Differential efficacy of non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation for the acute treatment of episodic and chronic cluster headache: A meta-analysis

Somatosensory Profiling of Patients With Cluster Headache: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

The objectives were 1) to synthesize quantitative sensory testing results in cluster headache (CH) patients and to identify somatosensory differences from healthy subjects (HS), and 2) between symptomatic and asymptomatic sides in CH patients. Two independent reviewers conducted a literature search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and CINAHL databases. Studies with observational designs were included. Methodological quality and risk of bias were assessed with the Newcastle Ottawa Scale. The selected studies underwent qualitative and quantitative analyses. The qualitative analysis showed inconsistent findings among multiple studies. Meta-analysis showed lower pressure pain thresholds (PPTs) on the symptomatic side of CH patients than HS in V2 (standardized mean difference [SMD] -1.01 [95% confidence interval (CI) -1.79, -.23], P = .01, I2 = 73%, n = 114), V3 (SMD -1 [95% CI -1.54, .45], P < .01, I2 = 82%, n = 354), and cervical region (SMD -1.25 [95% CI -2.07, -.44], P < .01, I2 = 84%, n = 194). Furthermore, lower PPTs than those detected in HS were found on the asymptomatic side in V3 (SMD -.77 [95% CI -1.27, -.27], P < .01, I2 = 79%, n = 354) and in the cervical region (SMD -1.13 [95% CI -1.97, -.3], P < .01, I2 = 85%, n = 194). However, no differences were found in V1 or the extratrigeminal points between these groups. No significant changes were found between symptomatic and asymptomatic sides in trigeminal and extratrigeminal regions. Mechanical hyperalgesia in the trigemino-cervical region of patients with CH could suggest the presence of central pain mechanisms. These results are of clinical relevance because their presence could be associated with a poorer prognosis, chronification, and treatment response. PERSPECTIVE: This study provides consistent findings on the somatosensory profile characterizing patients with CH. Clinicians should assess PPTs and other quantitative sensory testing variables in the trigeminal and extratrigeminal (cervical) regions.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Oxygen inhalation has no effect on provoked cranial autonomic symptoms using kinetic oscillation stimulation in healthy volunteers

OBJECTIVE

Inhalation of oxygen is highly effective in cluster headache, a subtype of trigeminal autonomic cephalgias. Since oxygen has no effect on nociceptive pain, the mechanism of action is still unknown. The present study investigated whether oxygen inhalation modifies the trigeminal autonomic reflex arc in healthy volunteers.

METHODS

21 healthy volunteers participated in a randomized, placebo controlled, double-blind, cross-over, and within-subject study design. In a randomized order demand valve inhalation of 100% oxygen or medical air were administered. Capillary blood samples were collected to control for blood gas changes. Cranial parasympathetic output (lacrimation) was provoked using kinetic oscillation stimulation of the nasal mucosa. Standardized measurement of lacrimation between baseline and kinetic oscillation stimulation served as a measure of induced cranial autonomic output.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in parasympathetic output after oxygen inhalation when compared to inhalation of medical air.

CONCLUSION

The inhalation of 100% oxygen does not affect the parasympathetic reflex arc of the trigeminal autonomic reflex.

Management of Trigeminal Autonomic Cephalalgias Including Chronic Cluster: A Review

Importance

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

Observations

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

Conclusions and Relevance

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

The Role of the Autonomic Nervous System in Headache: Biomarkers and Treatment

Purpose of Review

In this review, the role of the autonomic nervous system in tension-type headache and migraine is reviewed.

Recent Findings

A pathophysiological model for tension-type headache is proposed that is compatible with most physiological and behavioral literature.

Summary

A treatment protocol is described that follows from this model. For migraine, incorporating autonomic factors into the pathophysiology offers rationales for behavioral interventions that have been shown to be useful in migraine treatment and a biofeedback protocol is proposed.

Guidelines of the International Headache Society for Controlled Clinical Trials in Cluster Headache

In 1995, a committee of the International Headache Society developed and published the first edition of the Guidelines for Controlled Trials of Drugs in Cluster Headache. These have not been revised. With the emergence of new medications, neuromodulation devices and trial designs, an updated version of the International Headache Society Guidelines for Controlled Clinical Trials in Cluster Headache is warranted. Given the scarcity of evidence-based data for cluster headache therapies, the update is largely consensus-based, but takes into account lessons learned from recent trials and demands by patients. It is intended to apply to both drug and neuromodulation treatments, with specific proposals for the latter when needed. The primary objective is to propose a template for designing high quality, state-of-the-art, controlled clinical trials of acute and preventive treatments in episodic and chronic cluster headache. The recommendations should not be regarded as dogma and alternative solutions to particular methodological problems should be explored in the future and scientifically validated.

