Efficacy and safety of a single occipital nerve blockade in episodic and chronic cluster headache: A prospective observational study

Effectiveness and safety profile of greater occipital nerve blockade in cluster headache: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Greater occipital nerve (GON) blockade is a short-term preventive therapy for cluster headache (CH). We conducted a systematic review to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of GON blockade in patients with CH.

METHODS

On 23 October 2020, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, Embase Classic, PsycINFO, CINAHL, CENTRAL and Web of Science databases from their inception date. Studies included participants with a CH diagnosis who received corticosteroid and local anaesthetic suboccipital region injections. Outcomes were change in the frequency/severity/duration of attacks; proportion of participants responding to treatment, time to attack freedom from an attack, change in attack bout length and/or the presence of adverse effects after GON blockade. Risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane Risk of Bias V.2.0 (RoB2)/Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies - of Interventions (ROBINS- I) tools and a specific tool for case reports/series.

RESULTS

Two RCTs, eight prospective and eight retrospective studies, and four case reports were included in the narrative synthesis. Every effectiveness study found a significant response in one or more of frequency/severity/duration of individual attacks or proportion of patients responding to treatment (47.8%-100.0%). There were five instances of potentially irreversible adverse effects. A higher injectate volume and use of concurrent prophylaxis may be associated with an increased likelihood of response. Methylprednisolone may have the best safety profile of available corticosteroids.

DISCUSSION

GON blockade is safe and effective for CH prevention. Higher injectate volumes may improve likelihood of response, and the likelihood of serious adverse events may be reduced by using methylprednisolone.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020208435.

Transient side shift of cluster headache attacks after unilateral greater occipital nerve injection

Attacks of cluster headache (CH) are usually side-locked in most, but not all, patients. In a few patients, the side may alternate between or, rarely, within cluster episodes. We observed seven cases in whom the side of CH attacks temporarily shifted immediately or shortly after unilateral injection of the greater occipital nerve (GON) with corticosteroids. In five patients with previously side-locked CH attacks and in two patients with previously side-alternating CH attacks, a side shift for several weeks occurred immediately (N = 6) or shortly (N = 1) after GON injection. We concluded that unilateral GON injections might cause a transient side shift of CH attacks through inhibition of the ipsilateral hypothalamic attack generator causing relative overactivity of the contralateral side. The potential benefit of bilateral GON injection in patients who experienced a side shift after unilateral injection should be formally investigated.

Management of cluster headache: Treatments and their mechanisms

BACKGROUND

The management of cluster headache is similar to that of other primary headache disorders and can be broadly divided into acute and preventive treatments. Acute treatments for cluster headache are primarily delivered via rapid, non-oral routes (such as inhalation, nasal, or subcutaneous) while preventives include a variety of unrelated treatments such as corticosteroids, verapamil, and galcanezumab. Neuromodulation is becoming an increasingly popular option, both non-invasively such as vagus nerve stimulation when medical treatment is contraindicated or side effects are intolerable, and invasively such as occipital nerve stimulation when medical treatment is ineffective. Clinically, this collection of treatment types provides a range of options for the informed clinician. Scientifically, this collection provides important insights into disease mechanisms.

METHODS

Two authors performed independent narrative reviews of the literature on guideline recommendations, clinical trials, real-world data, and mechanistic studies.

RESULTS

Cluster headache is treated with acute treatments, bridge treatments, and preventive treatments. Common first-line treatments include subcutaneous sumatriptan and high-flow oxygen as acute treatments, corticosteroids (oral or suboccipital injections) as bridge treatments, and verapamil as a preventive treatment. Some newer acute (non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation) and preventive (galcanezumab) treatments have excellent clinical trial data for episodic cluster headache, while other newer treatments (occipital nerve stimulation) have been specifically tested in treatment-refractory chronic cluster headache. Most treatments are suspected to act on the trigeminovascular system, the autonomic system, or the hypothalamus.

CONCLUSIONS

The first-line treatments have not changed in recent years, but new treatments have provided additional options for patients.

