Cluster headache: a quasi-rare disorder needing a reappraisal

Editoria

New players in the preventive treatment of migraine.

Migraine is a common, chronic disorder of the brain causing much disability, as well as personal, familial and societal impact. Several oral preventive agents are available in different countries for the prevention of migraine, but none have performed better than 50% improvement in 50% of patients in a clinical trial. Additionally, each has various possible adverse events making their tolerability less than optimal. Recently, three monoclonal antibodies targeting the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) ligand (LY2951742, ALD403 and TEV-48125) and one targeting the CGRP receptor (AMG 334) have completed phase 2 trials, and the results have been reported. These early results show them all to be somewhat more effective than placebo, with no serious adverse events. Three have been studied for episodic migraine, and only TEV-48125 has been studied for both high frequency episodic and chronic migraine. Moreover, preliminary data suggests that neurostimulation is effective in migraine treatment, including stimulation of the sphenopalatine ganglion, transcutaneous supraorbital and supratrochlear nerve, and transcutaneous vagus nerve. In this article, these innovative therapies will be reviewed

Refractory Headache: One Term does Not cover All – A Statement of the European Headache Federation

[No abstract available

Aging, cellular senescence, and progressive Multiple Sclerosis

Aging is one of the most important risk factors for the development of several neurodegenerative diseases including progressive multiple sclerosis (MS). Cellular senescence (CS) is a key biological process underlying aging. Several stressors associated with aging and MS pathology, such as oxidative stress, mitochondrial dysfunction, cytokines and replicative exhaustion are known triggers of cellular senescence. Senescent cells exhibit stereotypical metabolic and functional changes, which include cell-cycle arrest and acquiring a pro-inflammatory phenotype secreting cytokines, growth factors, metalloproteinases and reactive oxygen species. They accumulate with aging and can convert neighboring cells to senescence in a paracrine manner. In MS, accelerated cellular senescence may drive disease progression by promoting chronic non-remitting inflammation, loss or altered immune, glial and neuronal function, failure of remyelination, impaired blood-brain barrier integrity and ultimately neurodegeneration. Here we discuss the evidence linking cellular senescence to the pathogenesis of MS and the putative role of senolytic and senomorphic agents as neuroprotective therapies in tackling disease progression

Guideline on the use of onabotulinumtoxinA in chronic migraine. a consensus statement from the European Headache Federation

OnabotulinumtoxinA is being increasingly used in the management of chronic migraine (CM). Treatment with onabotulinumtoxinA poses challenges compared with traditional therapy with orally administered preventatives. The European Headache Federation identified an expert group that was asked to develop the present guideline to provide recommendations for the use of onabotulinumtoxinA in CM. The expert group recommend onabotulinumtoxinA as an effective and well-tolerated treatment of CM. Patients should preferably have tried two to three other migraine prophylactics before start of onabotulinumtoxinA. Patients with medication overuse should be withdrawn from the overused medication before initiation of onabotulinumtoxinA if feasible, if not onabotulinumtoxinA can be initiated from the start or before withdrawal. OnabotulinumtoxinA should be administered according to the PREEMPT injection protocol, i.e. injecting 155 U-195 U to 31-39 sites every 12-weeks. We recommend that patients are defined as non-responders, if they have less than 30% reduction in headache days per month during treatment with onabotulinumtoxinA. However other factors such as headache intensity, disability and patient preferences should also be considered when evaluating response. Treatment should be stopped, if the patient does not respond to the first two to three treatment cycles. Response to continued treatment with onabotulinumtoxinA should be evaluated by comparing the 4 weeks before with the 4 weeks after each treatment cycle. It is recommended that treatment is stopped in patients with a reduction to less than 10 headache days per month for 3 months and that patients are re-evaluated 4-5 months after stopping onabotulinumtoxinA to make sure that the patient has not returned to CM. Questions regarding efficacy and tolerability of onabotulinumtoxinA could be answered on the basis of scientific evidence. The other recommendations were mainly based on expert opinion. Future research on the treatment of CM with onabotulinumtoxinA may further improve the management of this highly disabling disorder

Therapeutic Management: When and What

Migraine is a widespread brain disease that is classified as the second most disabling condition and has the third highest prevalence of all medical conditions. Despite its non-emergent or life-threatening nature, migraine can progress to chronic type, a subform associated with significant morbidity and drug overuse. In the management of migraine, it is important therefore to introduce early prophylactic treatment in order to limit migraine chronification. In this chapter, we will go through all the treatment options, both acute and preventive, pharmaceutical and non-pharmaceutical following this flowchart: 1. Introduction; 2. General principles; 2.1 Symptomatic therapy; 2.2 Prophylactic management; 3. Pharmaceutical therapies; 3.1 Symptomatic; 3.1.1 Disease-specific; 3.1.2 No disease-specific; 3.2 Prophylactic; 3.2.1 Disease-specific; 3.2.2 No disease-specific; 3.3 Non-Pharmaceutical therapies; 3.4 Neuromodulation; 3.4.1 Invasive; 3.4.5 Non-invasive; 3.5 Nutrient (nutraceuticals); 3.6 Dietary interventions; 3.7 Acupuncture; 3.8 Physical therapy; 4. Cognitive behavioral therapies; 5. Patient centricity and patient education

Framing education on headache disorders into the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010 : the European Headache Federation stands ready

Framing education on headache disorders into the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. The European Headache Federation stands ready

Structured headache services as the solution to the ill-health burden of headache. 2. Modelling effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of implementation in Europe: methodology

Background: Health economic evaluations support health-care decision-making by providing information on the costs and consequences of health interventions. No universally accepted methodology exists for modelling effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of interventions designed to close treatment gaps for headache disorders in countries of Europe (or elsewhere). Our aim here, within the European Brain Council’s Value-of-Treatment project, was to develop headache-type-specific analytical models to be applied to implementation of structured headache services in Europe as the health-care solution to headache. Methods: We developed three headache-type-specific decision-analytical models using the WHO-CHOICE framework and adapted these for three European Region country settings (Luxembourg, Russia and Spain), diverse in geographical location, population size, income level and health-care systems and for which we had population-based data. Each model compared current (suboptimal) care vs target care (delivered in accordance with the structured headache services model). Epidemiological and economic data were drawn from studies conducted by the Global Campaign against Headache; data on efficacy of treatments were taken from published randomized controlled trials; assumptions on uptake of treatments, and those made for Healthy Life Year (HLY) calculations and target-care benefits, were agreed with experts. We made annual and 5-year cost estimates from health-care provider (main analyses) and societal (secondary analyses) perspectives (2020 figures, euros). Results: The analytical models were successfully developed and applied to each country setting. Headache-related costs (including use of health-care resources and lost productivity) and health outcomes (HLYs) were mapped across populations. The same calculations were repeated for each alternative (current vs target care). Analyses of the differences in costs and health outcomes between alternatives and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios are presented elsewhere. Conclusions: This study presents the first headache-type-specific analytical models to evaluate effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of implementing structured headache services in countries in the European Region. The models are robust, and can assist policy makers in allocating health budgets between interventions to maximize the health of populations