Understanding Cluster Headache Using Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Hyperalgesia, Increased Temporal Summation and Impaired Inhibitory Mechanisms in Episodic and Chronic Cluster Headache: An Observational Study

Cluster Headache (CH) is a primary headache that causes severe pain. Some evidence suggests that central mechanisms might be involved. The objective of this study was (1) to compare hyperalgesia signs, temporal summation and conditioned pain modulation among episodic (ECH) and chronic CH (CCH) patients and controls, (2) to compare these factors between sides in the patient groups and (3) to compare the psychophysical variables between the groups. This cross-sectional study included 71 subjects divided into three groups (ECH, CCH and controls). Pressure pain thresholds, temporal summation, conditioned pain modulation and other psychosocial variables were measured. The ANOVA showed differences for all physical outcome measures (p < 0.05). Bonferroni post hoc analyses showed differences when comparing the patient groups with the healthy subjects (p < 0.05), with large effect sizes (d > 0.8). No differences between the patient groups were found for almost all the variables (p > 0.05). Significant differences for all the variables were detected when comparing the symptomatic and non-symptomatic sides in both the ECH and CCH groups (p < 0.05). The ECH and CCH groups showed mechanical hyperalgesia, increased temporal summation and impaired inhibitory mechanisms compared to the controls. Side-to-side differences were also detected within the patient groups. Patients with CCH had poorer sleep quality and quality of life than the controls.

Vessel-wall MRI in primary headaches: The role of neurogenic inflammation

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to investigate if vessel-wall magnetic resonance imaging (VW-MRI) could differentiate among primary headaches disorders, such as migraine and cluster headache (CH), and detect the presence of neurogenic inflammation.

BACKGROUND

The pathophysiology of primary headaches disorders is complex and not completely clarified. The activation of nociceptive trigeminal afferents through the release of vasoactive neuropeptides, termed "neurogenic inflammation," has been hypothesized. VW-MRI can identify vessel wall changes, reflecting the inflammatory remodeling of the vessel walls despite different etiologies.

METHODS

In this case series, we enrolled seven patients with migraine and eight patients with CH. They underwent a VW-MRI study before and after the intravenous administration of contrast medium, during and outside a migraine attack or cluster period. Two expert neuroradiologists analyzed the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) studies to identify the presence of vessel wall enhancement or other vascular abnormalities.

RESULTS

Fourteen out of 15 patients had no enhancement. One out of 15, with migraine, showed a focal parietal enhancement in the intracranial portion of a vertebral artery, unmodified during and outside the attack, thus attributable to atherosclerosis. No contrast enhancement attributable to neurogenic inflammation was observed in VW-MRI, both during and outside the attack/cluster in all patients. Moreover, MRI angiography registered slight diffuse vasoconstriction in one of seven patients with migraine during the attack and in one of eight patients with cluster headache during the cluster period; both patients had taken triptans as symptomatic therapy for pain.

CONCLUSIONS

These preliminary results suggest that VW-MRI studies are negative in patients with primary headache disorders even during migraine attacks or cluster periods. The VW-MRI studies did not detect signs of neurogenic inflammation in the intracranial intradural vessels of patients with migraine or CH.

Fremanezumab and Non-High-Dose Galcanezumab for Comorbid Cluster Headache in Patients with Migraine: Three Cases

A new treatment option for cluster headache (CH) prevention is needed. Monoclonal antibodies (mABs) against calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) ligands are used as a preventative treatment for migraine. Considering the CGRP’s role in the CH attack’s ignition and upkeep, fremanezumab and galcanezumab have been evaluated for CH preventative treatment. However, only high-dose (300 mg) galcanezumab has been approved for episodic CH prevention. We herein report three cases of migraine and comorbid CH with previous failures of preventive treatments. Two cases were treated with fremanezumab and one with non-high-dose galcanezumab. All three cases showed good results, not only for migraine, but also for CH attacks. This report suggests the efficacy of CGRP-mABs for CH prevention. Our cases differed from cases in the phase 3 trials of CGRP-mABs for CH prevention in two ways: first, our patients had both migraine and comorbid CH, and second, we used a combination of CGRP-mABs with preventative drugs, such as verapamil and/or prednisolone, to treat CH. Future accumulation of real-world data may prove the efficacy of CGRP-mABs for CH prevention.