Diagnostic protocols and newer treatment modalities for cluster headache

Cluster Headaches are one of the most arguably severe forms of primary headache syndrome that affects humans. Although it is relatively uncommon, it has a significant impact on the quality of life. It is a multifactorial disease that has risk factors ranging from seasonal changes, lifestyle habits to genetics. It occurs in 2 forms- Episodic and Chronic, each having its well-defined Diagnostic Criteria. Moreover, Cluster Headache has an exhaustive list of options for both Preventive and Abortive treatment. This article focuses on Cluster Headache, its pathophysiology, risk factors, differentials, and its diverse treatment modalities. In this study, an all-language literature search was conducted on Medline, Cochrane, Embase, and Google Scholar till October 2021. The following search strings and Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms were used: "Cluster Headache," "Triptans," "Neuromodulation," and "Migraine." We explored the literature on Cluster Headache for its epidemiology, pathophysiology, the role of various genes and how they bring about the disease as well as its episodic and chronic variants, and treatment options. Although we have a wide variety of options for Preventive and Abortive therapy, newer more effective pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions are being developed, and must be integrated into new treatment protocols.

Greater occipital nerve block modulates nociceptive signals within the trigeminocervical complex

INTRODUCTION

The pharmacological block of the greater occipital nerve has been proven effective in numerous headache and facial pain syndromes. This clinical effect supports the hypothesis of a strong functional interaction between the occipital and trigeminal nerves which has been proposed in neurophysiological in vivo experiments in rodents. Although it is likely that the interaction has to occur in the central nervous system, the exact site and the mechanisms of the interaction remain largely unknown.

METHODS

Focusing on these questions we investigated in a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised study the influence of an occipital nerve block with lidocaine 1% on neuronal activation in the trigeminocervical complex using high-resolution functional magnetic resonance on a 3T scanner. In order to investigate potential clinical effects on the trigeminal nerve, we further performed quantitative sensory testing and analysed a potential shift in thermal detection and pain thresholds.

RESULTS

The pharmacological block of the greater occipital nerve induced an occipital anaesthesia ipsilateral to the block. Functional imaging revealed that the occipital injection of lidocaine but not placebo significantly reduced nociceptive trigeminal activation.

CONCLUSIONS

These data suggest that the functional inhibition of the occipital nerve block on trigeminal nociceptive activity is likely to occur at the C2 level where the occipital nerve enters the trigeminocervical complex and converges on the same central nuclei before the signal crosses the midline at that level and is then transmitted to higher processing centres.

Great occipital nerve long-acting steroid injections in cluster headache therapy: an observational prospective study

Background

Injections targeting the occipital nerve are used to reduce headache attacks and abort cluster bouts in cluster headache patients. There is no widely accepted agreement over the optimal technique of injection, type and doses of steroids and/or anesthetics to use, as well as injection regimens. The aim of this study was to verify the effectiveness and safety of greater occipital nerve long-acting steroid injections in the management of episodic and chronic cluster headache.

Methods

We conducted a prospective observational cohort study on episodic (ECH) and chronic cluster headache patients (CCH). ECH were included in the study at the beginning of a cluster period. Three injections with 60 mg methylprednisolone were performed on alternate days. We registered the frequency and intensity of attacks three days before and 3, 7 and 30 days after the treatment, the latency of cluster relapse, adverse events, scores evaluating anxiety (Zung scale), depression (Beck’s Depression Scale) and quality of life (Disability Assessment Schedule II, 12-Item Self-Administered Version). Primary outcome was the interruption of the cluster after the three injections. Responders conducted a follow-up period of 12 months.

Results

We enrolled 60 patients, 47 with ECH and 13 with CCH. We observed a complete response in 47.8% (22/46) of episodic and 33.3% (4/12) of chronic patients. Moreover, a partial response (reduction of at least 50% of attacks) was obtained in further 10.8% (5/46) of episodic and in 33.3% (4/12) of chronic patients at 1 month. Median pain-free period was of 3 months for CCH responders. Only mild adverse events were reported in 38.3% (23/58) cases.

Conclusions

We suggest three greater occipital nerve injections of 60 mg methylprednisolone on alternate days as useful therapy in episodic and chronic cluster headache. This leads to a long pain-free period in chronic forms. Adverse effects are mild and support its use as first choice.

Trial registration

The study was inserted in AIFA observational studies register.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00415-021-10884-0.

Pulsed Radiofrequency of the Occipital Nerves: Results of a Standardized Protocol on Chronic Headache Management

BACKGROUND

Pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) of the occipital nerves has neuromodulative properties and is used for chronic pain management. However, its role in various types of chronic headaches has not been adequately investigated so far.

