Effect of neuromodulation for chronic pain on the autonomic nervous system: a systematic review

Background

In recent years, there has been a growing interest in the use of neuromodulation as an alternative treatment option for chronic pain. Neuromodulation techniques, such as spinal cord stimulation (SCS), dorsal root ganglion (DRG) stimulation, deep brain stimulation (DBS), and peripheral nerve stimulation, have shown promising results in the management of various chronic pain conditions and involve targeted modulation of neural activity to alleviate pain and restore functional capacity. The autonomic nervous system (ANS) plays a crucial role in the regulation of various bodily functions including pain perception. However, the effects of neuromodulation on the ANS in the context of chronic pain remain poorly understood. This systematic review aimed to comprehensively assess the existing literature about the effects of neuromodulation on the ANS in chronic pain settings.

Methods

Searches were conducted using four electronic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, SCOPUS, and Web of Science). The study protocol was registered before initiation of the review process. The Office of Health Assessment and Translation (OHAT) Risk of Bias tool was used to evaluate risk of bias.

Results

A total of 43 studies were included, of which only one was an animal study. Several studies have reported more than one outcome parameter in the same population of chronic pain patients. Cardiovascular parameters were the most frequently used outcomes. More specifically, 18 outcome parameters were revealed to evaluate the function of the ANS, namely heart rate variability (n=17), arterial blood pressure (n=15), tissue oxygenation/perfusion (n=5), blood markers (n=6), multiunit postganglionic sympathetic nerve activity (n=4), skin temperature (n=3), skin conductance (n=3), cephalic autonomic symptoms (n=2), ventilatory frequency (n=2), vasomotor tone (n=1), baroreflex sensitivity (n=1), sympathetic innervation of the heart, neural activity of intrinsic cardiac neurons (n=1), vascular conductance (n=1), arterial diameter (n=1), blood pulse volume (n=1), and vagal efficiency (n=1). Most studies evaluated SCS (62.79%), followed by DBS (18.6%), peripheral nerve stimulation (9.3%), DRG stimulation (4.65%), and vagus nerve stimulation (4.65%). Overall, inconsistent results were revealed towards contribution of SCS, DBS, and peripheral nerve stimulation on ANS parameters. For DRG stimulation, included studies pointed towards a decrease in sympathetic activity.

Conclusions

There are indications that neuromodulation alters the ANS, supported by high or moderate confidence in the body of evidence, however, heterogeneity in ANS outcome measures drives towards inconclusive results. Further research is warranted to elucidate the indirect or direct mechanisms of action on the ANS, with a potential benefit for optimisation of patient selection for these interventions.

Systematic review protocol

PROSPERO (CRD42021297287).

Recent advances in diagnosing, managing, and understanding the pathophysiology of cluster headache

Cluster headache, characterised by attacks of severe, recurrent, unilateral headache and ipsilateral cranial autonomic symptoms, remains a primary headache with an elusive pathophysiology. Recent advances have introduced effective treatments and broadened understanding of the clinical features of cluster headache. These features are similar in patients globally, but regional differences in prevalence and burden exist. International collaborations have led to identification of eight genetic loci associated with cluster headache. The pathophysiological mechanisms are still not fully understood but recent studies show that targeting the trigeminal autonomic reflex by neurostimulation, or targeting the neuropeptide calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP), might lessen the attack burden. The US Food and Drug Administration has approved galcanezumab, a monoclonal antibody targeting CGRP, as the first specific preventive treatment for episodic cluster headache. However, a preventive effect was not replicated in chronic cluster headache, and the European Medicines Agency did not approve galcanezumab, restricting its availability in Europe. Owing to the low prevalence of cluster headache, continued collaboration through multicentre clinical trials and data sharing will be imperative for further breakthroughs in understanding and management.

Sphenopalatine ganglion stimulation: a comprehensive evaluation across diseases in randomized controlled trials

Background

Current literature extensively covers the use of sphenopalatine ganglion stimulation (SPGs) in treating a broad spectrum of medical conditions, such as allergic rhinitis, cluster headaches, and strokes. Nevertheless, a discernible gap in the systematic organization and analysis of these studies is evident. This paper aims to bridge this gap by conducting a comprehensive review and analysis of existing literature on SPGs across various medical conditions.

