Search

Purpose of Review: What should a provider know about medications and other treatments in patients with cluster headache who have medical, psychiatric, and surgical comorbidities? What conversations should providers have with patients about living with and managing cluster headache?, Recent Findings: While the number of treatments used in cluster headache is relatively small, numerous considerations were identified related to managing patients with comorbidities. Many of these touch on cardiac, cardiovascular, and cerebrovascular health, but full histories are needed to guide safe and effective treatment. Both older and newer treatments may be contraindicated in certain patients with cluster headache or should be considered carefully. In addition to incorporating medical, psychiatric, and surgical histories in the management plan, collaboration with other providers may be beneficial. Providers should also inquire about patient practices and discuss participation in clinical trials that might be a good fit for the individual., (© 2024. This is a U.S. Government work and not under copyright protection in the US; foreign copyright protection may apply.)

Background: Cluster headache (CH) is a significant health concern due to its major socioeconomic consequences and most patients being refractory to conventional strategies. For treatment resistant CH, occipital nerve stimulation (ONS) is considered an effective treatment option. Whereas most patients do not adjust the amplitude of the ONS system, a subset changes the amplitude on a regular basis using their remote control, and are therefore referred to as 'voltage tuners'. Anxiety and self-control are thought to be central themes to this behavior. Research on this voltage tuning behavior could provide new insights in the use of ONS as acute attack treatment. To date, voltage tuning has not been assessed for CH. Hence this is a unique study aiming to investigate the occurrence and efficacy of voltage tuning in patients with CH and ONS., Methods: For this analysis, patients with CH who received ONS from 2020-2024, at our university medical center, were included. All patients underwent bilateral ONS implantation. Data on attack frequency, intensity and duration were collected retrospectively. Outcomes on the response, frequency, moment during the day, duration, rationale, sensation, average increase in amplitude, and efficacy of voltage tuning were collected with prospective interviews., Results: Thirty-three patients (M = 20) (42 ± 12.7 years) were included in the current analysis. At 1y follow-up, an overall response rate of 70% (23/33) was found for ONS. In total, 48% (18/33) of patients were defined as voltage tuners. Voltage tuning was performed with an average increase in amplitude of 92 (20-360)%, a frequency of 1-20 times/month and duration of 20 minutes-48 hours. Sensations of voltage tuning were described as "tingling" and/or "pinching". The rationale for voltage tuning in patients varied from prevention and ceasing to lowering the intensity and enhance control of CH attack., Conclusions: Outcomes show that voltage tuning may cease and/or terminate CH attacks and therefore raise interests in the use of ONS as acute attack treatment for patients with resistant CH treated with ONS. Future research on the occurrence and potential of voltage tuning will provide valuable insights for achieving optimal efficacy of ONS and quality of life in patients with CH., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Objective: Greater occipital nerve (GON) blockade injections can be used to prevent episodic and chronic cluster headaches. In recent studies, prophylactic treatment has been used in addition to the GON blockade. In this study, we aimed to elucidate the effect of GON blockade on the attack frequency, pain intensity, and duration in patients diagnosed with chronic cluster headaches., Patients and Methods: The demographic characteristics of 30 patients who received GON blockade along with acute attack treatment, short- and long-term prophylactic treatment for cluster headache, and 24 patients who received only acute attack treatment, short- and long-term prophylactic treatment, before blockade treatment, in the 1st week and 1st month after blockade were investigated. Attack frequency, attack duration, and visual analog scale (VAS) variables were compared., Results: We evaluated the VAS score, daily attack frequency, and duration of pain attacks after repeated GON blockade and found a statistically significant difference in the VAS score, daily attack frequency, duration of pain attacks, average values of the treatment, and time interaction of pain intensity in the group in which GON blockade was applied in the 1st week and 1st month compared to the pre-treatment period (p<0.01), (p<0.01), (p=0.044)., Conclusions: Regarding the outcomes of this research, GON blockade provided significant improvement in pain frequency, attack duration, and VAS score in the period from attack treatment to the start of long-term prophylaxis treatment and one month after treatment, without the need to switch to different prophylaxis treatments. Therefore, GON blockade may be a preferable and reliable treatment option.