OBJECTIVES

Τhis was an observational, open-label, prospective study aiming to assess the efficacy of PRF of occipital nerves on various types of chronic headache management.

METHODS

Patients with chronic headaches followed up at the pain management unit were scheduled for PRF of both occipital nerves after a positive diagnostic nerve block. PRF was applied following a standardized protocol at 42°C, and the number of headaches per month was assessed as a primary outcome at baseline (before treatment), as well as after 1, 3, and 6 months. Pain intensity during headache crises was recorded using the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS, 0 - 10).

RESULTS

Fifty-seven patients suffering from chronic migraines, cluster headaches, tension-type headaches, and occipital neuralgia were studied. PRF significantly improved the number of headache episodes per month, as well as the pain intensity of the crises. The median number of headache episodes per month was significantly reduced in patients with migraine, from 14.5 to 4 after 1 month, and to 6.5 after 6 months. The same was seen for patients with clusters, who were also improved. A statistically significant reduction in NRS values over time was seen for all types of headaches.

CONCLUSIONS

PRF of the occipital nerves can lead to a reduction of the number of headache episodes per month, improving the intensity of pain during each episode.

Repeated greater occipital nerve injections with corticosteroids in medically intractable chronic cluster headache: a retrospective study

INTRODUCTION

Current prophylactic drugs for cluster headache are associated with limited efficacy, serious side effects and poor tolerability. Greater occipital nerve injection (GON-injection) has been proven effective and safe as a single, one-time injection in episodic (ECH), and to a lesser extent, chronic cluster headache (CCH). We aim to analyse the effectiveness and safety of repeated GON-injections in medically intractable chronic cluster headache (MICCH).

METHODS

Clinical data of all cluster headache patients who had received at least one GON-injection between 2014 and 2018 in our tertiary headache centre were retrieved from patients' medical records. Clinical history was taken as part of routine care shortly before and 6 weeks after GON-injection.

RESULTS

We identified 47 MICCH patients (79 injections), and compared results with 22 non-MI CCH patients (30 injections) and 50 ECH patients (63 injections). Nineteen MICCH patients received repeated injections (32 in total, range 2-8). Rates of clinical relevant improvement to a first injection were similar in all groups (MICCH: 60%, non-MICCH 73%, ECH 76%; attack freedom: MICCH: 30%, non-MICCH 32%, ECH 43%). Furthermore, no difference in response to the first and second injection was shown between groups (all p > 0.29). Median effect duration in MICCH was 6 weeks (IQR 2.8-12 weeks). Side effects were only mild and local.

CONCLUSION

In this retrospective analysis, first and repeated GON-injections were well-tolerated and equally effective in MICCH as in non-MICCH, and ECH.

Noninvasive Neuromodulation in Headache: An Update

Background

Migraine is a common disabling primary headache condition. Although strives have been made in treatment, there remains an unmet need for safe, effective acute, and preventative treatments. The promising concept of neuromodulation of relevant neuronal targets in a noninvasive fashion for the treatment of primary headache disorders has led to the trial of numerous devices over the years.

Objective

We aimed to review the evidence on current neuromodulation treatments available for the management of primary headache disorders.

Methods

Randomized controlled trial as well as open-label and real-world studies on central and peripheral cephalic and noncephalic neuromodulation modalities in primary headaches were critically reviewed.

Results

The current evidence suggests a role of single-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation, supraorbital nerve stimulation, and remote noncephalic electrical stimulation as migraine abortive treatments, with stronger evidence in episodic rather than in chronic migraine. Single-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation and supraorbital nerve stimulation also hold promising evidence in episodic migraine prevention and initial positive evidence in chronic migraine prevention. More evidence should clarify the therapeutic role of the external vagus nerve stimulation and transcranial direct current stimulation in migraine. However, external vagus nerve stimulation may be effective in the acute treatment of episodic but not chronic cluster headache, in the prevention of hemicrania continua and paroxysmal hemicrania but not of short-lasting neuralgiform headache attacks. The difficulty in setting up sham-controlled studies has thus far prevented the publication of robust trials. This limitation along with the cost of these therapies has meant that their use is limited in most countries.

Conclusion

Neuromodulation is a promising nonpharmacological treatment approach for primary headaches. More studies with appropriate blinding strategies and reduction of device cost may allow more widespread approval of these treatments and in turn increase clinician's experience in neuromodulation.

