Interictal Burden of Cluster Headache

[The Cluster Headache Impact Questionnaire : Measuring headache-related impairment in cluster headache patients]

Cluster headache is a severe primary headache disorder, which can be associated with a substantial impairment for sufferers. The Cluster Headache Impact Questionnaire (CHIQ) is a short questionnaire for measuring the cluster headache-specific impairment. A 5-stage severity grading from "no to low impairment" to "'extreme impairment" was established based on the results of an English-speaking patient collective. The present article tested whether the severity classification can be transferred to a German patient group. Data from 196 patients with episodic and chronic cluster headache were examined during an active episode. The severity grading classification of the CHIQ also showed clinically relevant results in the German collective, i.e., the five degrees of severity showed significant differences with respect to attack frequency, intake of acute medication and unspecific headache-related impairment (HIT-6) and quality of life (SF-12v2). Interestingly, 32 out of 52 patients with episodic cluster headache outside the active epísode suffered an impairment above the lowest severity grade, i.e., at least a moderate impairment. In conclusion, the CHIQ provides a short instrument to document the current impairment in cluster headache patients. The severity grading classification presented here facilitates the clinical interpretation.

Clinical characteristics of 2378 patients presenting with headache disorders to headache clinics in Japan: A clinic-based multicenter study

BACKGROUND

There are reports from single-center studies on patients visiting headache clinics; however, few multicenter studies have been conducted in Japan. This study aims to address this gap by conducting a multicenter analysis of the clinical characteristics, headache types, severity, and psychiatric comorbidities of patients attending headache clinics.

METHODS

We prospectively evaluated the clinical characteristics of 2378 patients with headache disorders visiting three headache clinics. Baseline demographics, such as the visual analog scale (VAS), and psychiatric assessments, such as the Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7) and the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9), were evaluated. Headache types were classified as migraine, tension-type headache (TTH), trigeminal autonomic cephalalgias (TACs), other primary headache disorders (OPHDs), and secondary headache. Parameters were compared between headache types using the Kruskal-Wallis test or analysis of covariance, as appropriate.

RESULTS

The most common headache type was migraine (78.8 %), followed by TTH (12.2 %), secondary headache (5.5 %), OPHDs (2.1 %), and TACs (1.6 %). Patients with migraine were significantly younger at first consultation (median age 32.0) than those with other headache types (TTH; 47.0, TACs; 39.0, OPHDs; 49.5, and secondary headache; 47.0). Patients with TACs exhibited the highest severity and psychiatric symptoms, with VAS (median 90.0), GAD-7 (7.0), and PHQ-9 (7.5) scores significantly higher than those of other headache type (migraine; 70.0, 5.0, 5.0, TTH; 50.0, 4.0, 4.0, OPHDs; 65.0, 4.0, 3.5, and secondary headache; 60.0, 3.0, 3.5: p<0.001, p=0.019, p<0.001).

CONCLUSION

Most patients visiting headache clinics had migraine; patients with TACs showed significantly higher headache severity and psychiatric symptoms than those with other headache types.

Efficacy and safety of galcanezumab as chronic cluster headache preventive treatment under real world conditions: Observational prospective study

BACKGROUND

Calcitonin gene-related peptide has shown to play a central role in cluster headache (CH) pathophysiology. A clinical trial with galcanezumab was carried out in chronic cluster headache (CCH) but did not meet its primay endpoint. However, its off-label use in patients with CCH refractory to other therapies could be considered. We aimed to asses the efficacy and safety of galcanezumab as CCH preventive treatment in a real-life setting.

METHODS

An observational study was conducted. Patients with CCH who received at least one dose of 240 mg of galcanezumab.

RESULTS

Twenty-one patients who tried a mean of 6.3 ± 1.9 preventive therapies, including onabotulinumtoxinA in 90.5%. At baseline, the median of frequency was 60 (37.5-105) monthly attacks with 10 (8.3-10) points in pain intensity (Numerical Rating Scale). After one month, the frequency decreased to 31 (10.5-45) (p = 0.003) with 8.5 (8-9.5) intensity (p = 0.007); 10 (47.6%) patients were 50% responders of whom four (19%) were 75% responders. Of the 15 patients with 3 months of follow-up, seven (46.6%) reduced their frequency by 50% and four (26.6%) by 75%, with 40 (10-60) monthly attacks (p = 0.07) and pain intensity of 8 (5-10) (p = 0.026). Some 52% patients experienced adverse events, mostly mild.

CONCLUSIONS

In our cohort of refractory CCH, galcanezumab was effective in almost 50% of patients. This finding supports individual off-label treatment attempts.