Recent Advances and Updates in Trigeminal Autonomic Cephalalgias

Trigeminal autonomic cephalalgias (TACs) are discrete primary headache disorders, characterized by severe unilateral head pain, typically trigeminal distribution, with ipsilateral cranial autonomic symptoms. The conditions within this group are hemicrania continua, cluster headache, paroxysmal hemicrania, and short-lasting unilateral neuralgiform headache with conjunctival injection and tearing and short-lasting unilateral neuralgiform headache with autonomic symptoms. Several advances have been made in understanding the pathogenesis and evolving treatment options in TACs. This review will outline the advances and updates in each TAC.

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.

[Galcanezumab for episodic and chronic cluster headache]

BACKGROUND

Cluster headache (CH) is a highly debilitating headache disorder characterized by frequent attacks of excruciating unilateral pain accompanied by cranial autonomic symptoms. Calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) is implicated in the pathophysiology of CH.

OBJECTIVES

Preventive efficacy and tolerability of the anti-CGRP antibody galcanezumab in patients with episodic (eCH) and chronic CH (cCH). Review of the study results and the challenges in developing drugs for the preventive treatment of CH.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In two international multicenter phase III trials galcanezumab 300 mg given subcutaneously every 4 weeks was compared with placebo. The double-blind study period (8 weeks in eCH, 12 weeks in cCK) was preceded by a baseline period in both trials. The primary endpoint was the reduction in weekly attack frequency.

RESULTS

In the eCH trial, 106 patients were randomized to either galcanezumab (n = 49) or placebo (n = 57). The mean weekly attack frequency during the first 3 weeks decreased by 52% in the galcanezumab group compared with 27% in the placebo group (p = 0.036). In the cCH trial, 237 patients were randomized to galcanezumab (n = 117) or placebo (n = 120). The primary endpoint was not met in this study. The reduction in mean weekly attack rate was 5.4 with galcanezumab versus 4.6 with placebo (p = 0.334). Galcanezumab was well tolerated in both studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Galcanezumab had a significant effect in the prevention of eCH attacks but not in cCH. Possible reasons for this discrepancy are discussed.

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).

Effects of acute and preventive therapies for episodic and chronic cluster headache: A scoping review of the literature

BACKGROUND

Cluster headache is the most common primary headache disorder of the trigeminal autonomic cephalalgias, and it is highly disabling.

OBJECTIVE

We undertake a scoping review to characterize therapies to prevent and acutely treat cluster headache, characterize trial methodology utilized in studies, and recommend future trial "good practices." We also assess homogeneity of studies and feasibility for future network meta-analyses (NMAs) to compare acute and preventive treatments for cluster headache.

METHODS

A priori protocol for this scoping review was registered and available on Open Science Forum. We sought studies that enrolled adult patients with cluster headache as identified by accepted diagnostic criteria. Both randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies (with a control group) were included. The interventions of interest were medications, procedures, devices, surgeries, and behavioral/psychological interventions, whereas comparators of interest were placebo, sham, or other active treatments. Outcomes were predefined; however, we did not exclude studies lacking these outcomes. A systemic search was conducted in Ovid Medline, Embase, and Cochrane. We performed a targeted search for conference abstracts from journals prominent in the field.

RESULTS

We identified 56 studies: 45 RCTs, four studies only available in clinical trial registries, and seven observational studies. Of the 45 RCTs, 20 focused on acute therapies and 25 on preventive therapies. Overall, we determined that it is feasible to pursue a NMA for acute therapy focusing on 15 or 30-min headache reduction for acute trials, as we identified 11 trials in the combined population of patients with either episodic or chronic cluster headache (2 trials in populations with chronic cluster headache were also found). For preventive therapy of cluster headache, we identified trials with common outcomes that may be considered for NMA, however, as these trials had differences in treatment effect modifiers that could not be corrected, NMAs appear infeasible for this indication. We identified new studies looking at noninvasive vagal nerve stimulation, sphenopalatine ganglion stimulation, prednisone, and oxygen published since the most recent systematic review in the field, although these acute treatments were previously identified as effective. However, for calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibodies, galcanezumab demonstrated effectiveness in episodic cluster headache, but a lack of effectiveness in chronic cluster headache, and fremanezumab was not effective for episodic nor chronic cluster headache. This finding highlights that CGRP monoclonal antibodies may not show a class effect in cluster headache prevention and need to be considered individually.