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.

Drug profile: galcanezumab for prevention of cluster headache

Introduction: Cluster headache [CH] is a severely disabling trigeminal autonomic cephalalgia [TAC]. Approximately 1 in 1,000 adults are affected by CH. Calcitonin gene-related peptide [CGRP] is an important mediator in the pathophysiology of CH. Galcanezumab is a monoclonal antibody with an affinity for the CGRP peptide, FDA approved for the prevention of episodic CH. Areas covered: Search words queried were 'cluster headache,' 'cluster headache, and CGRP,' 'cluster headache, and galcanezumab.' Over 99 articles in Pubmed and prescribing information for galcanezumab were reviewed. Some of the data pertaining to CH trials with fremanezumab were reviewed using clinical trials.org. Expert opinion: Galcanezumab has shown benefit in decreasing the weekly frequency of CH attacks across week 1 through week 3 in patients with CH; 8.7 attacks in the galcanezumab group, as compared with 5.2 in the placebo group (95% confidence interval, 0.2 to 6.7; P = 0.04). It has a favorable risk-benefit ratio. The prevention of CH with CGRP inhibition represents a novel advance for a condition with a significant unmet need. The negative trial results of galcanezumab for chronic cluster headache [CCH] may be due to the refractory nature and sheds light on the critical need to investigate the underlying biology and therapeutic options.

Muscle endurance training of the neck triggers migraine attacks

BACKGROUND

Most migraine patients report neck pain as part of their migraine symptomatology, but it is unknown whether triggering neck pain would induce migraine attacks. Our aim was to assess the occurrence of headache and/or neck pain after an endurance test of the neck muscles among migraineurs and controls.

METHODS

Sixty-five patients with migraine and 32 headache-free participants underwent a manual examination of the cervical spine by an assessor blinded towards the diagnosis and were sub-classified according to the appearance or absence of neck pain. Subsequently, the endurance of the neck flexors and extensors was tested three times, in a random order. The maximum sustained duration was recorded and the test was terminated when the subject was unable to maintain the position or reported pain. On the day after the assessment, participants were asked to report the potential occurrence of headache or neck symptoms.

RESULTS

None of the controls reported headache after assessment, while migraine-like headache was reported by 42% of the patients with migraine (p < 0.001) after 15.8 h (SD: 10.0). Neck pain was more prevalent in migraineurs compared to controls (45% vs. 16%, p = 0.006). When considering the neck pain subtype, there were no differences among the three profiles regarding neck pain but participants with referred pain to the head reported a migraine attack more often (45%, p = 0.03).

CONCLUSION

Patients with migraine are more likely to report neck pain and migraine attacks following a neck muscle endurance test. Participants with neck pain referred to the head during manual examination had a greater prevalence of migraine attacks than those without or with only local pain.

[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.

Primaries non-migraine headaches treatment: a review

In the "headache world," great attention has always been paid to migraine patients, especially for the research and development of new therapies. For the other forms of primary headaches, especially those of Chapters 2 and 3 of the classification, there are however therapies that, even if not specific, can give significant results. Tension-type headache recognizes in NSAIDs the most effective drugs to treat acute attack, while prevention is based on the use of tricyclic antidepressants and muscle relaxants. For TACs, the discussion is more complex: first of all, there are two forms of primary headache that respond absolutely to indomethacin. For these, the main problem is how to manage the possible side effects arising from prolonged treatments and possibly what to use as an alternative. For cluster headaches and short-lasting unilateral neuralgiform headache attacks, we have drugs with good efficacy as regards medical therapy, such as verapamil or lamotrigine, but in recent years, neuromodulation techniques, both surgical and non-invasive, have also been affirming themselves, which represent a more possibility for forms of headache that are often very disabling and resistant to common analgesics.

Chronic Cluster Headache Update and East-West Comparisons: Focusing on Clinical Features, Pathophysiology, and Management

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review provides an update on chronic cluster headache (CH) focusing on clinical features, pathophysiology, and management as well as comparisons between Eastern and Western populations.

