Complementary and Integrative Medicine for the Treatment of Trigeminal Neuralgia and Trigeminal Autonomic Cephalalgia

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Trigeminal neuralgia (TN) and trigeminal autonomic cephalalgias (TACs) are both painful diseases which directly impact the branches of the trigeminal nerve, which supply the face. Patients who have experienced adverse effects, have not responded to mainstream treatments, or have a personal preference for nonmedication options, often turn to complementary and integrative medicine (CIM). The aim of this review is to discuss the efficacy and safety of CIM therapies available for the treatment of TN and TACs.

RECENT FINDINGS

Not only are there limited therapeutic options for TN and TAC patients, but also is there a proportion of patients who are intolerant to standard medical treatments. Recent findings have illustrated that 86% of patients with headache disorders utilize CIM modalities in combination with mainstream medical therapy. CIM modalities can be helpful for these diseases and have primarily been studied in combination with standard medical therapy. There is limited evidence for CIM and behavioral therapies in managing these conditions, and more research is needed to confirm which therapies are safe and effective.

Multimodal Migraine Management and the Pursuit of Migraine Freedom: A Narrative Review

Migraine is a neurologic disease with a complex pathophysiology that can be controlled with current treatment options but not cured. Therefore, treatment expectations are highly variable. The concept of migraine freedom was recently introduced and can mean different things, with some, for example, expecting complete freedom from headache and associated symptoms and others accepting the occasional migraine attack if it does not impact functioning. Therefore, migraine management should be optimized so that patients can have the best opportunity to achieve their optimal treatment goals. With migraine freedom as a goal and, given the complex pathophysiology of migraine and the high incidence of comorbidities among individuals with migraine, treatment with a single modality may be insufficient, as it may not achieve migraine freedom in those with more frequent or disabling attacks. In this clinical perspective article, we have identified four key, partially overlapping principles of multimodal migraine treatment: (1) manage common comorbidities; (2) control modifiable risk factors for progression by addressing medication and caffeine overuse; (3) diagnose and treat secondary causes of headache, if present; and (4) individualize acute and preventive treatments to minimize pain, functional disability, and allodynia. There are many barriers to pursuing migraine freedom, and strategies to overcome them should be optimized. Migraine freedom should be an aspirational goal both at the individual attack level and for the disease overall. We believe that a comprehensive and multimodal approach that addresses all barriers people with migraine face could move patients closer to migraine freedom.

Catch It Before It Bursts: Headache and Posterior Communicating Artery Aneurysm

The global prevalence of headache approaches 46%, which makes it a common chief complaint. When evaluating these patients, it is crucial to first differentiate between a primary cause for headache such as migraine or tension-type headache and a secondary cause for headache such as intracranial aneurysm or a space-occupying lesion to reduce morbidity and mortality. This case presentation provides guidance on how to obtain a history, recognize red flags, and how to formulate a differential diagnosis based on the history and neurological exam. Once a differential diagnosis is formulated, the discussion provides pearls on how to decide between computed tomography scan (CT scan) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). This case also highlights the need to partner with necessary specialists early on in the patient’s workup if needed. A multidisciplinary approach can be helpful for managing primary and secondary headache disorders.

Integrative, Interventional, and Non-invasive Approaches for the Treatment for Migraine During Pregnancy

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

While most women with migraine improve during pregnancy, a subset may remain unchanged or even become more severe. Given the limited evidence for the use of prescription medications during pregnancy, many look to other treatment modalities. We seek to review complementary and integrative medicine, procedural interventions, and neurostimulation to empower women with safe and effective treatment options during pregnancy.

RECENT FINDINGS

Migraine treatment during pregnancy remains controversial. While evidence is limited, prospective and retrospective reviews, as well as clinical experience support the use of nutraceuticals, procedural interventions, and neurostimulation during pregnancy when the appropriate risks and benefits are weighed. Empowering patients with information on complementary and integrative medicine, as well as non-systemic and interventional treatments, may help to reduce anxiety and headache burden during pregnancy. Various nutraceuticals have shown promise for the preventive management of migraine. Non-systemic interventions such as trigger point injections and peripheral and sphenopalatine nerve blocks offer effective treatment options with minimal side-effects. Options for neurostimulation have expanded in recent years and may offer safe and effective non-pharmacologic options for the management of migraine. It is imperative that providers do not minimize migraine during pregnancy and become aware of the treatment modalities available to help guide women through this experience.

