Treatment of intractable hemicrania continua by occipital nerve stimulation

Hemicrania continua (HC) is characterised by a strictly unilateral continuous headache with ipsilateral autonomic features and migrainous symptoms that is exquisitely sensitive to indomethacin.1 As more than 30% of patients report side effects with indomethacin, there is need for an effective and safe alternative. Although several drugs have been used in open-label studies, none offer the same magnitude of response. Occipital nerve stimulation (ONS) has been performed in headache conditions such as chronic migraine and chronic cluster headache, both conditions with clinical similarities to HC and appears to be a safe, potentially efficacious treatment even in those failing all available medical treatments.2 We report the long-term follow-up of a new cohort of 16 patients with HC treated with ONS

The Use of Electroceuticals and Neuromodulation in the Treatment of Migraine and Other Headaches

Over recent years there has been increasing interest in the role of neurostimulation in the treatment of headache disorders. Currently both peripheral and central neuromodulation devices are available although evidence to support their use is still limited. Both non-invasive and invasive devices can be used for neurostimulation. Non-invasive peripheral stimulation options include supra-orbital stimulation (Cefaly® device) and vagal nerve stimulation (gammaCore® device), while invasive peripheral stimulation options include occipital nerve stimulation and sphenopalatine ganglion stimulation. Non-invasive central neurostimulation option involves single pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation (SpringTMS® device), while invasive central neurostimulation can be carried out using ventral tegmental area deep brain stimulation. Neurostimulation therapies offer a promising approach to otherwise medically intractable or difficult to treat headache disorders with each device having specific roles within the treatment pathway

Medical treatment of SUNCT and SUNA: a prospective open-label study including single-arm meta-analysis

Introduction: The management of short-lasting unilateral neuralgiform headache attacks with conjunctival injection and tearing (SUNCT) and shortlasting unilateral neuralgiform headache attacks with cranial autonomic symptoms (SUNA) remains challenging in view of the paucity of data and evidence-based treatment recommendations are missing. Methods: In this single-centre, non-randomised, prospective open-label study, we evaluated and compared the efficacy of oral and parenteral treatments for SUNCT and SUNA in a real-world setting. Additionally, single-arm meta-analyses of the available reports of SUNCT and SUNA treatments were conducted. Results: The study cohort comprised 161 patients. Most patients responded to lamotrigine (56%), followed by oxcarbazepine (46%), duloxetine (30%), carbamazepine (26%), topiramate (25%), pregabalin and gabapentin (10%). Mexiletine and lacosamide were effective in a meaningful proportion of patients but poorly tolerated. Intravenous lidocaine given for 7–10 days led to improvement in 90% of patients, whereas only 27% of patients responded to a greater occipital nerve block. No statistically significant differences in responders were observed between SUNCT and SUNA. In the meta-analysis of the pooled data, topiramate was found to be significantly more effective in SUNCT than SUNA patients. However, a higher proportion of SUNA than SUNCT was considered refractory to medications at the time of the topiramate trial, possibly explaining this isolated difference. Conclusions: We propose a treatment algorithm for SUNCT and SUNA for clinical practice. The response to sodium channel blockers indicates a therapeutic overlap with trigeminal neuralgia, suggesting that sodium channels dysfunction may be a key pathophysiological hallmark in these disorders. Furthermore, the therapeutic similarities between SUNCT and SUNA further support the hypothesis that these conditions are variants of the same disorder

Efficacy of galcanezumab in patients with migraine and history of failure to 3-4 preventive medication categories: subgroup analysis from CONQUER study