RECENT FINDINGS

Chronic CH in Eastern populations was relatively rare, compared to that in Western populations. Lacrimation and/or conjunctival injection is the most frequently reported cranial autonomic symptom, and visual aura is predominant in chronic CH patients. Neuroimaging evidence in both ethnic groups suggests that CH pathophysiology involves the hypothalamus and pain-modulatory areas, with dynamic alternations between CH episodes. Recent evidence indicates that midbrain dopaminergic systems may participate in CH chronicity. Noteworthy advances have emerged in neuromodulatory therapies for chronic CH, but treatment with calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibodies has been unsuccessful. Recent evidence shows divergence of chronic CH between Eastern and Western populations. Neuromodulatory therapies but not CGRP inhibition is effective in this intractable patient group.

CGRP pathway monoclonal antibodies for cluster headache

INTRODUCTION

The involvement of the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) pathway in primary headache disorders, especially migraine, had led to recent success in the development of new migraine therapies. The CGRP pathway also plays a role in the pathophysiology of cluster headache, so CGRP pathway monoclonal antibodies have been studied in the prevention of cluster headache attacks.

AREAS COVERED

This review will outline the trials of fremanezumab and galcanezumab, the two CGRP pathway monoclonal antibodies that have undergone trials in cluster headache prevention. This review will highlight key efficacy and safety outcomes from the trials.

EXPERT OPINION

Galcanezumab was shown to be efficacious, reducing the frequency of attacks in episodic cluster headache, while fremanezumab failed its primary endpoint in episodic cluster headache. Both fremanezumab and galcanezumab trials in chronic cluster headache were terminated after futility analysis predicting the failure of both trials to fulfil their primary endpoint. The role of CGRP in cluster headache supports ongoing trials of the remaining CGRP pathway monoclonal antibodies and gepants for preventive and acute treatment. A broad view would include targeting neuropeptides involved in parasympathetic signaling in cluster headache, such as pituitary adenylate cyclase-activating peptide (PACAP); such targets warrant exploration in the search of new treatments.

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.

Suboccipital steroid injection alone as a preventive treatment for cluster headache

BACKGROUND

Suboccipital steroid injection can be used as a preventive treatment for episodic and chronic cluster headache (CH). In recent studies, prophylactic treatment has been used in addition to suboccipital steroid injection. In this study, we aimed to investigate the effectivity of the sole use of rapid- and long-acting steroid injections without prophylactic treatment in patients with episodic and chronic CH.

METHODS

The retrospective study included 51 patients with episodic and chronic CH that underwent greater occipital nerve (GON) blockade with a single dose of rapid- and long-acting steroid injection without additional prophylactic treatment. The frequency, severity, and duration of attacks after GON blockade as well as the side effects and long-term outcomes were reviewed.

RESULTS

In 28 (54.9%) patients, no attack occurred after GON blockade and cluster bouts were aborted. Mean duration of attacks was 86.67 ± 37.45 min before the treatment. However, in the 23 patients that had at least one attack after GON blockade, the mean duration of attacks was 31.73 ± 36.10 min between post-treatment days 0-3, 29.35 ± 40.49 min between post-treatment days 4-10, 28.48 ± 42.17 min between post-treatment days 11-28, and 35.65 ± 46.55 min after the post-treatment day 28 (p < 0.001). Moreover, 10 (37.04%) out of 27 patients with episodic CH who periodically had one or two cluster bouts in a year had no CH attack at the time of the expected subsequent cluster bout.

CONCLUSION

GON blockade is a practical, reliable, and cost-effective treatment option for patients with episodic and chronic CH. Moreover, GON blockade is highly effective in reducing headache attacks and even aborting cluster bouts in CH patients without requiring additional prophylactic treatment.

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

BACKGROUND

Two randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled trials (ACT1, ACT2) evaluated non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation (nVNS) as acute treatment for cluster headache. We analyzed pooled ACT1/ACT2 data to increase statistical power and gain insight into the differential efficacy of nVNS in episodic and chronic cluster headache.

METHODS

Data extracted from ACT1 and ACT2 were pooled using a fixed-effects model. Main outcome measures were the primary endpoints of each study. This was the proportion of participants whose first treated attack improved from moderate (2), severe (3), or very severe (4) pain intensity to mild (1) or nil (0) for ACT1 and the proportion of treated attacks whose pain intensity improved from 2-4 to 0 for ACT2.