Phase 3 randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled Trial of e-TNS for the Acute treatment of Migraine (TEAM)

Migraine is one of the most common and debilitating neurological disorders worldwide. External Trigeminal Nerve Stimulation (e-TNS) is a non-pharmacological, non-invasive therapeutic alternative for patients with migraine. The TEAM study was a prospective, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled, Phase 3 trial for 2-h, continuous, e-TNS treatment of a single moderate or severe migraine attack at home. A total of 538 adults meeting the International Classification of Headache Disorders 3rd edition criteria for 2–8 migraine headache days per month were recruited and randomized in a 1:1 ratio to 2-h active or sham stimulation. Migraine pain levels and most bothersome migraine-associated symptoms (MBS) were recorded at baseline, 2 h, and 24 h using a paper diary. The primary endpoints for the study were pain freedom at 2 h and freedom from the MBS at 2 h. The secondary endpoints were pain relief at 2 h, absence of most bothersome migraine-associated symptoms (MBSs) at 2 h, acute medication use within 24 h after treatment, sustained pain freedom at 24 h, and sustained pain relief at 24 h. Adverse event data was also collected and compared between groups. Five hundred thirty-eight patients were randomized to either the verum (n = 259) or sham (n = 279) group and were included in an intention-to-treat analysis. The percentage of patients with pain freedom at 2 h was 7.2% higher in verum (25.5%) compared to sham (18.3%; p = 0.043). Resolution of most bothersome migraine-associated symptom was 14.1% higher in verum (56.4%) compared to sham (42.3%; p = 0.001). With regards to secondary outcomes, pain relief at 2 h was 14.3% higher in verum (69.5%) than sham (55.2%; p = 0.001), absence of all migraine-associated symptoms at 2 h was 8.4% higher in verum (42.5%) than sham (34.1%; p = 0.044), sustained pain freedom and pain relief at 24 h was 7.0% and 11.5% higher in verum (22.8 and 45.9%) than sham (15.8 and 34.4%; p = 0.039 and .006, respectively). No serious adverse events were reported. Treatment with 2-h e-TNS is a safe and effective, non-invasive, and non-pharmacological alternative for the acute treatment of migraine attacks in an at-home setting.

Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT03465904. Registered 14/03/2018. https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/record/NCT03465904.

Essential components of care in a multidisciplinary headache center: Perspectives from headache neurology specialists

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Comprehensive headache care involves numerous specialties and components that have not been well documented or standardized. This study aimed to elicit best practices and characterize important elements of care to be provided in multidisciplinary headache centers.

METHODS

Qualitative, semi-structured telephone interviews with a purposive sample of headache neurology specialists from across the US, using open-ended questions. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and coded. Coded data were further analyzed using immersion/crystallization techniques for final interpretation.

RESULTS

Mean years providing headache care was 17.7 (SD = 10.6). Twelve of the 13 participants held United Council for Neurologic Subspecialties headache certification. Six described their practice site as providing multidisciplinary headache care. Participants explained most of their patients had seen multiple doctors over many years, and had tried numerous unsuccessful treatments. They noted patients with chronic headache frequently present with comorbidities and become stigmatized. All participants asserted successful care depends on taking time to talk with and listen to patients, gain understanding, and earn trust. All participants believed multidisciplinary care is essential within a comprehensive headache center, along with staffing enough headache specialists, implementing detailed headache intake and follow-up protocols, and providing the newest medications, neuromodulation devices, botulinum toxin injections, monoclonal antibodies, nerve blocks and infusions, and treatment from a health psychologist. Other essential services for a headache center are other behavioral health practitioners providing cognitive behavioral therapy, mindfulness, biofeedback and pain management; and autonomic neurology, neuropsychology, vestibular audiology, sleep medicine, physical therapy, occupational therapy, exercise physiology, speech therapy, nutrition, complementary integrative health modalities, and highly trained support staff.