The World Health Organization Intersectoral Global Action Plan on Epilepsy and Other Neurological Disorders and the headache revolution: from headache burden to a global action plan for headache disorders

The World Health Organization (WHO) Intersectoral Global Action Plan on Epilepsy and Other Neurological Disorders was developed by WHO to address the worldwide challenges and gaps in provision of care and services for people with epilepsy and other neurological disorders and to ensure a comprehensive, coordinated response across sectors to the burden of neurologic diseases and to promote brain health across life-course. Headache disorders constitute the second most burdensome of all neurological diseases after stroke, but the first if young and midlife adults are taken into account. Despite the availability of a range of treatments, disability associated with headache disorders, and with migraine, remains very high. In addition, there are inequalities between high-income and low and middle income countries in access to medical care. In line with several brain health initiatives following the WHOiGAP resolution, herein we tailor the main pillars of the action plan to headache disorders: (1) raising policy prioritization and strengthen governance; (2) providing effective, timely and responsive diagnosis, treatment and care; (3) implementing strategies for promotion and prevention; (4) fostering research and innovation and strengthen information systems. Specific targets for future policy actions are proposed. The Global Action Plan triggered a revolution in neurology, not only by increasing public awareness of brain disorders and brain health but also by boosting the number of neurologists in training, raising research funding and making neurology a public health priority for policy makers. Reducing the burden of headache disorders will not only improve the quality of life and wellbeing of people with headache but also reduce the burden of neurological disorders increasing global brain health and, thus, global population health.

Current treatment options for cluster headache: limitations and the unmet need for better and specific treatments-a consensus article

AIM

Treatment for cluster headache is currently based on a trial-and-error approach. The available preventive treatment is unspecific and based on few and small studies not adhering to modern standards. Therefore, the authors collaborated to discuss acute and preventive treatment in cluster headache, addressing the unmet need of safe and tolerable preventive medication from the perspectives of people with cluster headache and society, headache specialist and cardiologist.

FINDINGS

The impact of cluster headache on personal life is substantial. Mean annual direct and indirect costs of cluster headache are more than 11,000 Euros per patient. For acute treatment, the main problems are treatment response, availability, costs and, for triptans, contraindications and the maximum use allowed. Intermediate treatment with steroids and greater occipital nerve blocks are effective but cannot be used continuously. Preventive treatment is sparsely studied and overall limited by relatively low efficacy and side effects. Neurostimulation is a relevant option for treatment-refractory chronic patients. From a cardiologist's perspective use of verapamil and triptans may be worrisome and regular follow-up is essential when using verapamil and lithium.

CONCLUSION

We find that there is a great and unmet need to pursue novel and targeted preventive modalities to suppress the horrific pain attacks for people with cluster headache.

Epidemiology, burden and clinical spectrum of cluster headache: a global update

BACKGROUND

This narrative review aims to broaden our understanding of the epidemiology, burden and clinical spectrum of cluster headache based on updated findings with a global perspective.

METHODS

We conducted a literature search on the following topics: (a) epidemiology; (b) burden: quality of life, disability, economic burden, job-related burden and suicidality; and (c) clinical spectrum: male predominance and its changes, age, pre-cluster and pre-attack symptoms, aura, post-drome, attack characteristics (location, severity, duration and associated symptoms), bout characteristics (attack frequency, bout duration and bout frequency), circadian and seasonal rhythmicity and disease course.

RESULTS

New large-scale population-based reports have suggested a lower prevalence than previous estimations. The impact of cluster headache creates a significant burden in terms of the quality of life, disability, economic and job-related burdens and suicidality. Several studies have reported decreasing male-to-female ratios and a wide age range at disease onset. The non-headache phases of cluster headache, including pre-cluster, pre-attack and postictal symptoms, have recently been revisited. The latest data regarding attack characteristics, bout characteristics, and circadian and seasonal rhythmicity from different countries have shown variability among bouts, attacks, individuals and ethnicities. Studies on the disease course of cluster headache have shown typical characteristics of attacks or bouts that decrease with time.

CONCLUSIONS

Cluster headache may be more than a "trigeminal autonomic headache" because it involves complex central nervous system phenomena. The spectrum of attacks and bouts is wider than previously recognised. Cluster headache is a dynamic disorder that evolves or regresses over time.

Patients with cluster headache show signs of insomnia and sleep related stress: results from an actigraphy and self-assessed sleep study

BACKGROUND

Cluster headache (CH) is a primary headache disorder which is characterized by circadian timing of headache attacks, usually at nighttime, in around two thirds of patients. Patients with CH often report sleep difficulties, though it is unknown whether this is a cause or a consequence of nightly headache attacks.

OBJECTIVE

In this case-control study we have assessed sleep quality in study participants with CH in cluster bout respectively in remission, compared to a control group of neurologically healthy individuals to investigate the potential connection between sleep and CH.

METHODS

Fifty study participants with CH and 42 controls were recruited for sleep assessment. Sleep was recorded using MotionWatch 8 actigraphs (CamNTech) for a period of two weeks. Study participants were instructed to wear the unit during rest and sleep and to fill out a sleep diary daily through the two-weeks period.