Methods

This study meticulously constructed a comprehensive database through systematic computerized searches conducted on PubMed, Embase, CNKI, Wanfang, VIP, and CBM up to May 2022. The inclusion criteria encompassed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in either Chinese or English, focusing on the therapeutic applications of SPGs for various medical conditions. Both qualitative and quantitative outcome indicators were considered eligible for inclusion.

Results

This comprehensive study reviewed 36 publications, comprising 10 high-quality, 23 medium-quality, and three low-quality articles. The study investigated various diseases, including allergic rhinitis (AR), ischemic strokes (IS), cluster headache (CH), primary trigeminal neuralgia (PTN), pediatric chronic secretory otitis (PCSO), refractory facial paralysis (RFP), chronic tension-type headache (CTTH), as well as the analysis of low-frequency sphenopalatine ganglion stimulation (LF-SPGs) in chronic cluster headache (CCH) and the impact of SPGs on Normal nasal cavity function (NNCF). SPGs demonstrate efficacy in the treatment of AR. Regarding the improvement of rhinoconjunctivitis quality of life questionnaire (RQLQ) scores, SPGs are considered the optimal intervention according to the SUCRA ranking. Concerning the improvement in Total Nasal Symptom Score (TNSS), Conventional Acupuncture Combined with Tradiational Chinese Medicine (CA-TCM) holds a significant advantage in the SUCRA ranking and is deemed the best intervention. In terms of increasing Effective Rate (ER), SPGs outperformed both conventional acupuncture (CA) and Western Medicine (WM; P < 0.05). In the context of SPGs treatment for IS, the results indicate a significant improvement in the 3-month outcomes, as evaluated by the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) in the context of Cerebral Cortical Infarction (CCI; P < 0.05). In the treatment of CH with SPGs, the treatment has been shown to have a statistically significant effect on the relief and disappearance of headaches (P < 0.05). The impact of SPGs on NNCF reveals statistically significant improvements (P < 0.05) in nasal airway resistance (NAR), nasal cavity volume (NCV), exhaled nitric oxide (eNO), substance P (SP), vasoactive intestinal peptide (VIP) and neuropeptide Y (NPY). SPGs treatments for PCSO, RFP, and CTTH, when compared to control groups, yielded statistically significant results (P < 0.05).

Conclusion

SPGs demonstrate significant effectiveness in the treatment of AR, IS, and CH. Effective management of CCH may require addressing both autonomic dysregulation and deeper neural pathways. However, additional high-quality research is essential to clarify its effects on NNCF, PTN, PCSO, RFP, and CTTH.

Systematic Review Registration

PROSPERO, identifier CRD42021252073, https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=312429.

The evolutionary meaning of migraine

INTRODUCTION

Migraine's astonishing prevalence and preserved genetic background contrast with the definition of a disease and the biological meaning of experiencing recurrent, severe headache attacks is still puzzling.

METHODS

To provide a comprehensive explanation of the migraine evolutionary meaning, we review (i) the putative role of the autonomic nervous system in migraine attacks, (ii) the inter-ictal autonomic, functional, and metabolic signature of migraine patients, (iii) the bio-behavioral perspective of pain, and (iv) the allostatic perception of migraine chronification.

RESULTS

Migraineurs have inter-ictal cortical hyperexcitability and metabolic dysfunction that predisposes to brain energetic imbalance. Multiple precipitating factors may lead to brain energy consumption over the migraine attack generation threshold. In response, the brain engenders adaptive, evolutionary conserved, autonomic-behavior responses through the antidromic activation of the trigeminovascular system. The sickness behavior and severe pain experienced during migraine attacks result in avoiding mental and physical activity, allowing brain energy restoration. Chronic exposure to stressors may result in an allostatic overload, leading to maladaptive chronic activation of these responses. In this bio-behavioral perspective, the chronification of migraine should be envisioned as a pathological process, whereas the migraine itself should not.