Recent advances in the diagnosis and management of cluster headache

Cluster headache, a primary headache disorder, consists of short (15-180 minutes), frequent (up to eight a day), unilateral attacks of facial pain with associated ipsilateral autonomic features and restlessness. The attacks are suspected to be one of the most painful human experiences, and the disorder is associated with a high rate of suicidal ideation. Proper diagnosis is key, as some of the most effective treatments, such as high flow oxygen gas, are rarely used in other headache disorders. Yet diagnostic delay is typically years for this disorder, as it is often confused with migraine and trigeminal neuralgia, and secondary causes may be overlooked. This review covers the clinical, pathophysiologic, and therapeutic features of cluster headache. Recent updates in diagnosis include the redefinition of chronic cluster headache (remission periods lasting less than three months instead of the previous one month), and recent advances in management include new treatments for episodic cluster headache (galcanezumab and non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation).

Cluster Headache Pathophysiology—A Disorder of Network Excitability?

Patients’ accounts of cluster headache attacks, ictal restlessness, and electrophysiological studies suggest that the pathophysiology involves Aδ-fibre nociceptors and the network processing their input. Continuous activity of the trigeminal autonomic reflex throughout the in-bout period results in central sensitization of these networks in many patients. It is likely that several factors force circadian rhythmicity upon the disease. In addition to sensitization, circadian changes in pain perception and autonomic innervation might influence the excitability of the trigeminal cervical complex. Summation of several factors influencing pain perception might render neurons vulnerable to spontaneous depolarization, particularly at the beginning of rapid drops of the pain threshold (“summation headache”). In light of studies suggesting an impairment of short-term synaptic plasticity in CH patients, we suggest that the physiologic basis of CH attacks might be network overactivity—similarly to epileptic seizures. Case reports documenting cluster-like attacks support the idea of distinct factors being transiently able to induce attacks and being relevant in the pathophysiology of the disorder. A sustained and recurring proneness to attacks likely requires changes in the activity of other structures among which the hypothalamus is the most probable candidate.

Cognitive performance in patients with episodic cluster headache outside and inside the active cluster

BACKGROUND

Previous studies have shown worse cognitive performance in cluster headache (CH) patients compared to healthy controls; however, little is known about cognitive performance in episodic CH (ECH) patients outside and inside the active cluster (AC).

OBJECTIVE

Our aim is to compare cognitive function in ECH patients outside and inside the AC.

METHODS

In this cross-sectional, observational study, four neuropsychological tests (Trail Making Test [TMT], Stroop Test [ST], verbal fluency [VF], and Symbol Digit Modalities Test [SDT]) were completed by 21 ECH patients at two different points in time: outside and inside the AC. We also assessed self-reported sleep quality and the presence of anxiety or depressive symptoms. Scores were compared.

RESULTS

There was not any difference between the scores of the neuropsychological tests performed outside and inside the AC (TMT-A: 23 vs. 23.5; p = 0.984; TMT-B: 96.5 vs. 85.9; p = 0.104; ST word reading: 101.0 vs. 101.2; p = 0.938; ST color naming: 73.0 vs. 73.4; p = 0.858; ST color word: 44.0 vs. 46.0; p = 0.498; SDMT: 44.0 vs. 44.6; p = 0.961; VF phonemic: 29.5 vs. 30.2; p = 0.714; VF semantic: 20 vs. 21; p = 0.489). We found a worsening in the sleep quality component of the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index median scores in patients outside the AC (2 vs. 1; p = 0.046).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that patients with ECH have a similar cognitive performance outside and during the AC.