RESULTS

Results from actigraphy recordings and sleep diaries suggested that patients with CH spend longer time in bed than controls (CH 8.1 hours vs. Controls 7.7 hours, p=0.03), but do not sleep more than controls (CH 6.7 hours vs. controls 6.5 hours, p=0.3). In addition, CH patients reported increased sleep latency (p=0.003), particularly during, but not restricted to, cluster bouts. Study participants with CH further reported higher levels of stress at bedtime (p=0.01), and they felt less well rested than controls (p=0.001).

CONCLUSION

Our analysis suggests that sleep is negatively affected in CH both in cluster bout and in remission, manifesting in symptoms consistent with insomnia such as prolonged sleep latency and increased time in bed.

Transition of cluster headache phenotype: An interview-based study

Background Cluster headache exists diagnostically in a chronic and episodic variant between which patients can convert. We aimed to describe how many patients change phenotype, elucidate possible factors associated with this transition and identify differences in clinical features between primary and secondary phenotypes.Methods 540 well-defined cluster headache patients according to current ICHD-criteria completed a cross-sectional semi-structured interview.Results Total transition-incidence for the cohort was 20.7%. Conversion from chronic to episodic was reported by 6.3% and transition from episodic to chronic by 14.4% with attack side shift as a possible predictor (p = 0.007). Compared to primary chronic patients, secondary chronic patients had more frequent (60 vs 34 per month, p = 0.0487), but shorter (60 vs 90 minutes, p = 0.041) attacks. Secondary episodic patients experienced shorter remission periods than primary episodic patients (6 vs 11 months, p = 0.010). Treatment response was poor in all groups and only one third had effective prevention.Conclusion Cluster headache is a fluctuating disorder with a fifth of our cohort having experienced at least one phenotype change during course of disease. Apart from attack side shifts, no predictors for transition were identified. Severity differed between primary and secondary subtypes. Overall, there is an urgent need for better understanding of cluster headache.

Cluster Headache and the Comprehension Paradox

Patients with primary headache disorders such as cluster headache cycle between being entirely healthy and almost completely incapacitated. Sick leave or reduced performance due to headache attacks demands flexibility by their social counterparts. The objective of this study is to test the hypothesis that headache patients cause frustration that grows with the times colleagues have to take over their work. In this study, we analysed cluster headache patients’ answers to an online questionnaire. Participants self-reported their number of sick days, the number of days on which leisure activities were missed and whether they felt understood by colleagues and family. We then investigated the correlation between the number of sick days and the proportion of patients feeling understood by colleagues and friends. We found that feeling understood by colleagues and friends decreases with a growing number of sick days. However, when sick days accrue further, this proportion increases again. The number of sick days correlates similarly with both colleagues’ and friends’ understanding. The number of cluster headache patients feeling understood by others decreases with an increasing number of sick days. Their social circles’ frustration with the patients’ failure to meet obligations and expectations are a likely reason. With a growing number of sick days, however, the portion of patients feeling understood rises again despite patients meeting others’ expectations even less. This ‘comprehension paradox’ implies the influence of other factors. We suspect that growing numbers of sick days foster understanding as the disability of the disease becomes increasingly apparent.

The economic and personal burden of cluster headache: a controlled cross-sectional study

Background

Cluster headache is a less-prevalent primary headache disorder but is overrepresented with regards to use of health care and social services. More insight into the socioeconomic impact is required.

Methods

We investigated both the personal and societal disease burden and cost in 400 patients with well-classified cluster headache according to the ICHD-criteria and 200 sex- and age matched controls. All participants completed a cross sectional questionnaire and semi-structured interview.

Results

Patients with chronic cluster headache constituted 146 out of 400 (37%). Overall, restriction in personal and/or professional life was reported by 94% of patients during attack periods. Even in remission, nine times as many episodic patients rated their health as poor/very poor compared to controls (9% vs 1%, p = 0.002). For chronic patients, the odds of rating health as good/very good were ten times lower compared to controls (OR:10.10, 95%CI:5.29–18.79. p < 0.001) and three times lower compared to episodic patients in remission (OR:3.22, 95%CI:1.90–5.47, p < 0.001). Additionally, chronic cluster headache patients were 5 times more likely to receive disability pension compared to episodic (OR:5.0, 95%CI:2.3–10.9, p < 0.001). The mean direct annual costs amounted to 9,158€ and 2,763€ for chronic and episodic patients, respectively (p < 0.001). We identified a substantial loss of productivity due to absence from work resulting in a higher indirect cost of 11,809 €/year/patient in the chronic population and 3,558 €/year/patient in the episodic population. Presenteeism could not be quantified but productivity was reduced in patients by 65% in periods with attacks compared to controls.

Conclusion

Cluster headache has a major negative impact on personal life, self-perceived health, and societal cost. Patients with the chronic variant are vastly more burdened. Patients with the episodic form were still markedly affected during the remission period. This study highlights the need for more effective therapy to lighten the burden on patients and society.