CONCLUSION

Migraine has an evolutionary (Darwinian) meaning.

InfluenCEF study: Clinical phenotype and duration of headache attributed to influenza infection

INTRODUCTION

Headache is a frequent symptom of infections. We aimed to characterize the clinical phenotype and duration of headache attributed to influenza infection.

METHODS

Prospective cohort study done in 53 primary care centers between January and April 2023. Patients were included if they had a confirmed influenza diagnosis, were older than 15 years and had a new-onset headache. Patients' demographics, prior medical history, headache phenotype and duration, associated symptoms and patients' outcomes were assessed. The International Classification of Headache Disorders criteria for headache attributed to a systemic viral infection, migraine and tension-type headache were assessed.

RESULTS

Of the 478 patients 75 fulfilled eligibility criteria. The mean age was 43, 56% were men, and 27% had a prior headache history. The headache phenotype was a bilateral headache (52%), with frontal topography (48%), pressing quality (61%), moderate intensity, rhinorrhea (79%), nasal congestion (76%), and photophobia (59%). All patients fulfilled headache attributed to acute systemic viral infection criteria, 43% fulfilled migraine criteria and 31% tension-type headache criteria. The median duration of the headache was four (Inter-quartile range: two-six) days.

CONCLUSION

The clinical phenotype of headache attributed to influenza infection was similar to other infections, with more pronounced cranial autonomic symptoms. The headache was an early symptom and was self-limited within a few days.Trial Registration: The study protocol is registered in ClinicalTrial.gov (NCT05704335).

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.

Efficacy of electrical cranial stimulation for treatment of psychiatric symptoms in patients with anxiety: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Therapeutic effects of electrical cranial stimulation (CES) in patients suffering from anxiety remained unclear. This meta-analysis aimed at investigating acceptability and therapeutic efficacy of CES against anxiety, depression, and insomnia for patients who experienced symptoms of anxiety.

Methods

Major electronic databases were searched from inception until December 10, 2022 for randomized controlled trials (RCT) focusing on therapeutic effectiveness of CES in patients whose primary complaints included anxiety. Effect sizes (ES) for different treatment outcomes were estimated by using generic inverse variance method.

Results

Eight RCTs were identified including a total of 337 participants. The therapeutic effectiveness of CES was significantly better than that in the control groups for anxiety (ES=-0.96, p <0.00001, eight trials, 337 patients), depression (ES=-0.69, p=0.003, five trials), and insomnia (ES=-1.02, p = 0.0006, three trials) in those who presented with symptoms of anxiety. Subgroup analyses found that CES was equally effective regardless of comorbid presentation of depressive symptoms (ES=-0.94 in patients with anxiety only vs. ES=-1.06 in those with depression and anxiety) and whether CES was used as monotherapy or add-on therapy to medications (ES = -0.88 vs. ES = -1.12, respectively). Moreover, subgroup analysis of RCTs using the same device "Alpha-Stim" for CES was more effective in alleviating anxiety than sham controls (ES = -0.88, p < 0.00001, four trials, 230 patients). Regarding acceptability, the use of CES did not increase the risk of treatment-related dropout compared to the control group (RR = 1.26, p = 0.57, I² = 0%, four trials, 324 patients).

Conclusion

Our study supported the use of CES for symptoms of anxiety, depression, and insomnia in those suffering from anxiety with fair acceptability and demonstrated the efficacy of "Alpha-Stim", the most commonly used device for CES, in this patient population.

Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier: CRD42022382619.

Debate: Are cluster headache and migraine distinct headache disorders?

Cluster headache and migraine are regarded as distinct primary headaches. While cluster headache and migraine differ in multiple aspects such as gender-related and headache specific features (e.g., attack duration and frequency), both show clinical similarities in trigger factors (e.g., alcohol) and treatment response (e.g., triptans). Here, we review the similarities and differences in anatomy and pathophysiology that underlie cluster headache and migraine, discuss whether cluster headache and migraine should indeed be considered as two distinct primary headaches, and propose recommendations for future studies. Video recording of the debate held at the 1st International Conference on Advances in Migraine Sciences (ICAMS 2022, Copenhagen, Denmark) is available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUimmnDVTTE .

New Insights on Metabolic and Genetic Basis of Migraine: Novel Impact on Management and Therapeutical Approach

Migraine is a hereditary disease, usually one-sided, sometimes bilateral. It is characterized by moderate to severe pain, which worsens with physical activity and may be associated with nausea and vomiting, may be accompanied by photophobia and phonophobia. The disorder can occur at any time of the day and can last from 4 to 72 h, with and without aura. The pathogenic mechanism is unclear, but extensive preclinical and clinical studies are ongoing. According to electrophysiology and imaging studies, many brain areas are involved, such as cerebral cortex, thalamus, hypothalamus, and brainstem. The activation of the trigeminovascular system has a key role in the headache phase. There also appears to be a genetic basis behind the development of migraine. Numerous alterations have been identified, and in addition to the genetic cause, there is also a close association with the surrounding environment, as if on the one hand, the genetic alterations may be responsible for the onset of migraine, on the other, the environmental factors seem to be more strongly associated with exacerbations. This review is an analysis of neurophysiological mechanisms, neuropeptide activity, and genetic alterations that play a fundamental role in choosing the best therapeutic strategy. To date, the goal is to create a therapy that is as personalized as possible, and for this reason, steps forward have been made in the pharmacological field in order to identify new therapeutic strategies for both acute treatment and prophylaxis.

History of cluster headache

Objective:

To summarise the history of cluster headache evolving concepts and growing insights.

Background:

Excruciating pain, activation of the parasympathetic nervous system, and circadian rhythmicity characterise cluster headache attacks.

Results:

We find the oldest descriptions of patients suffering from the disorder in case reports of the 17th and 18th centuries. Only in the 19th and early 20th centuries did physicians start hypothesizing its cause. Initially, many researchers suspected the origin of the pain in peripheral nerves or blood vessels. However, eventually, they understood that the cause of the disease lies in the brain. In 1998, Positron emission tomography studies revealed increased activity of the posterior hypothalamus, whose role remains incompletely understood. Only recently have researchers realised that being diseased implies more than dysfunction. Recent studies analysed the consequences of cluster headache for each patient. Many struggle to deal with the disorder even in the absence of pain.

Conclusion:

Physicians have been aware of this type of pain for at least 300 years. Only when researchers studied pathological anatomy and physiology did knowledge accrue. A more comprehensive picture of the disease severity emerged when they also considered its consequences.

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.

Cluster headache and TACs: state of the art

Cluster headache (CH), paroxysmal hemicrania (PH), short-lasting unilateral neuralgiform headache attacks (including SUNCT and SUNA), and hemicrania continua (HC) compose the group of trigeminal autonomic cephalalgias (TACs). Here, we review the recent advances in the field and summarize the current knowledge about the origin of these headaches. Similar to the other primary headaches, the pathogenesis is still much obscure. However, advances are being made in both animal models and humans studies. Three structures clearly appear to be crucial in the pathophysiology of TACs: the trigeminal nerve, the facial parasympathetic system, and the hypothalamus. The physiologic and pathologic functioning of each of these elements and their interactions is being progressively clarified, but critical questions are still open.

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.

The effect of pituitary adenylate cyclase-activating peptide-38 and vasoactive intestinal peptide in cluster headache

BACKGROUND

Previously reported increases in serum levels of vasodilating neuropeptides pituitary adenylate cyclase-activating peptide-38 (PACAP38) and vasoactive intestinal peptide (VIP) during attacks of cluster headache could indicate their involvement in cluster headache attack initiation. We investigated the attack-inducing effects of PACAP38 and vasoactive intestinal peptide in cluster headache, hypothesising that PACAP38, but not vasoactive intestinal peptide, would induce cluster-like attacks in episodic active phase and chronic cluster headache patients.

