Effectiveness of medication in cluster headache

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 .

Challenges and complexities in designing cluster headache prevention clinical trials: A narrative review

Objective

To provide a review of challenges in clinical trials for the preventive treatment of cluster headache (CH) and highlight considerations for future studies.

Background

Current guidelines for preventive treatment of CH are largely based on off‐label therapies supported by a limited number of small randomized controlled trials. Guidelines for clinical trial design for CH treatments from the International Headache Society were last issued in 1995.

Methods/Results

Randomized controlled clinical trials were identified in the European and/or United States clinical trial registries with a search term of “cluster headache,” and manually reviewed. Cumulatively, there were 27 unique placebo‐controlled prevention trials for episodic and/or chronic CH, of which 12 were either ongoing, not yet recruiting, or the status was unknown. Of the remaining 15 trials, 5 were terminated early and 7 of the 10 completed trials enrolled fewer patients than planned or did not report the planned sample size. A systematic search of PubMed was also utilized to identify published manuscripts reporting results from placebo‐controlled preventive trials of CH. This search yielded 16 publications, of which 7 were registered. Through critical review of trial data and published manuscripts, challenges and complexities encountered in clinical trials for the preventive treatment of CH were identified. For example, the excruciating pain associated with CH demands a suitably limited baseline duration, rapid treatment efficacy onset, and poses a specific issue regarding duration of investigational treatment period and length of exposure to placebo. In episodic CH, spontaneous remission as part of natural history, and the unpredictability and irregularity of cluster periods across patients present additional key challenges.

Conclusions

Optimal CH trial design should balance sound methodology to demonstrate efficacy of a potential treatment with patient needs and the natural history of the disease, including unique outcome measures and endpoint timings for chronic versus episodic CH.

Comparative Impact of Pharmacological Therapies on Cluster Headache Management: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

It is important to find effective and safe pharmacological options for managing cluster headache (CH) because there is limited evidence from studies supporting the general efficacy and safety of pharmacological therapies. This systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) analyzed published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to evaluate the efficacy and safety of pharmacological treatments in patients with CH. The PubMed and Embase databases were searched to identify RCTs that evaluated the efficacy and safety of pharmacological treatments for CH. Efficacy outcomes included frequency and duration of attacks, pain-free rate, and the use of rescue agents. Safety outcomes were evaluated based on the number of patients who experienced adverse events. A total of 23 studies were included in the analysis. The frequency of attacks was reduced (mean difference (MD) = −1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) = −1.62 to −0.47; p = 0.0004), and the pain-free rate was increased (odds ratio (OR) = 3.89, 95% CI = 2.76−5.48; p < 0.00001) in the pharmacological treatment group, with a lower frequency of rescue agent use than the placebo group. Preventive, acute, and triptan or non-triptan therapies did not show significant differences in efficacy (p > 0.05). In the NMA, different results were shown among the interventions; for example, zolmitriptan 5 mg was more effective than zolmitriptan 10 mg in the pain-free outcome (OR = 0.40, 95% CI = 0.19−0.82; p < 0.05). Pharmacological treatment was shown to be more effective than placebo to manage CH with differences among types of therapies and individual interventions, and it was consistently shown to be associated with the development of adverse events. Thus, individualized therapy approaches should be applied to treat CH in real-world practice.