RESULTS

The pooled population included 225 participants (episodic: n = 112; chronic: n = 113) from ACT1 (n = 133) and ACT2 (n = 92) in the nVNS (n = 108) and sham (n = 117) groups. Interaction was shown between treatment group and cluster headache subtype (p < 0.05). nVNS was superior to sham in episodic but not chronic cluster headache (both endpoints p < 0.01). Only four patients discontinued the studies due to adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

nVNS is a well-tolerated and effective acute treatment for episodic cluster headache.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The studies were registered at clinicaltrials.gov (ACT1: NCT01792817; ACT2: NCT01958125).

Emerging treatments for cluster headache: hopes and disappointments

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Cluster headache stands among the worst debilitating pain conditions. Available treatments for cluster headache have often disabling side effects, are not tolerated, or are ineffective. The management of drug-refractory chronic forms is challenging. New treatments are warranted and reported here.

RECENT FINDINGS

In cluster headache acute treatment, delivery systems like Demand Valve Oxygen or nonrebreather-type masks could enhance the effectiveness of inhaled oxygen therapy. Noninvasive vagus nerve stimulation relieves cluster headache pain at short-term in episodic patients. Sphenopalatine ganglion stimulation combines acute and preventive properties in subsets of patients and is of interest in selected refractory chronic forms. In cluster headache prevention, 'hypothalamic' deep brain stimulation is being refined using slightly different stereotactic coordinates or lower risk methods like endoventricular stimulation. Anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies provide interesting results in episodic cluster headache, have a good safety profile, but do not appear effective in chronic cluster headache.

SUMMARY

These novel approaches provide additional alternatives to conventional cluster headache management, but results obtained in chronic forms are often disappointing. Research on cluster headache is often hampered by the lack of awareness in the medical world and by the relatively low prevalence of cluster headache compared with migraine. However, common features shared by these two primary headaches could help developing disease-specific therapies.

Cluster headache: new targets and options for treatment

Cluster headache is a severe headache disorder with considerable impact on quality of life. The pathophysiology of the disease remains poorly understood. With few specific targets for treatment, current guidelines mainly include off-label treatment with medication. However, new targets for possible treatment options are emerging. Calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP)-targeted medication could become the first (cluster) headache-specific treatment option. Other exciting new treatment options include invasive and non-invasive neuromodulation techniques. Here, we provide a short overview of new targets and treatment options that are being investigated for cluster headache.

Treatment of Cluster Headache

Cluster headache (CH) is a debilitating primary headache disorder. Although uncommon, affecting only 0.1% of population, it is one of the most painful conditions known to humankind. Three strategies are employed for effective treatment of CH, namely, abortive therapy, transitional therapy, and preventive therapy. Being an uncommon condition, there is a paucity of large-scale controlled trials and evidence of various therapies are based on smaller studies. This review primarily focuses on therapies with highest quality of evidence and also on the emerging therapies for CH.

Therapeutic Approaches for the Management of Trigeminal Autonomic Cephalalgias

Trigeminal autonomic cephalalgia (TAC) encompasses 4 unique primary headache types: cluster headache, paroxysmal hemicrania, hemicrania continua, and short-lasting unilateral neuralgiform headache attacks with conjunctival injection and tearing and short-lasting unilateral neuralgiform headache attacks with cranial autonomic symptoms. They are grouped on the basis of their shared clinical features of unilateral headache of varying durations and ipsilateral cranial autonomic symptoms. The shared clinical features reflect the underlying activation of the trigeminal-autonomic reflex. The treatment for TACs has been limited and not specific to the underlying pathogenesis. There is a proportion of patients who are refractory or intolerant to the current standard medical treatment. From instrumental bench work research and neuroimaging studies, there are new therapeutic targets identified in TACs. Treatment has become more targeted and aimed towards the pathogenesis of the conditions. The therapeutic targets range from the macroscopic and structural level down to the molecular and receptor level. The structural targets for surgical and noninvasive neuromodulation include central neuromodulation targets: posterior hypothalamus and, high cervical nerves, and peripheral neuromodulation targets: occipital nerves, sphenopalatine ganglion, and vagus nerve. In this review, we will also discuss the neuropeptide and molecular targets, in particular, calcitonin gene-related peptide, somatostatin, transient receptor potential vanilloid-1 receptor, nitric oxide, melatonin, orexin, pituitary adenylate cyclase-activating polypeptide, and glutamate.