Patient-identified burden and unmet needs in patients with cluster headache: An evidence-based qualitative literature review

Objectives:

To qualitatively identify evidence-based literature related to the daily burden and unmet treatment and psychosocial needs of patients with cluster headache (CH).

Methods:

A literature search was conducted through October 20, 2020 across MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and PsychInfo databases exploring quality of life (QoL) and disease burden in adults with CH. The search was restricted to full-text reports in peer-reviewed journals. Methodologic quality was assessed using the Critical Skills Appraisal Program.

Results:

From 11 identified publications, QoL was reduced in persons living with CH, with significant psychological, social, and socio-economic burdens, and work-related disability. The CH disease trajectory is complex, with patients experiencing the impact of their disease across multiple domains beyond the biological manifestation of the disease including stigma, employment limitations, and suicidal ideation, and with a lack of effective treatment from the patient perspective.

Discussion:

These findings strengthen comprehension of the CH patient experience, enabling a deeper understanding of the patients’ perspective and experience of their disease andunmet needs, providing a basis for future research into this debilitating condition. Minor limitations of this study include data extraction and study selection biases.

Cluster Headache Impact Questionnaire (CHIQ) - a short measure of cluster headache related disability

BACKGROUND

Cluster headache (CH) is a severe, highly disabling primary headache disorder. However, there is little research on CH-related disability, and most of it is based on non CH-specific questionnaires. The aim of this study was to develop a short, CH-specific disability questionnaire.

METHODS

The 8-item Cluster Headache Impact Questionnaire (CHIQ) was developed based on a literature review and patient and expert interviews. The questionnaire was tested in 254 CH patients (171 males; 47.5 ± 11.4 years; 111 chronic CH, 85 active episodic CH, 52 episodic CH in remission) from our tertiary headache center or from a German support group.

RESULTS

Reliability and validity of the CHIQ was evaluated in active episodic and chronic CH patients (n = 196). Internal consistency (Cronbach's α = 0.88) and test-retest reliability (ICC 0.91, n = 41) were good. Factor analysis identified a single factor. Convergent validity was shown by significant correlations with the Headache Impact Test (HIT-6, r = 0.58, p < 0.001), subscales of the depression, anxiety and stress scales (DASS, r = 0.46-0.62; p < 0.001) and with CH attack frequency (r = 0.41; p < 0.001). CHIQ scores significantly differentiated between chronic CH (25.8 ± 6.5), active episodic CH (23.3 ± 6.9) and episodic CH patients in remission (13.6 ± 11.9, p < 0.05 for all 3 comparisons).

CONCLUSIONS

The CHIQ is a short, reliable, valid, and easy to administer measure of CH-related disability, which makes it a useful tool for clinical use and research.

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.

[Trigeminal autonomic cephalgias: features of diagnosis and treatment]

Trigeminal autonomic cephalgias is a group of primary headaches, including cluster headache, paroxysmal hemicrania and hemicrania continua, as well as two forms of short- lasting unilateral neuralgiform headache attacks, the complexity of diagnosis of which is determined by the low prevalence and some similarity of clinical manifestations both among themselves and with other diseases in particular with migraine and trigeminal neuralgia. Despite the rather short duration of headache attacks, the intensity of the pain syndrome reaches a severe and very severe degree, and the high frequency of paroxysms per day significantly complicates abortion treatment and leads to a pronounced professional and social maladjustment. At the same time, the possibility of using effective specific prophylactic therapy determines the importance of accurate diagnosis and, therefore, the knowledge of neurologists on this issue.

Cluster headache epidemiology including pediatric onset, sex, and ICHD criteria: Results from the International Cluster Headache Questionnaire

OBJECTIVE

To validate the diagnoses and to investigate epidemiological data from an international, non-clinic-based, and large (n = 1604) survey of participants with cluster headache.

BACKGROUND

There are several limitations in current epidemiological data in cluster headache including a lack of large non-clinic-based studies. There is also limited information on several aspects of cluster headache, such as pediatric incidence.

METHODS

The International Cluster Headache Questionnaire was an internet-based survey that included questions on cluster headache demographics, criteria from the International Classification of Headache Disorders (ICHD), and medications.

RESULTS

A total of 3251 subjects participated in the survey, and 1604 respondents met ICHD criteria for cluster headache. For validation, we interviewed a random sample of 5% (81/1604) of participants and confirmed the diagnosis of cluster headache in 97.5% (79/81). Pediatric onset was found in 27.5% (341/1583) of participants, and only 15.2% (52/341) of participants with pediatric onset were diagnosed before the age of 18. Men were more likely to have episodic cluster headache between ages 10 and 50, but the sex ratio was approximately equal for other ages. An overwhelming majority of respondents had at least one autonomic feature (99.0%, 1588/1604) and had restlessness (96.6%, 1550/1604), but many also had prototypical migrainous features including photophobia or phonophobia (50.1%, 804/1604), pain aggravated by physical activity (31.4%, 503/1604), or nausea and vomiting (27.5%, 441/1604). Interestingly, the first-line medications for acute treatment (oxygen) and preventive treatment (calcium channel blockers) were perceived as significantly less effective in chronic cluster headache (3.2 ± 1.1 and 2.1 ± 1.0 respectively on a 5-point ordinal scale) compared with episodic cluster headache (3.5 ± 1.0 and 2.4 ± 1.1, respectively, p < 0.001 for both comparisons).