Background: Chronic migraine (CM) and episodic migraine (EM) are associated with substantial headache-related disability, poor quality of life and global societal burden. In this subgroup analysis from the CONQUER study, we report efficacy outcomes from a pre-specified analysis of galcanezumab versus placebo in patients with CM or EM and 3–4 prior preventive medication category failures due to inadequate efficacy (after at least 2 months at maximum tolerated dose), or safety or tolerability reasons. The patient population is of particular interest due to evidence of decreased quality of life and increased economic burden among patients with migraine that is inadequately managed and is of interest to decision-makers globally. Methods: Key outcomes included overall mean change from baseline in monthly migraine headache days and proportions of patients achieving ≥30% (CM), ≥50%, and ≥ 75% reduction (response rates) in monthly migraine headache days across Months 1–3. Patient functioning and disability were evaluated at Month 3. Results: Of the 462 randomized patients, 186 (40.3%) had a history of 3–4 preventive category failures. Galcanezumab versus placebo resulted in significantly (P ≤ .001) larger overall mean reduction in monthly migraine headache days (total: − 5.49 versus − 1.03; CM: − 6.70 versus − 1.56; EM: − 3.64 versus − 0.65). Similarly, the ≥50% response rate was significantly (P ≤ .001) higher with galcanezumab versus placebo (total: 41.0 versus 12.7; CM: 41.5 versus 8.4; EM: 41.1 versus 16.5). In the CM group, the ≥30% response rate was significantly higher in the galcanezumab group than the placebo group (CM, 57.5 versus 19.8, P ≤ .0001) as was the ≥75% response rate (13.3 versus 2.6, P ≤ .05). Galcanezumab also resulted in significant (P < .0001) improvements in patient functioning and reductions in disability. Conclusions: Galcanezumab was effective in a difficult-to-treat population of patients with CM or EM who had failed 3–4 prior preventive medication categories

New insights in post-traumatic headache with cluster headache phenotype: a cohort study

OBJECTIVES: To define the characteristics of post-traumatic headache with cluster headache phenotype (PTH-CH) and to compare these characteristics with primary CH. METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted of patients seen between 2007 and 2017 in a headache centre and diagnosed with PTH-CH that developed within 7 days of head trauma. A control cohort included 553 patients with primary CH without any history of trauma who attended the headache clinic during the same period. Data including demographics, attack characteristics and response to treatments were recorded. RESULTS: Twenty-six patients with PTH-CH were identified. Multivariate analysis revealed significant associations between PTH-CH and family history of CH (OR 3.32, 95% CI 1.31 to 8.63), chronic form (OR 3.29, 95% CI 1.70 to 6.49), parietal (OR 14.82, 95% CI 6.32 to 37.39) or temporal (OR 2.04, 95% CI 1.10 to 3.84) location of pain, and presence of prominent cranial autonomic features during attacks (miosis OR 11.24, 95% CI 3.21 to 41.34; eyelid oedema OR 5.79, 95% CI 2.57 to 13.82; rhinorrhoea OR 2.65, 95% CI 1.26 to 5.86; facial sweating OR 2.53, 95% CI 1.33 to 4.93). Patients with PTH-CH were at a higher risk of being intractable to acute (OR 12.34, 95% CI 2.51 to 64.73) and preventive (OR 16.98, 95% CI 6.88 to 45.52) treatments and of suffering from associated chronic migraine (OR 10.35, 95% CI 3.96 to 28.82). CONCLUSION: This largest series of PTH-CH defines it as a unique entity with specific evolutive profile. Patients with PTH-CH are more likely to suffer from the chronic variant, have marked autonomic features, be intractable to treatment and have associated chronic migraine compared with primary CH

Inflammatory complications of CGRP monoclonal antibodies: a case series

BACKGROUND: Calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) is expressed throughout the body and is a known mediator of migraine, exerting this biological effect through activation of trigeminovascular, meningeal and associated neuronal pathways located in close proximity to the central nervous system. Monoclonal antibodies (mAb) targeting the CGRP pathway are an effective new preventive treatment for migraine, with a generally favourable adverse event profile. Pre-clinical evidence supports an anti-inflammatory/immunoregulatory role for CGRP in other organ systems, and therefore inhibition of the normal action of this peptide may promote a pro-inflammatory response. CASES: We present a case series of eight patients with new or significantly worsened inflammatory pathology in close temporal association with the commencement of CGRP mAb therapy. CONCLUSION: This case series provides novel insights on the potential molecular mechanisms and side-effects of CGRP antagonism in migraine and supports clinical vigilance in patient care going forward