METHODS

In a double-blind crossover study, 14 episodic cluster headache patients in active phase, 15 episodic cluster headache patients in remission phase and 15 chronic cluster headache patients were randomly allocated to receive intravenous infusion of PACAP38 (10 pmol/kg/min) or vasoactive intestinal peptide (8 pmol/kg/min) over 20 min on two study days separated by at least 7 days. We recorded headache intensity, incidence of cluster-like attacks, cranial autonomic symptoms and vital signs using a questionnaire (0-90 min).

RESULTS

In episodic cluster headache active phase, PACAP38 induced cluster-like attacks in 6/14 patients and vasoactive intestinal peptide induced cluster-like attacks in 5/14 patients (p = 1.000). In chronic cluster headache, PACAP38 and vasoactive intestinal peptide both induced cluster-like attacks in 7/15 patients (p = 0.765). In episodic cluster headache remission phase, neither PACAP38 nor vasoactive intestinal peptide induced cluster-like attacks.

CONCLUSIONS

Contrary to our hypothesis, attack induction was lower than expected and roughly equal by PACAP38 and vasoactive intestinal peptide in episodic active phase and chronic cluster headache patients, which contradicts the PAC₁-receptor as being solely responsible for attack induction.Trial registration: clinicaltrials.gov (identifier NCT03814226).

Low frequency activation of the sphenopalatine ganglion does not induce migraine-like attacks in migraine patients

Introduction

Cephalic autonomic symptoms occur in 27‒73% of migraine patients during attacks. The role of parasympathetic activation in migraine attack initiation remains elusive. Low frequency stimulation of the sphenopalatine ganglion increases parasympathetic outflow. In this study, we hypothesized that low frequency stimulation of the sphenopalatine ganglion would provoke migraine-like attacks in migraine patients.

Methods

In a double-blind randomized sham-controlled crossover study, 12 migraine patients with a sphenopalatine ganglion neurostimulator received low frequency or sham stimulation for 30 min on two separate days. We recorded headache characteristics, cephalic autonomic symptoms, ipsilateral mechanical perception and pain thresholds, mean blood flow velocity in the middle cerebral artery (VMCA) and diameter of the superficial temporal artery during and after stimulation.

Results

Five patients (42%) reported a migraine-like attack after low frequency stimulation compared to six patients (50%) after sham ( p = 1.000). We found a significant increase in mechanical detection thresholds during low frequency stimulation compared to baseline ( p = 0.007). Occurrence of cephalic autonomic symptoms and changes in mechanical perception thresholds, VMCA and diameter of the superficial temporal artery showed no difference between low frequency stimulation compared to sham ( p = 0.533).

Conclusion

Low frequency stimulation of the sphenopalatine ganglion did not induce migraine-like attacks or autonomic symptoms in migraine patients. These data suggest that increased parasympathetic outflow by the sphenopalatine ganglion neurostimulator does not initiate migraine-like attacks. Study protocol: ClinicalTrials.gov registration number NCT02510742

An Update: Pathophysiology of Migraine

Migraine is the most common disabling primary headache globally. Attacks typically present with unilateral throbbing headache and associated symptoms including, nausea, multisensory hypersensitivity, and marked fatigue. In this article, the authors address the underlying neuroanatomical basis for migraine-related headache, associated symptomatology, and discuss key clinical and preclinical findings that indicate that migraine likely results from dysfunctional homeostatic mechanisms. Whereby, abnormal central nervous system responses to extrinsic and intrinsic cues may lead to increased attack susceptibility.

A prospective case series of sphenopalatine ganglion pulsed radiofrequency therapy for refractory chronic cluster headache

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

The management options for chronic cluster headache (CCH) are limited and a significant proportion of patients become refractory to pharmacological treatments. Pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) of the sphenopalatine ganglion (SPG) may present an efficacious, minimally invasive treatment modality for patients with refractory CCH. We describe the clinical outcomes of 14 patients with refractory CCH treated with PRF of the SPG.

METHODS

Patients with medically refractory CCH who underwent percutaneous SPG-PRF treatment between January 2016 and April 2019 were included in this report. Patients obtaining at least 30% reduction in weekly cluster attacks for at least 3 months were defined as responders. Treatment-related side effects were collected.