CONCLUSIONS

Cluster headache often occurs in the pediatric population, although they are typically not diagnosed until adulthood. The onset of cluster headache is the inverse of that in migraine; in migraine women are more likely to have migraine between ages 10 and 50 but the sex ratio is approximately equal otherwise. Prototypical migrainous features are not useful in differentiating cluster headache from migraine. Participant data from a large international study also suggest that chronic cluster headache is not only less responsive to newer treatments (like noninvasive vagus nerve stimulation and galcanezumab), but to traditional first-line treatments as well.

Cluster Headache: Clinical Characteristics and Opportunities to Enhance Quality of Life

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Cluster headache is a highly disabling primary headache disorder characterized by severe pain and autonomic features. We present the existing body of literature on psychological factors associated with cluster headache and recommendations to address gaps in current clinical care with regards to psychological treatments for cluster headache.

RECENT FINDINGS

People with cluster headache often endorse depressive symptoms, are more likely than the general population to report suicidal ideation and behaviors, and experience significantly decreased quality of life. Psychological treatments such as Acceptance and Commitment Therapy may be particularly valuable for patients with cluster headache given that they are transdiagnostic in nature and can therefore simultaneously address the disease burden and common psychiatric comorbidities that present. Greater understanding of the debilitating nature of cluster headache and behavioral interventions that seek to reduce the burden of the disease and improve the quality of life of people with cluster headache is paramount.

The impact of the disease burden on the quality of life of cluster headache patients

Background:

Cluster headache cannot be cured, and not all attacks can be aborted or prevented. Nevertheless, therapeutic guidelines focus solely on the attacks and ignore reverberations of the disorder on patients’ lives. However, it is likely that not only pain reduces patients’ quality of life (QoL).

Objective:

To investigate whether the interictal burden independently influence the QoL of subjects suffering from cluster headache.

Methods:

In this cross-sectional study, we asked patients with a self-reported cluster headache diagnosis to answer a modified EUROLIGHT questionnaire that included the EURO-HIS QoL scale. We built a generalised linear model and included the QoL as the dependent variable. Independent variables comprised both the ictal and the interictal burden.

Results:

The data of 625 participants entered the analysis. Several aspects of the interictal burden independently reduced the QoL. Among them were fear of pain, self-concealment, and private life difficulties due to the disorder.

Conclusion:

Both the ictal and the interictal burden of cluster headache independently reduce patients’ QoL. We advocate adopting a more holistic approach to cluster headache management extending the focus towards the afflicted person and their QoL, which would generate novel therapeutic goals and strategies, complementary to treating and preventing cluster headache attacks.

Pain localization in cluster headache patients: Onset, peak, and radiation

OBJECTIVE AND AIM

To describe differences in pain locations for onset, peak, and radiation aspects of cluster headache (CH) attacks.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Data were collected for 23 months using a cross-sectional online survey composed of 117 questions on pain location, demographics, and clinical features. 5260 datapoints on 44 pain locations from 631 respondents were analyzed.

RESULTS

During the onset and peak of attacks, pain is concentrated periorbitally. Pain locations outside the periorbital region were reported more frequently for radiation than for onset and peak of attacks. Dorsal (occipital, neck, shoulder) pain was reported more frequently in connection with onset and radiation than during peak: onset (13%) versus peak (6%), p < 0.001, and radiation (22%) versus peak (6%), p < 0.001. There was no significant difference in dorsal pain frequencies for onset (13%) vs. radiation (22%), p = 0.552. Furthermore, the frequency with which individual pain locations were reported differed significantly for onset, peak, and radiation in CH.

CONCLUSIONS

Analysis of the pain location data shows specific frequencies and distributions of pain location for three aspects of CH attacks. The frequency with which individual pain points were reported differed significantly for onset, peak, and radiation. In general, dorsal pain points were reported more frequently for onset and radiation than for peak pain. Pain locations beyond the eye (extraorbital points) were more frequently reported in connection with radiating pain. Our findings could serve as a basis for future research, correlating CH pain patterns with the outcome of treatment approaches.