Cluster headache (International Classification of Headache Disorders third edition, ICHD-3 3.1) is a primary headache disorder affecting around 0.12% of individuals. It is characterized by severe headache attacks causing significant negative impact on the lives of patients. While administration of 100% oxygen is considered to be the first-choice acute treatment, undertreatment also exists. Reasons for undertreatment may entail problems with the correct prescription of oxygen, reimbursement issues or the practical implementation of home oxygen therapy. The aim of this manuscript is to review the scientific evidence on oxygen therapy for cluster headache and provide a practical guidance for both physicians and patients to optimize its use in an acute setting. The current evidence of the administration of 100% oxygen as a safe and effective treatment for cluster headache is strong. Based on several clinical trials and surveys, the recommended flow rates range between 12 and 15 L/min via a non-rebreathing mask, for at least fifteen minutes. The frequency of cluster headache attacks and thus the need for acute treatment can be very high. Fortunately, the Belgian social security system provides a full and lifetime reimbursement of oxygen therapy for cluster headache if the diagnosis and the need for this therapy has been certified by a neurologist, neurosurgeon or neuropsychiatrist., (© 2024. The Author(s) under exclusive licence to Belgian Neurological Society.)

Cluster headache, characterised by attacks of severe, recurrent, unilateral headache and ipsilateral cranial autonomic symptoms, remains a primary headache with an elusive pathophysiology. Recent advances have introduced effective treatments and broadened understanding of the clinical features of cluster headache. These features are similar in patients globally, but regional differences in prevalence and burden exist. International collaborations have led to identification of eight genetic loci associated with cluster headache. The pathophysiological mechanisms are still not fully understood but recent studies show that targeting the trigeminal autonomic reflex by neurostimulation, or targeting the neuropeptide calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP), might lessen the attack burden. The US Food and Drug Administration has approved galcanezumab, a monoclonal antibody targeting CGRP, as the first specific preventive treatment for episodic cluster headache. However, a preventive effect was not replicated in chronic cluster headache, and the European Medicines Agency did not approve galcanezumab, restricting its availability in Europe. Owing to the low prevalence of cluster headache, continued collaboration through multicentre clinical trials and data sharing will be imperative for further breakthroughs in understanding and management., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests ASP has received a restricted research grant (payment to their institution) and conference attendance from Lundbeck Pharma, and personal fees from Pfizer for teaching activities. NL has received a restricted research grant from Lundbeck Pharma (payment to their institution), a research grant from the Capital Region Research Foundation, support for conference attendance from Pfizer, and personal fees from teaching activities for general practitioners from Dagens Medicin and Pfizer (personal). PJG reports, over the past 36 months: grants from Celgene and Kallyope; personal fees from Aeon Biopharma, AbbVie, Amgen, eNeura, CoolTech, Dr Reddys, Eli Lilly, Epalex, Linpharma, Lundbeck, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Satsuma, Shiratronics, and Teva Pharmaceuticals; participation on a data and safety monitoring board for Aeon Biopharma and Man & Science; personal fees for advice through Gerson Lehrman Group, Guidepoint, SAI Med Partners, and Vector Metric; fees for educational materials from CME Outfitters; publishing royalties or fees from Massachusetts Medical Society, Oxford University Press, UptoDate, and Wolters Kluwer; and a patent for magnetic stimulation for headache (WO2016090333 A1) assigned to eNeura, without fee. PJG is a board member of the American Headache Society, Migraine Trust, and Organisation for Understanding Cluster Headache. ACB reports honoraria for presentations from Novartis, Teva, and Lundbeck; and research funding from the Swedish Brain Foundation and the Mellby Gård Foundation. S-JW has received honoraria as a moderator from AbbVie, Biogen, Eli Lilly, Hava Biopharma, and Pfizer; has received consulting fees from AbbVie, Eli Lilly Taiwan, Percept, and Pfizer Taiwan; and has received research grants from the Taiwan