CONCLUSION

While headache neurology specialists form the backbone of headache care, experts interviewed for this study maintained their specialty is just one of many types of care needed to adequately treat patients with chronic headache, and this is best provided in a comprehensive, multidisciplinary center.

Complementary and integrative medicine perspectives among veteran patients and VHA healthcare providers for the treatment of headache disorders: a qualitative study

Objective

To evaluate veteran patient and provider perceptions and preferences on complementary and integrative medicine (CIM) for headache management.

Background

The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) has spearheaded a Whole Health system of care focusing on CIM-based care for veteran patients. Less is known about patients’ and providers’ CIM perceptions and preferences for chronic headache management.

Methods

We conducted semi-structured interviews with 20 veteran patients diagnosed with headache and 43 clinical providers, across 12 VHA Headache Centers of Excellence (HCoE), from January 2019 to March 2020. We conducted thematic and case comparative analyses.

Results

Veteran patients and VHA clinical providers viewed CIM favorably for the treatment of chronic headache. Specific barriers to CIM approaches included: (1) A lack of personnel specialized in specific CIM approaches for timely access, and (2) variation in patient perceptions and responses to CIM treatment efficacy for headache management.

Conclusion

Veteran patients and VHA clinical providers in this study viewed CIM favorably as a safe addition to mainstream headache treatments. Advantages to CIM include favorable adverse effect profiles and patient autonomy over the treatment. By adding more CIM providers and resources throughout the VHA, CIM modalities may be recommended more routinely in the management of veterans with headache.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12906-022-03511-6.

External Trigeminal Nerve Stimulation as a Non-pharmacological Option for the Prevention and Acute Treatment of Migraine

Migraine is a common condition affecting approximately 1.04 billion people worldwide. Despite the available pharmaceutical therapies, patients with migraine often prefer, or may require, non-medicinal treatments for their disease. External trigeminal nerve stimulation (e-TNS) is a non-invasive, non-drug device treatment approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the prevention and acute treatment of migraine. The trigeminovascular system plays a key role in migraine pathophysiology; e-TNS percutaneously stimulates the supraorbital and supratrochlear branches of the ophthalmic division of the trigeminal nerve. This article reviews published studies of e-TNS in the prevention and acute treatment of migraine, highlights the versatility of e-TNS in individualizing migraine treatment and discusses future directions for research and clinical applications of e-TNS therapy.

A patient perspective of complementary and integrative medicine (CIM) for migraine treatment: a social media survey

Abstract

To survey persons with migraine who use social media about Complementary and Integrative Medicine (CIM) for the treatment of migraine.

Background

CIM encompasses medical treatments that are not part of but are used in concert with mainstream medicine. Between 28 and 82% of people with migraine use non-drug approaches, and approximately 50% of people with migraine do not discuss non-drug treatments with their healthcare providers (HCPs). It is important for providers to be conversant with CIM treatments and the available evidence-based data. To further this effort, people with migraine were surveyed directly through social media to identify CIM practices in which they engage.

Methods

In collaboration with the American Migraine foundation (AMF) and Yakkety Yak, a digital marketing agency, we conducted a cross-sectional survey study. Participants were recruited from the Move Against Migraine (MAM) Facebook group which has 20,000+ members. The goals of the survey were to assess the attitudes toward CIM among this group, to identify which CIM modalities are being used and to determine what patients considered to be the most effective CIM modalities. While Yakkety Yak posted the survey link on the group page, the survey itself was hosted on Qualtrics, a confidential survey service.

Results

372 MAM members (approximately 2%) responded to the questionnaire, of which 335 reported using CIM; between 114 and 139 (34–42%) found CIM modalities to be at least mildly effective. Of note, 164 (49%) reported using cannabis derivatives or cannabinoids, specifically with, 64/164 (39%) reporting that cannabis was not effective for them.