Occipital Nerve Stimulation for Pain Modulation in Drug-Resistant Chronic Cluster Headache

Occipital nerve stimulation (ONS) is a surgical treatment proposed for drug-resistant chronic cluster headache (drCCH). Long-term series assessing its efficacy are scarce. We designed a retrospective observational study with consecutive sampling, evaluating the follow-up of 17 drCCH patients who underwent ONS. Our main endpoint was the reduction the rate of attacks per week. We also evaluated the pain intensity through the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), patient overall perceived improvement and decrease in oral medication intake. After a median follow-up of 6.0 years (4.5–9.0), patients decreased from a median of 30 weekly attacks to 22.5 (5.6–37.5, p = 0.012), 7.5 at 1 year (p = 0.006) and 15.0 at the end of follow-up (p = 0.041). The VAS decreased from a median of 10.0 to 8.0 (p = 0.011) at three months, to 7.0 (p = 0.008) at twelve months and 7.0 (p = 0.003) at the end of the follow-up. A total of 23.5% had an overall perceived improvement of ≥70% at 3 months, 41.2% at 1 year and 27.8% at the end of follow-up. Reducing prophylactic oral medication was possible in 76.5% and it was stopped in 17.7%. Triptan use decreased in all the responder patients and 17.7% stopped its intake. A total of 41.2% presented mild adverse events. In conclusion, our long-term experience suggests that ONS could be an interesting option for drCCH-selected patients, as it is a beneficial and minimally invasive procedure with no serious adverse events.

Cluster headache, beyond the pain: a comparative cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVE

To compare the presence of allodynia, pain catastrophizing, and the impact of headaches on patients with cluster headache (CH) and healthy individuals. Our second aim was to analyze the relationship between catastrophism, psychological comorbidities, and the impact in CH.

METHODS

We designed this cross-sectional study to compare various factors among 47 patients diagnosed with CH and 40 healthy controls, and then focus on catastrophism, anxiety, depression, and impact in the CH group.

RESULTS

There were statistically significant differences between CH and the asymptomatic group in Allodynia Symptom Checklist (ASC) (p < 0.001), Pain Catastrophizing Scale (p < 0.001), and HIT-6 (p < 0.001) scores. We found a correlation among ASC, PCS, anxiety-depression, EuroQoL, and HIT-6 for the CH group. In this group, we observed a strong positive correlation between PCS and anxiety (rho = 0.69; p < 0.001), PCS and depression (rho = 0.62; p < 0.001) and depression and EuroQoL (rho = - 0.68; p < 0.001). The regression model showed that the combination of anxiety and HIT-6 was a significant predictor of PCS (adjusted R² = 0.52).

DISCUSSION

Our findings reveal significant differences regarding allodynia, pain catastrophism, and impact in CH group compared with controls. We found a significant relationship between psychological comorbidity, pain catastrophism, and quality of life in CH patients. Anxiety and HIT-6 were a predictor (adjusted R² = 52%) of pain catastrophism. Screening for these comorbidities should be implemented through a multidisciplinary approach.

Meta-analysis of melatonin levels in cluster headache-Review of clinical implications

Cluster headache (CH) has been associated with circadian disturbances. The present systematic review examined available evidence for the utilization of melatonin (MT) in CH prophylaxis. First, case-control studies assessing nocturnal MT or its urine-expelled metabolite 6-sulfatoxymelatonin (aMT6s) in CH individuals and healthy controls (HC) were reviewed and meta-analyzed. Secondly, the results from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized studies evaluating MT's use in the prevention of CH were discussed. Literature search included MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, PsycINFO, trial registries, Google Scholar, and OpenGrey. Bouts and remissions were assessed separately. Ten case-control studies (adult participants) were retrieved. Seven evaluated serum MT; meta-analysis involved only three of them (due to deficient reporting, n: bout = 31, remission = 38, HC = 31). Results were compatible with lower nocturnal serum MT levels during bouts [bout-HC; FE-MD = -29.89 pg/mL, 95% CI = (-46.00, -13.78), remission-HC; FE-MD = -2.40 pg/mL, 95% CI = (-16.57, 21.38), bout-remission; RE-MD = -32.10 pg/mL, 95% CI = (-56.78, -7.42)]. Nocturnal urinary melatonin was appraised in two studies, but reporting issues impeded the capitalization of the results. Nocturnal urine aMT6s was evaluated by two studies (n: bout = 29, remission = 22, HC = 20), and pooled results were indicative of lower aMT6s concentration in CH individuals during both active and inactive periods [bout-HC; FE-MD = -9.63 μg/nocturnal urine collection, 95% CI = (-14.40, -4.85), remission-HC; FE-MD = -9.12 μg/nocturnal urine collection, 95% CI = (-14.63,-3.62), bout-remission; FE-MD = -0.58 μg/nocturnal urine collection, 95% CI = (-4.58, 3.42)]. Regarding CH prophylaxis, one RCT and two non-randomized trials were retrieved, involving a total of 41 adult CH individuals (11-episodic, 31-chronic) and rendering the deduction of any conclusions precarious. Overall, available data for the role use of MT in CH are insufficient and inconclusive. Complementary studies evaluating endogenous MT concentrations and MT administration to patients with CH are warranted.