Supportive Self-Management Program for People With Chronic Headaches and Migraine: A Randomized Controlled Trial and Economic Evaluation

Background and Objectives: Chronic headache disorders are a major cause of pain and disability. Education and supportive self-management approaches could reduce the burden of headache disability. We tested the effectiveness of a group educational and supportive self-management program for people living with chronic headaches. / Methods: This was a pragmatic randomized controlled trial. Participants were aged 18 years or older with chronic migraine or chronic tension-type headache, with or without medication overuse headache. We primarily recruited from general practices. Participants were assigned to either a 2-day group education and self-management program, a one-to-one nurse interview, and telephone support or to usual care plus relaxation material. The primary outcome was headache related-quality of life using the Headache Impact Test (HIT)-6 at 12 months. The primary analysis used intention-to-treat principles for participants with migraine and both baseline and 12-month HIT-6 data. / Results: Between April 2017 and March 2019, we randomized 736 participants. Because only 9 participants just had tension-type headache, our main analyses were on the 727 participants with migraine. Of them, 376 were allocated to the self-management intervention and 351 to usual care. Data from 586 (81%) participants were analyzed for primary outcome. There was no between-group difference in HIT-6 (adjusted mean difference = -0.3, 95% CI -1.23 to 0.67) or headache days (0.9, 95% CI -0.29 to 2.05) at 12 months. The Chronic Headache Education and Self-management Study intervention generated incremental adjusted costs of £268 (95% CI, £176-£377) (USD383 [95% CI USD252-USD539]) and incremental adjusted quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of 0.031 (95% CI -0.005 to 0.063). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was £8,617 (USD12,322) per QALY gained. / Discussion: These findings conclusively show a lack of benefit for quality of life or monthly headache days from a brief group education and supportive self-management program for people living with chronic migraine or chronic tension-type headache with episodic migraine

Supportive Self-Management Program for People With Chronic Headaches and Migraine: A Randomized Controlled Trial and Economic Evaluation.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Chronic headache disorders are a major cause of pain and disability. Education and supportive self-management approaches could reduce the burden of headache disability. We tested the effectiveness of a group educational and supportive self-management program for people living with chronic headaches. METHODS: This was a pragmatic randomized controlled trial. Participants were aged 18 years or older with chronic migraine or chronic tension-type headache, with or without medication overuse headache. We primarily recruited from general practices. Participants were assigned to either a 2-day group education and self-management program, a one-to-one nurse interview, and telephone support or to usual care plus relaxation material. The primary outcome was headache related-quality of life using the Headache Impact Test (HIT)-6 at 12 months. The primary analysis used intention-to-treat principles for participants with migraine and both baseline and 12-month HIT-6 data. RESULTS: Between April 2017 and March 2019, we randomized 736 participants. Because only 9 participants just had tension-type headache, our main analyses were on the 727 participants with migraine. Of them, 376 were allocated to the self-management intervention and 351 to usual care. Data from 586 (81%) participants were analyzed for primary outcome. There was no between-group difference in HIT-6 (adjusted mean difference = -0.3, 95% CI -1.23 to 0.67) or headache days (0.9, 95% CI -0.29 to 2.05) at 12 months. The Chronic Headache Education and Self-management Study intervention generated incremental adjusted costs of £268 (95% CI, £176-£377) (USD383 [95% CI USD252-USD539]) and incremental adjusted quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of 0.031 (95% CI -0.005 to 0.063). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was £8,617 (USD12,322) per QALY gained. DISCUSSION: These findings conclusively show a lack of benefit for quality of life or monthly headache days from a brief group education and supportive self-management program for people living with chronic migraine or chronic tension-type headache with episodic migraine. TRIAL REGISTRATION INFORMATION: Registered on the International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number registry, ISRCTN79708100 16th December 2015 doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN79708100. The first enrollment was April 24, 2017. CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE: This study provides Class III evidence that a brief group education and self-management program does not increase the probability of improvement in headache-related quality of life in people with chronic migraine