CONCLUSIONS

We describe the treatment landscape of cluster headache for both acute and preventive treatments. Last, we present the NMAs we will undertake in acute therapies of cluster headache.

Effectiveness and acceptability of noninvasive brain and nerve stimulation techniques for migraine prophylaxis: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Current pharmacologic prophylactic strategies for migraine have exhibited limited efficacy, with response rates as low as 40%-50%. In addition to the limited efficacy, the acceptability of those pharmacologic prophylactic strategies were unacceptable. Although noninvasive brain/nerve stimulation strategies may be effective, the evidence has been inconsistent. The aim of this network meta-analysis (NMA) was to compare strategies of noninvasive brain/nerve stimulation for migraine prophylaxis with respect to their effectiveness and acceptability.

METHODS

The PubMed, Embase, ScienceDirect, ProQuest, ClinicalTrials.gov , ClinicalKey, Cochrane CENTRAL, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were systematically searched to date of June 4th, 2021 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Patients with diagnosis of migraine, either episodic migraine or chronic migraine, were included. All NMA procedures were conducted under the frequentist model.

RESULTS

Nineteen RCTs were included (N = 1493; mean age = 38.2 years; 82.0% women). We determined that the high frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) over C3 yielded the most decreased monthly migraine days among all the interventions [mean difference = - 8.70 days, 95% confidence intervals (95%CIs): - 14.45 to - 2.95 compared to sham/control groups]. Only alternating frequency (2/100 Hz) transcutaneous occipital nerve stimulation (tONS) over the Oz (RR = 0.36, 95%CIs: 0.16 to 0.82) yielded a significantly lower drop-out rate than the sham/control groups did.

CONCLUSIONS

The current study provided a new direction for the design of more methodologically robust and larger RCTs based on the findings of the potentially beneficial effect on migraine prophylaxis in participants with migraine by different noninvasive brain/nerve stimulation, especially the application of rTMS and tONS.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

CRD42021252638. The current study had been approval by the Institutional Review Board of the Tri-Service General Hospital, National Defense Medical Center (TSGHIRB No. B-109-29).

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.

Non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation for prevention of migraine: The multicenter, randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled PREMIUM II trial

AIM

Evaluate the efficacy and safety of non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation for migraine prevention.

METHODS

After completing a 4-week diary run-in period, adults who had migraine with or without aura were randomly assigned to receive active non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation or sham therapy during a 12-week double-blind period.

RESULTS

Of 336 enrolled participants, 113 (active, n = 56; sham, n = 57) completed ≥70 days of the double-blind period and were ≥66% adherent with treatment, comprising the prespecified modified intention-to-treat population. The COVID-19 pandemic led to early trial termination, and the population was ∼60% smaller than the statistical target for full power. Mean reduction in monthly migraine days (primary endpoint) was 3.12 for the active group and 2.29 days for the sham group (difference, -0.83; p = 0.2329). Responder rate (i.e. the percentage of participants with a ≥50% reduction in migraine days) was greater in the active group (44.87%) than the sham group (26.81%; p = 0.0481). Prespecified subgroup analysis suggested that participants with aura responded preferentially. No serious device-related adverse events were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

These results suggest clinical utility of non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation for migraine prevention, particularly for patients who have migraine with aura, and reinforce the well-established safety and tolerability profile of this therapy.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03716505).

gammaCore for Cluster Headaches: A NICE Medical Technologies Guidance

Cluster headaches are excruciating attacks of pain that can last between 15 min and 3 h. Cluster headaches can be episodic, where patients have long pain-free intervals between attacks, or chronic, where they do not. As part of the Medical Technologies Evaluation Programme, the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) considered the clinical effectiveness and cost impact of gammaCore (electroCore), a handheld, patient-controlled device used to treat and prevent cluster headache. gammaCore is a non-invasive vagus nerve stimulator, the aim of which is to modify pain signals by stimulating the vagus nerve through the skin of the neck. Evidence suggests that gammaCore reduces the intensity and frequency of cluster headaches and that the addition of gammaCore to standard care is cost saving. Therefore, the guidance published by NICE in December 2019 recommends routine adoption of gammaCore into the UK national health service. However, the guidance noted that gammaCore does not work for everyone and recommended that treatment with gammaCore should stop after 3 months in patients whose symptoms do not improve.