Effect of calcitonin gene-related peptide (-receptor) antibodies in chronic cluster headache: Results from a retrospective case series support individual treatment attempts

Objective

To assess the efficacy of monoclonal antibodies targeting calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) or its receptor in chronic cluster headache (CCH) treatment under real world conditions.

Background

Calcitonin gene-related peptide has an important pathophysiological role in cluster headache. Although the randomised controlled trial with the calcitonin gene-related peptide antibody galcanezumab was negative, chronic cluster headache patients with insufficient response to other preventive treatments have been receiving individual off-label treatment attempts with calcitonin gene-related peptide-(receptor) antibodies.

Methods

Data from 22 chronic cluster headache patients who received at least one dose of a calcitonin gene-related peptide(-receptor) antibody and recorded attack frequency in a headache diary were retrospectively collected at eight headache centres.

Results

The number of previous preventive therapies was 6.5 ± 2.4 (mean ± standard deviation, range: 2–11). The average number of attacks per week was 23.3 ± 16.4 at baseline and significantly decreased by −9.2 ± 9.7 in the first month of treatment with a calcitonin gene-related peptide(-receptor) antibody (p < 0.001). Fifty-five percent of the patients were 50% responders and 36% were 75% responders with respect to attack frequency. Significant reduction of attack frequency started at week 1 (−6.8 ± 2.8 attacks, p < 0.01). Results were corroborated by significant decreases in weekly uses of acute headache medication (−9.8 ± 7.6, p < 0.001) and pain intensity during attacks (−1.2 ± 2.0, numerical rating scale (NRS) [0–10], p < 0.01) in the first month. In months 2 (n = 14) and 3 (n = 10), reduction of attack frequency from baseline was −8.0 ± 8.4 (p = 0.004) and −9.1 ± 10.0 (p = 0.024), respectively.

Conclusion

Under real-world conditions, individual treatment with calcitonin gene-related peptide(-receptor) antibodies was effective in 55% of our chronic cluster headache patients. This finding supports individual off-label treatment attempts with calcitonin gene-related peptide-(receptor) antibodies in chronic cluster headache patients insufficiently responding to other therapies.

Galcanezumab for the prevention of cluster headache

INTRODUCTION

Cluster headache (CH) is among the worst painful conditions. The available therapies are scarce and not specific, leaving many patients unsatisfied because of poor efficacy and/or tolerability. Patients not responding to common treatments are offered semi-invasive and invasive procedures with uncertain results. Based on the current understanding of CH pathophysiology, new possible therapeutic approaches come from drugs interfering with Calcitonin Gene Related Peptide (CGRP).

AREAS COVERED

After summarizing the evidence for CGRP involvement in CH pathophysiology, we review the published literature (PubMed) and information (clinicaltrials.gov, EudraCT, EMA and FDA websites) regarding a novel anti-CGRP monoclonal antibody, Galcanezumab, its pharmacological properties, development, and evidence for the treatment of CH. Publications regarding other indications (migraine) are considered for completeness and safety/tolerability profile.

EXPERT OPINION

In one randomized clinical trial, Galcanezumab has proven to be effective and safe as a preventive treatment in episodic CH, with a favorable tolerability profile offering a potential new option in the therapeutic arsenal. Inefficacy of galcanezumab in chronic CH as well as the inefficacy of another monoclonal antibody against CGRP (fremanezumab) in both episodic and chronic CH question the scalability of the drug in CH management. Further, studies comparing galcanezumab to the current standard treatments are highly desirable.

Determination of psychosocial factors in cluster headache - construction and psychometric properties of the Cluster Headache Scales (CHS)

BACKGROUND

Cluster headache (CH) is clinically associated with considerable psychosocial burden. However, instruments to assess and characterize psychosocial factors in cluster headache more specifically are lacking. This study aimed to develop a self-report questionnaire, which assesses the broadest possible spectrum of psychosocial factors in cluster headache, the Cluster Headache Scales (CHS).

METHOD

Items of the Cluster Headache Scales were constructed based on a literature review and semi-structured interviews with several experts (including persons with cluster headache). A cross-sectional online survey was conducted to determine the psychometric properties and the factor structure of the Cluster Headache Scales. Data was analyzed using exploratory factor analysis as well as exploratory structural equation modelling (ESEM).

RESULTS

In total, n = 342 subjects with cluster headache (mean age 47.8, 63% male, 51% with episodic cluster headache) were included. Factor analysis yielded eight clearly interpretable factors: Medical care, medication side effects, fear of attacks, disability, (auto)aggression, coping, physical activity, and financial burden, which are assessed via 36 items. The internal consistencies of the subscales were acceptable to excellent and ranged between Cronbach's alpha = .76 and .93. The pattern of correlations with related instruments provides first evidence for convergent validity.