branches of Eli Lilly, Lundbeck, Novartis, and Orient Europharma. RF reports research grants from Bioprojet, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Netherlands Brain Foundation, and ZonMW (fee for institution); educational honoraria from Novartis (fee for institution), Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Bioprojet, and Lundbeck Pharma (personal fees); consultancy for AbbVie, Eli Lilly, and Takeda (fee for institution); and is a member of the cluster headache section of the Dutch Headache guidelines (unpaid). MB reports grant funding from the Will Erwin Headache Research Foundation; travel support for attending meetings from the American Headache Society; has served as a consultant for Lundbeck, Beckley Psytech, Praxis Precision Medicines, and PureTech Health; is a site investigator for a cluster headache clinical trial funded by Lundbeck; was a paid guest for a video podcast by the American Academy of Neurology, is a paid survey respondent for Doximetry, and is an unpaid member of the medical advisory board of Clusterbusters. S-JC was involved as a site investigator of a multicentre trial sponsored by Allergan, AbbVie, Hyundai Pharmaceutical, Ildong Pharmaceutical, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, and Lundbeck; and has received lecture fees or advisory honoraria from AbbVie Korea, Lundbeck, Eli Lilly Korea, SK Chemicals, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, and Pfizer. MFPP reports consulting fees for AbbVie–Allergan, Ache, Eli Lilly, Eurofarma, Libbs, Lundbeck, Kenvue, Pfizer, Sanofi-Aventis, and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries; travel support from Teva; participation in advisory boards for AbbVie-Allergan, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Kenvue, Eurofarma, and Sonofi-Aventis; and is president of the Brazilian Association for Cluster Headache and Migraine (unpaid). RHJ received a restricted research grant (for institution) for work on cluster headache from Lundbeck Pharma; received a research grant for treatment trial for idiopathic intracranial hypertension (for institution) from Novo Nordisk Foundation; is on an advisory board for Lundbeck Pharma and has received fees for participation on an advisory board (for institution); has received personal fees for educational and teaching activities from Pfizer, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Novartis, AbbVie, Lundbeck, and Eli Lilly; is chair of the Master of Headache Disorders at the University of Copenhagen, a director of the Danish Headache Center, and undertakes unpaid activities as a director of Lifting The Burden., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved, including those for text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies.)

Background: Occipital nerve stimulation (ONS) is a treatment with evidence in refractory chronic cluster headache (CCH). However, the variable response rate and cost make it necessary to investigate predictors of response., Methods: This is a cross-sectional study conducted through the review of medical records of CCH patients from six hospitals in Madrid. Epidemiological and clinical variables were compared between patients with ONS failure and the rest. ONS failure was defined as the need for device withdrawal or switch off because of lack of response or adverse events., Results: From a series of 88 CCH, 26 (29.6%) underwent ONS surgery, of whom 13/26 (50.0%) failed because lack of response. ONS failure group had an earlier headache onset (mean ± SD) of 27.7 ± 6.9 vs. 36.7 ± 11.8 years, p  = 0.026) and a higher smoking rate (100% vs. 42.9%, p  = 0.006). Stational fluctuations (58.3% vs. 7.7%, p  = 0.007) and nocturnal exacerbations (91.7% vs. 53.9%, p  = 0.035) were more frequent in the ONS failure group as well. There was no difference between groups in diagnostic delay, years of evolution prior to surgery, mental illness, comorbidity with other headache disorders or chronic pain conditions or prior response to occipital nerves anesthetic blocks., Conclusions: Some clinical features such as an early debut, smoking and seasonal or circadian fluctuations could be related to failure of ONS in refractory CCH., Competing Interests: Declaration of conflicting interestsJAM has received honoraria as a speaker from TEVA and Novartis and for advisory boards from Pfizer. AGM has received speaker honoraria from TEVA. ABGV has received honoraria for advisory boards and/or speaker panels from Novartis, Lilly, TEVA, Abbvie-Allergan, Lundbeck and Pfizer. JDT has received honoraria for advisory boards from speaker panels from Novartis, Lilly, TEVA, Abbvie-Allergan, Lundbeck Pfizer and Boston Scientific.