Conclusions

This study provides an initial investigation into the demographic and practice patterns of migraine patients who use CIM. While this sampling may not reflect CIM use across all individuals with migraine, it does strongly suggest the need for better education on the role of, and evidence for, CIM among headache care providers, and the need to ask patients specifically about their use of and interest in CIM.

Headache in Patients With Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Infection: A Narrative Review

OBJECTIVE

To summarize available literature regarding headache as a manifestation of coronaviruses and to describe potential underlying mechanisms.

REVIEW METHODS

References for this review were identified by searches within PubMed without any date restrictions. The search terms used were coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) clinical manifestation, COVID-19 epidemiology, neurologic findings in COVID-19, headache in COVID-19, neurologic manifestations of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), and headache in SARS-CoV-2.

RESULTS

Headache is one of the most common neurologic complaints in patients with SARS-CoV-2. While the pathophysiological connection between headache and SARS-CoV-2 is unclear, inflammatory mechanisms may play a key role. One of the mechanisms cited in the literature of migraine and other headache disorders is the activation of nociceptive sensory neurons by cytokines and chemokines. A similar mechanism has been reported in SARS-CoV-2 with the release of cytokines and chemokines by macrophages throughout the course of infection. Other mechanisms for headache in SARS-CoV-2 include (1) viral neuroinvasion as seen with viral encephalitis; (2) hypoxemia due to the well-described pulmonary manifestations of the disease; and (3) thrombosis secondary to COVID-19 induced hypercoagulable states.

CONCLUSION

According to the Centers for Disease Control, common symptoms of human coronavirus include fever, cough, runny nose, sore throat, and headache. In the case of SARS-CoV-2, there are limited reports about headaches, one of the most common clinical manifestations. There are currently no studies that focus specifically on headache among patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Neuropathogenesis and Neurologic Manifestations of the Coronaviruses in the Age of Coronavirus Disease 2019: A Review

Importance

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) emerged in December 2019, causing human coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), which has now spread into a worldwide pandemic. The pulmonary manifestations of COVID-19 have been well described in the literature. Two similar human coronaviruses that cause Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS-CoV) and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS-CoV-1) are known to cause disease in the central and peripheral nervous systems. Emerging evidence suggests COVID-19 has neurologic consequences as well.

Observations

This review serves to summarize available information regarding coronaviruses in the nervous system, identify the potential tissue targets and routes of entry of SARS-CoV-2 into the central nervous system, and describe the range of clinical neurological complications that have been reported thus far in COVID-19 and their potential pathogenesis. Viral neuroinvasion may be achieved by several routes, including transsynaptic transfer across infected neurons, entry via the olfactory nerve, infection of vascular endothelium, or leukocyte migration across the blood-brain barrier. The most common neurologic complaints in COVID-19 are anosmia, ageusia, and headache, but other diseases, such as stroke, impairment of consciousness, seizure, and encephalopathy, have also been reported.

Conclusions and Relevance

Recognition and understanding of the range of neurological disorders associated with COVID-19 may lead to improved clinical outcomes and better treatment algorithms. Further neuropathological studies will be crucial to understanding the pathogenesis of the disease in the central nervous system, and longitudinal neurologic and cognitive assessment of individuals after recovery from COVID-19 will be crucial to understand the natural history of COVID-19 in the central nervous system and monitor for any long-term neurologic sequelae.

Headache in Ruptured Intracranial Dermoid Cysts

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Intracranial dermoid cysts are benign, rare mass-occupying lesions of the central nervous system arising from the neuroectodermal cell lines. While rupture of intracranial dermoid cysts is rare, it can present with a variety of clinical manifestations. To explore the headache manifestations among patients with ruptured intracranial dermoid cysts. To our knowledge, limited studies focusing on headache due to the intracranial dermoid cysts rupture have been published to date. A literature review was done through PubMed/Medline. Articles within the past 10 years were reviewed. Articles in languages other than English were excluded.

RECENT FINDINGS

Rupture of intracranial dermoid cysts could have various manifestations including headache, seizure, and meningitis. Depending on the location of the cyst, headache secondary to the rupture of the intracranial dermoid cysts could present in different ways. A detailed systematic literature review of headache presentations due to intracranial dermoid cysts rupture is provided.