CONCLUSION

The CHS represents a reliable and valid self-report instrument for the assessment of psychosocial factors in persons with cluster headache, which appears useful for both clinical practice as well as research.Trial registration: The study was registered at the German Clinical Trials Register (www.drks.de, ID-Number: DRKS00016502).

The impact of remission and coexisting migraine on anxiety and depression in cluster headache

Background

Our aim was to investigate the relationship between coexisting cluster headache (CH) and migraine with anxiety and depression during active cluster bouts, and how symptoms change during remission.

Methods

We analyzed data from 222 consecutive CH patients and 99 age- and sex-matched controls using a prospective multicenter registry. Anxiety or depression was evaluated using the Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7) or Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9), respectively. Moderate-to-severe anxiety or depression was defined as a score of ≥10 at baseline (during a cluster bout). We assessed for changes in anxiety and depression during CH remission periods.

Results

Among the CH patients, the prevalence of moderate-to-severe anxiety and depression was seen in 38.2% and 34.6%, respectively. Compared with controls, CH patients were associated with moderate-to-severe anxiety and depression (multivariable-adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 7.32, 95% confidence intervals [CI] = 3.35–15.99 and aOR = 4.95, 95% CI = 2.32–10.57, respectively). CH patients with migraine were significantly more likely to have moderate-to-severe anxiety and depression (aOR = 32.53, 95% CI = 6.63–159.64 and aOR = 16.88, 95% CI = 4.16–68.38, respectively), compared to controls without migraine. The GAD-7 and PHQ-9 scores were significantly reduced between cluster bout and remission periods (from 6.8 ± 5.6 to 1.6 ± 2.8; P < 0.001, and from 6.1 ± 5.0 to 1.8 ± 2.4; P < 0.001, respectively).

Conclusions

Our results indicate that CH patients are at increased risk of anxiety and depression, especially in the presence of coexisting migraine. However, the anxiety and depression can improve during remission periods.

Cluster headache and anxiety: Results of the EUROLIGHT cluster headache project – An Internet-based, cross-sectional study of people with cluster headache

Objective:

The aim of this study is to evaluate how anxiety influences the burden of disease of cluster headache.

Methods:

Participants completed a modified version of the EUROLIGHT questionnaire. Anxiety was measured with the anxiety subscale of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression scale. An elevated level of anxiety was assumed when eight or more points were scored.

Results:

The data of 1089 participants were taken for analysis. The score of the anxiety subscale of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS-A) correlated weakly with the number of attacks in the last 30 days ( r = 0.17). A score of eight and above in the HADS-A was associated with hurting oneself during an attack (odds ratio (OR) = 2.63), worrying about future attacks (OR = 2.95) and reporting of both failed relationships (OR = 2.81) and career problems (OR = 2.65). The odds of feeling understood by family and friends as well as colleagues and employers were lower in anxious persons (OR = 0.35 and 0.40, respectively).

Conclusions:

Anxiety complicates dealing with cluster headache and strongly aggravates its burden. Instead of finding help in others, anxious persons feel misunderstood and withdraw; relationships fail and difficulties at work arise.

Vancouver Declaration II on Global Headache Patient Advocacy 2019

In 2017, the International Headache Society convened a Global Patient Advocacy Summit (GPAS-1) to begin a collaborative effort involving patients, patient advocates, patient advocacy organizations, healthcare professionals, scientists, professional pain, neurology, and headache societies, pharmaceutical manufacturers, and regulatory agencies to advance issues of importance to patients affected by headache worldwide. In September 2019, the second Global Patient Advocacy Summit (GPAS-2) was convened to revisit issues from the inaugural meeting, assess the progress of the International Headache Society Global Patient Advocacy Coalition (IHS-GPAC) in meeting the goals set forth therein, and discuss strategies for achieving established goals and supporting future development. Short- and long-term mandates from the first Summit were realized, including publishing the Vancouver Declaration on Global Headache Patient Advocacy 2018, determining the governing and operational structures of the IHS-GPAC, and helping to facilitate the first World Federation of Neurology World Brain Day dedicated to migraine. Another short-term mandate, creating a unified advocacy strategy, was fulfilled by the Coalition's decision to focus on encouraging support from employers and implementing employee support programs for people with migraine. To help execute the strategy, the Coalition is developing an employer engagement toolkit that will educate employers and employees about the impact of migraine in the workplace, reduce stigma directed toward employees with migraine, and facilitate the care of employees with migraine to reduce the burden of illness and improve workplace productivity. Coalition members will disseminate the toolkit and encourage the adoption of migraine workplace programs by employers worldwide. The Coalition has established an alliance with two global, multinational employers to expand migraine awareness and support among policy makers and other stakeholders around the world. The IHS-GPAC met many of the goals established at GPAS-1, and it has initiated a global strategy focused on the psychosocial and economic toll of headache disorders, especially migraine, in the workplace. Ongoing and future activities will explore a range of opportunities with employers and across the full spectrum of advocacy goals.