Objective: This article reviews the epidemiology, clinical features, differential diagnosis, pathophysiology, and management of three types of trigeminal autonomic cephalalgias: cluster headache (the most common), short-lasting unilateral neuralgiform headache attacks with conjunctival injection and tearing (SUNCT), and short-lasting unilateral neuralgiform headache attacks with cranial autonomic symptoms (SUNA)., Latest Developments: The first-line treatments for trigeminal autonomic cephalalgias have not changed in recent years: cluster headache is managed with oxygen, triptans, and verapamil, and SUNCT and SUNA are managed with lamotrigine. However, new successful clinical trials of high-dose prednisone, high-dose galcanezumab, and occipital nerve stimulation provide additional options for patients with cluster headache. Furthermore, new genetic and imaging tests in patients with cluster headache hold promise for a better understanding of its pathophysiology., Essential Points: The trigeminal autonomic cephalalgias are a group of diseases that appear similar to each other and other headache disorders but have important differences. Proper diagnosis is crucial for proper treatment., (Copyright © 2024 American Academy of Neurology.)

Background: The clinical profile of cluster headache may differ among different regions of the world, warranting interest in the data obtained from the initial Chinese Cluster Headache Register Individual Study (CHRIS) for better understanding., Methods: We conducted a multicenter, prospective, longitudinal cohort study on cluster headache across all 31 provinces of China, aiming to gather clinical characteristics, treatment approaches, imaging, electrophysiological and biological samples., Results: In total 816 patients were enrolled with a male-to-female ratio of 4.33:1. The mean age at consultation was 34.98 ± 9.91 years, and 24.89 ± 9.77 years at onset. Only 2.33% were diagnosed with chronic cluster headache, and 6.99% had a family history of the condition. The most common bout was one to two times per year (45.96%), lasting two weeks to one month (44.00%), and occurring frequently in spring (76.23%) and winter (73.04%). Of these, 68.50% experienced one to two attacks per day, with the majority lasting one to two hours (45.59%). The most common time for attacks was between 9 am and 12 pm (75.86%), followed by 1 am and 3 am (43.48%). Lacrimation (78.80%) was the most predominant autonomic symptom reported. Furthermore, 39.22% of patients experienced a delay of 10 years or more in receiving a correct diagnosis. Only 35.67% and 24.26% of patients received common acute and preventive treatments, respectively., Conclusion: Due to differences in ethnicity, genetics and lifestyle conditions, CHRIS has provided valuable baseline data from China. By establishing a dynamic cohort with comprehensive multidimensional data, it aims to advance the management system for cluster headache in China., Competing Interests: Declaration of conflicting interestsThe authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

In 1981, Devoghel achieved an 85.6% success rate in treating patients with treatment-refractory cluster headaches with alcoholization of the pterygopalatine ganglion (PPG) via the percutaneous suprazygomatic approach. Devoghel's study led to the theory that interrupting the parasympathetic pathway by blocking its transduction at the PPG could prevent or treat symptoms related to primary headache disorders (PHDs). Furthermore, non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation (nVNS) has proven to treat PHDs and has been approved by national regulatory bodies to treat, among others, cluster headaches and migraines.In this case series, nine desperate patients who presented with 11 longstanding treatment-refractory primary headache disorders and epidural blood patch-resistant postdural puncture headache (PDPH) received ultrasound-guided percutaneous suprazygomatic pterygopalatine ganglion blocks (PPGB), and seven also received nVNS. The patients were randomly selected and were not part of a research study. They experienced dramatic, immediate, satisfactory, and apparently lasting symptom resolution (at the time of the writing of this report). The report provides the case descriptions, briefly reviews the trigeminovascular and neurogenic inflammatory theories of the pathophysiology, outlines aspects of these PPGB and nVNS interventions, and argues for adopting this treatment regime as a first-line or second-line treatment rather than desperate last-line treatment of PDPH and PHDs., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© American Society of Regional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Despite