The anatomy of pain and suffering in the brain and its clinical implications

Pain is an unpleasant sensory and emotional experience associated with actual or potential tissue damage. Chronic pain, with a prevalence of 20-30 % is the major cause of human suffering worldwide, because effective, specific and safe therapies have yet to be developed. It is unevenly distributed among sexes, with women experiencing more pain and suffering. Chronic pain can be anatomically and phenomenologically dissected into three separable but interacting pathways, a lateral 'painfulness' pathway, a medial 'suffering' pathway and a descending pain inhibitory pathway. One may have pain(fullness) without suffering and suffering without pain(fullness). Pain sensation leads to suffering via a cognitive, emotional and autonomic processing, and is expressed as anger, fear, frustration, anxiety and depression. The medial pathway overlaps with the salience and stress networks, explaining that behavioural relevance or meaning determines the suffering associated with painfulness. Genetic and epigenetic influences trigger chronic neuroinflammatory changes which are involved in transitioning from acute to chronic pain. Based on the concept of the Bayesian brain, pain (and suffering) can be regarded as the consequence of an imbalance between the two ascending and the descending pain inhibitory pathways under control of the reward system. The therapeutic clinical implications of this simple pain model are obvious. After categorizing the working mechanisms of each of the available treatments (pain killers, psychopharmacology, psychotherapy, neuromodulation, psychosurgery, spinal cord stimulation) to 1 or more of the 3 pathways, a rational combination can be proposed of activating the descending pain inhibitory pathway in combination with inhibition of the medial and lateral pathway, so as to rebalance the pain (and suffering) pathways.

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.

Behavioral and neurophysiological signatures of interoceptive enhancements following vagus nerve stimulation

An accruing body of research has shown that interoception (the sensing of signals from the body's internal milieu) relies on both a direct route (afforded by the vagus nerve) and a secondary route (supported by somatosensory mechanisms). However, no study has causally tested the differential role of these pathways, let alone via direct stimulation. To bridge this gap, we tested whether multidimensional signatures of interoception are modulated by noninvasive vagus nerve stimulation (nVNS). Sixty-three participants were divided into an nVNS and a sham-stimulation group. Before and after stimulation, both groups performed a validated heartbeat detection (HBD) task including a genuinely interoceptive condition (monitoring one's own heartbeat) and a control exteroceptive condition (tracking an aurally presented heartbeat). Electroencephalographic signals were obtained during both conditions to examine modulations of the heartbeat-evoked potential (HEP). Moreover, before and after stimulation, participants were asked to complete a somatosensory heartbeat localization task. Results from the interoceptive condition revealed that, after treatment, only the nVNS group exhibited improved performance and greater HEP modulations. No behavioral differences were found for the exteroceptive control condition, which was nonetheless associated with significant HEP modulations. Finally, no between-group differences were observed regarding the localization of the heartbeat sensations or relevant cardiodynamic variables (heart rate and or heart rate variability). Taken together, these results constitute unprecedented evidence that the vagus nerve plays a direct role in neurovisceral integration during interoception. This finding can constrain mechanistic models of the domain while informing a promising transdiagnostic agenda for interoceptive impairments across neuropsychiatric conditions.

Comprehensive clinical phenotyping of nitroglycerin infusion induced cluster headache attacks

Background

Nitroglycerin administration allows the study of cluster headache attacks in their entirety in a standardised way.

Methods

A single-blind, placebo-controlled, cross-over study using weight-calculated intravenous nitroglycerin administration at 0.5 µg/kg/min over 20 minutes to study cluster headache attacks, including accompanying non-headache symptoms and cranial autonomic symptoms.

Results

Thirty-three subjects with cluster headache were included in the study; 24 completed all three study visits. Nitroglycerin-induced attacks developed in 26 out of 33 subjects (79%) receiving unblinded nitroglycerin infusion, and in 19 out of 25 subjects (76%) receiving single-blinded nitroglycerin infusion, compared with one out of 24 subjects (4%) receiving single-blinded placebo infusion. Episodic cluster headache subjects had a shorter latency period to a nitroglycerin-induced attack compared to the chronic cluster headache (CCH) subjects (U = 15, z = −2.399, p = 0.016). Sixteen of nineteen episodic cluster headache (mean, 84%; 95% confidence interval, 66–100%) and 11 of 14 chronic cluster headache subjects developed a nitroglycerin-induced attack (79%, 54–100%) following the unblinded nitroglycerin infusion. Following the single-blinded nitroglycerin infusion, eight out of 13 episodic cluster headache (62%, 31–92%) and 11 out of 12 chronic cluster headache (92%, 73–100%) subjects developed nitroglycerin-induced attacks. Nitroglycerin induced non-headache symptoms in the majority of subjects receiving it: 91% in the open unblinded nitroglycerin visit and 84% in the single-blinded nitroglycerin visits, compared with 33% in the single-blinded placebo visit. Cranial autonomic symptoms were induced by nitroglycerin infusion, 94% in the open unblinded nitroglycerin visit and 84% in the single-blinded nitroglycerin visit, compared with 17% in the single-blinded placebo visit.