RESULTS

A total of 14 patients were included in this report (nine males). At a median follow-up of 6.5 (range 6-13) months post-procedure, eight patients (57.1%) were defined as responders to the treatment. Six patients were non-responders and reported either a reduction in frequency and severity of attacks for <3 months (2/6), no improvement (2/6) or temporary worsening of symptoms (1/6). The majority of patients (63.6%, n = 7/11) treated with >45 V were responders compared with responders treated with 45 V (33.3%, n = 1/3). Five patients (35.7%) experienced post-procedural side effects.

CONCLUSION

This case series suggests that PRF targeting the SPG might offer a safe, minimally invasive and effective treatment for medically refractory CCH. Given the small number of cases and the short follow-up, larger and more robust studies will be needed to confirm our findings.

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

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

PACAP38 and PAC1 receptor blockade: a new target for headache?

Pituitary adenylate cyclase activating polypeptide-38 (PACAP38) is a widely distributed neuropeptide involved in neuroprotection, neurodevelopment, nociception and inflammation. Moreover, PACAP38 is a potent inducer of migraine-like attacks, but the mechanism behind this has not been fully elucidated.

Migraine is a neurovascular disorder, recognized as the second most disabling disease. Nevertheless, the antibodies targeting calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) or its receptor are the only prophylactic treatment developed specifically for migraine. These antibodies have displayed positive results in clinical trials, but are not effective for all patients; therefore, new pharmacological targets need to be identified.

Due to the ability of PACAP38 to induce migraine-like attacks, its location in structures previously associated with migraine pathophysiology and the 100-fold selectivity for the PAC₁ receptor when compared to VIP, new attention has been drawn to this pathway and its potential role as a novel target for migraine treatment. In accordance with this, antibodies against PACAP38 (ALD 1910) and PAC₁ receptor (AMG 301) are being developed, with AMG 301 already in Phase II clinical trials. No results have been published so far, but in preclinical studies, AMG 301 has shown responses comparable to those observed with triptans. If these antibodies prove to be effective for the treatment of migraine, several considerations should be addressed, for instance, the potential side effects of long-term blockade of the PACAP (receptor) pathway. Moreover, it is important to investigate whether these antibodies will indeed represent a therapeutic advantage for the patients that do not respond the CGRP (receptor)-antibodies.

In conclusion, the data presented in this review indicate that PACAP38 and PAC₁ receptor blockade are promising antimigraine therapies, but results from clinical trials are needed in order to confirm their efficacy and side effect profile.

PACAP and migraine headache: immunomodulation of neural circuits in autonomic ganglia and brain parenchyma

The discovery that intravenous (IV) infusions of the neuropeptide PACAP-38 (pituitary adenylyl cyclase activating peptide-38) induced delayed migraine-like headaches in a large majority of migraine patients has resulted in considerable excitement in headache research. In addition to suggesting potential therapeutic targets for migraine, the finding provides an opportunity to better understand the pathological events from early events (aura) to the headache itself. Although PACAP-38 and the closely related peptide VIP (vasoactive intestinal peptide) are well-known as vasoactive molecules, the dilation of cranial blood vessels per se is no longer felt to underlie migraine headaches. Thus, more recent research has focused on other possible PACAP-mediated mechanisms, and has raised some important questions. For example, (1) are endogenous sources of PACAP (or VIP) involved in the triggering and/or propagation of migraine headaches?; (2) which receptor subtypes are involved in migraine pathophysiology?; (3) can we identify specific anatomical circuit(s) where PACAP signaling is involved in the features of migraine? The purpose of this review is to discuss the possibility, and supportive evidence, that PACAP acts to induce migraine-like symptoms not only by directly modulating nociceptive neural circuits, but also by indirectly regulating the production of inflammatory mediators. We focus here primarily on postulated extra-dural sites because potential mechanisms of PACAP action in the dura are discussed in detail elsewhere (see X, this edition).

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.