hypothalamus has long being considered to be involved in the pathophysiology of cluster headache, the inconsistencies of previous neuroimaging studies and a limited understanding of the hypothalamic areas involved, impede a comprehensive interpretation of its involvement in this condition., Methods: We used an automated algorithm to extract hypothalamic subunit volumes from 105 cluster headache patients (57 chronic and 48 episodic) and 59 healthy individuals; after correcting the measures for the respective intracranial volumes, we performed the relevant comparisons employing logist regression models. Only for subunits that emerged as abnormal, we calculated their correlation with the years of illness and the number of headache attacks per day, and the effects of lithium treatment. As a post-hoc approach, using the 7 T resting-state fMRI dataset from the Human Connectome Project, we investigated whether the observed abnormal subunit, comprising the paraventricular nucleus and preoptic area, shows robust functional connectivity with the mesocorticolimbic system, which is known to be modulated by oxytocin neurons in the paraventricular nucleus and that is is abnormal in chronic cluster headache patients., Results: Patients with chronic (but not episodic) cluster headache, compared to control participants, present an increased volume of the anterior-superior hypothalamic subunit ipsilateral to the pain, which, remarkably, also correlates significantly with the number of daily attacks. The post-hoc approach showed that this hypothalamic area presents robust functional connectivity with the mesocorticolimbic system under physiological conditions. No evidence of the effects of lithium treatment on this abnormal subunit was found., Conclusions: We identified the ipsilateral-to-the-pain antero-superior subunit, where the paraventricular nucleus and preoptic area are located, as the key hypothalamic region of the pathophysiology of chronic cluster headache. The significant correlation between the volume of this area and the number of daily attacks crucially reinforces this interpretation. The well-known roles of the paraventricular nucleus in coordinating autonomic and neuroendocrine flow in stress adaptation and modulation of trigeminovascular mechanisms offer important insights into the understanding of the pathophysiology of cluster headache., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Objectives: Approximately one in every 1000 adults experiences cluster headache (CH). Although occipital nerve stimulation (ONS) appears encouraging in treatment for most patients with refractory CH, some patients do not reach adequate pain relief with ONS. A reason for failure of ONS might be anatomical variations and different surgical approaches. Therefore, an extensive literature analysis was performed, and cadaveric experimentation was combined with our clinical experience to provide a standardized proposal for ONS and obtain optimal management of patients with refractory CH., Materials and Methods: Data from 36 articles published between 1998 and 2023 were analyzed to retrieve information on the anatomical landmarks and surgical technique of ONS. For the cadaveric experimentation (N = 1), two electrodes were inserted from the region over the foramen magnum and projected toward the lower third of the mastoid process., Results: The existence of multiple approaches of ONS has been confirmed by the present analysis. Discrepancies have been found in the anatomical locations and corresponding landmarks of the greater and lesser occipital nerve. The surgical approaches differed in patient positioning, electrode placement, and imaging techniques, with an overall efficacy range of 35.7% to 90%., Conclusions: Reports on the surgical approach of ONS remain contradictory, hence emphasizing the need for standardization. Only if all implanting physicians perform the ONS surgery using a standardized protocol, can future data be combined and outcomes compared and analyzed., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest The authors reported no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To investigate the changes in activity energy expenditure (AEE) throughout daytime cluster headache (CH) attacks in patients with chronic CH and to evaluate the usefulness of actigraphy as a digital biomarker of CH attacks., Background: CH is a primary headache disorder characterized by attacks of severe to very severe unilateral pain (orbital, supraorbital, temporal, or in any combination of these sites), with ipsilateral cranial autonomic symptoms and/or a sense of restlessness or agitation. We hypothesized increased