Conclusion

Intravenous weight-adjusted nitroglycerin administration in both episodic cluster headache in bout and chronic cluster headache is effective and reliable in inducing cluster headache attacks, cranial autonomic symptoms and non-headache symptoms.

[Cluster headaches-proven and novel approaches : A critical evaluation of treatment studies]

Trigeminal autonomic cephalalgias are characterized by unilateral headaches accompanied by cranial autonomic symptoms and a sense of restlessness. Clinical trials have been conducted on acute therapy and prophylaxis of cluster headache in recent years. Since the other trigeminal autonomic cephalalgias are rare, it is virtually impossible to conduct controlled clinical trials for their investigation. Recent trials provide data on the efficacy of prednisolone, galcanezumab, fremanzeumab and noninvasive vagal nerve stimulation. Methodological difficulties arise in terms of patient recruitment for clinical trials, clinical endpoints and potential differences in the pathophysiology of episodic and chronic cluster headache.

Non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation for primary headache: A clinical update

Background

Non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation (nVNS) is a proven treatment for cluster headache and migraine. Several possible mechanisms of action by which nVNS mitigates headache have been identified.

Methods

We conducted a narrative review of recent scientific and clinical research into nVNS for headache, including findings from mechanistic studies and their possible relationships to the clinical effects of nVNS.

Results

Findings from animal and human studies have provided possible mechanistic explanations for nVNS efficacy in headache involving four core areas: Autonomic nervous system functions; cortical spreading depression inhibition; neurotransmitter regulation; and nociceptive modulation. We discuss how overlap and interplay among these areas may underlie the utility of nVNS in the context of clinical evidence supporting its safety and efficacy as acute and preventive therapy for both cluster headache and migraine. Possible future nVNS applications are also discussed.

Conclusion

Significant progress over the past several years has yielded valuable mechanistic and clinical evidence that, combined with the excellent safety and tolerability profile of nVNS, suggests that it should be considered a first-line treatment for both acute and preventive treatment of cluster headache, an effective option for acute treatment of migraine, and a highly relevant, practical option for migraine prevention.

Inhibition of Trigeminal Nociception by Non-invasive Vagus Nerve Stimulation: Investigating the Role of GABAergic and Serotonergic Pathways in a Model of Episodic Migraine

Migraine is a prevalent neurological disease that is characterized by unpredictable episodic attacks of intense head pain. The underlying pathology involves sensitization and activation of the trigeminal system. Although non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation (nVNS) is recommended for the treatment of migraine, the abortive mechanism of action is not well-understood. The goal of this study was to compare the ability of nVNS and sumatriptan to inhibit trigeminal activation in two animal models of episodic migraine and to investigate the receptor mechanism of action of nVNS. Nocifensive head withdrawal response was investigated in adult male Sprague Dawley rats using von Frey filaments. To induce trigeminal nociceptor sensitization, complete Freund's adjuvant was injected in the trapezius muscle and trigeminal neurons were activated by exposure to a pungent odor or injection of the nitric oxide donor sodium nitroprusside. Some animals received nVNS or sumatriptan as treatment. Some animals were injected intracisternally with antagonists of GABAA, 5-HT3 or 5-HT7 receptors prior to nVNS since these receptors are implicated in descending modulation. While unsensitized animals exposed to the pungent odor or nitric oxide alone did not exhibit enhanced mechanical nociception, sensitized animals with neck muscle inflammation displayed increased trigeminal nocifensive responses. The enhanced nociceptive response to both stimuli was attenuated by nVNS and sumatriptan. Administration of antagonists of GABAA, 5-HT3, and 5-HT7 receptors in the upper spinal cord suppressed the anti-nocifensive effect of nVNS. Our findings suggest that nVNS inhibits trigeminal activation to a similar degree as sumatriptan in episodic migraine models via involvement of GABAergic and serotonergic signaling to enhance central descending pain modulation.

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.