MICCH, both 100% ONS intensity and 30% ONS intensity substantially reduced attack frequency and were safe and well tolerated. Future research should focus on optimising stimulation protocols and disentangling the underlying mechanism of action.

FUNDING

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

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.

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.

Peripheral Nerve Stimulation for Occipital Neuralgia

Background

Chronic headaches are the second most prevalent disease and second most common cause for years lived with disability worldwide. Occipital neuralgia can cause headaches or be present in addition to other more prevalent causes of headache. If these headaches fail to respond to conservative and pharmacological therapy, physicians proceed to more invasive treatments, starting with infiltration of the greater occipital nerve with local anesthetic with or without corticosteroids, followed by nerve ablation or stimulation. Occipital nerve stimulation gained more popularity as the technology improved and more pain physicians received training on interventional procedures.

Methods

In this manuscript, we are presenting our experience with ultrasound-guided implant of occipital nerve stimulators using peripheral nerve stimulator systems. After confirming appropriateness of treatment by a successful occipital nerve block (i.e., resulting in &gt;50% relief in patients’ pain intensity), we implanted five stimulator systems in three patients (two bilateral).

Results

We followed these patients for an average of eight months, and the average pain reduction was ∼50%. We did not observe any adverse events during or immediately after surgery. One patient developed an adverse reaction to the adhesive of the battery transmitter, but it was not severe enough to stop her from using the stimulator.

Conclusions

Considering the ease of implant and minimal side effects, implant of peripheral nerve stimulators to stimulate the occipital nerve is a promising treatment modality for patients with chronic headache who present with features of occipital neuralgia. However, wider use of this treatment modality is subject to further studies.

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.

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.

Neurostimulation for the treatment of chronic migraine and cluster headache

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

Therapeutic Approaches for the Management of Trigeminal Autonomic Cephalalgias

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