AEE from hyperactivity during attacks measured by actigraphy., Methods: An observational study including patients with chronic CH was conducted. During 21 days, patients wore an actigraphy device on the nondominant wrist and recorded CH attack-related data in a dedicated smartphone application. Accelerometer data were used for the calculation of AEE before and during daytime CH attacks that occurred in ambulatory settings, and without restrictions on acute and preventive headache treatment. We compared the activity and movements during the pre-ictal, ictal, and postictal phases with data from wrist-worn actigraphy with time-concordant intervals during non-headache periods., Results: Four patients provided 34 attacks, of which 15 attacks met the eligibility criteria for further analysis. In contrast with the initial hypothesis of increased energy expenditure during CH attacks, a decrease in movement was observed during the pre-ictal phase (30 min before onset to onset) and during the headache phase. A significant decrease (p < .01) in the proportion of high-intensity movement during headache attacks, of which the majority were oxygen-treated, was observed. This trend was less present for low-intensity movements., Conclusion: The unexpected decrease in AEE during the pre-ictal and headache phase of daytime CH attacks in patients with chronic CH under acute and preventive treatment in ambulatory settings has important implications for future research on wrist actigraphy in CH., (© 2024 The Authors. Brain and Behavior published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Background and Objectives: Deep brain stimulation (DBS) of the ventral tegmental area (VTA) is a surgical treatment option for selected patients with refractory chronic cluster headache (CCH). We aimed to identify clinical and structural neuroimaging factors associated with response to VTA DBS in CCH., Methods: This prospective observational cohort study examines consecutive patients with refractory CCH treated with VTA DBS by a multidisciplinary team in a single tertiary neuroscience center as part of usual care. Headache diaries and validated questionnaires were completed at baseline and regular follow-up intervals. All patients underwent T1-weighted structural MRI before surgery. We compared clinical features using multivariable logistic regression and neuroanatomic differences using voxel-based morphometry (VBM) between responders and nonresponders., Results: Over a 10-year period, 43 patients (mean age 53 years, SD 11.9), including 29 male patients, with a mean duration of CCH 12 years (SD 7.4), were treated and followed up for at least 1 year (mean follow-up duration 5.6 years). Overall, there was a statistically significant improvement in median attack frequency from 140 to 56 per month (Z = -4.95, p < 0.001), attack severity from 10/10 to 8/10 (Z = -4.83, p < 0.001), and duration from 110 to 60 minutes (Z = -3.48, p < 0.001). Twenty-nine (67.4%) patients experienced ≥50% improvement in attack frequency and were therefore classed as responders. There were no serious adverse events. The most common side effects were discomfort or pain around the battery site (7 patients) and transient diplopia and/or oscillopsia (6 patients). There were no differences in demographics, headache characteristics, or comorbidities between responders and nonresponders. VBM identified increased neural density in nonresponders in several brain regions, including the orbitofrontal cortex, anterior cingulate cortex, anterior insula, and amygdala, which were statistically significant ( p < 0.001)., Discussion: VTA DBS showed no serious adverse events, and, although there was no placebo control, was effective in approximately two-thirds of patients at long-term follow-up. This study did not reveal any reliable clinical predictors of response. However, nonresponders had increased neural density in brain regions linked to processing of pain and autonomic function, both of which are prominent in the pathophysiology of CCH., (© 2023 American Academy of Neurology.)

Objective: To describe clinical characteristics and regional treatment patterns of episodic cluster headache (CH)., Methods: A point-in-time survey of physicians and their patients with CH was conducted in the United States, United Kingdom and Germany in 2017., Results: Overall, 1012 patients with episodic CH were analyzed. Demographic and clinical findings were generally consistent across regions. Most patients were men (66.6%) and the mean age was 40.9 years. The greatest proportion of patients (38.3%) had ≤1 attack per day. The mean number of attacks per day (APD) was 2.4 and mean number of cluster periods per year was 2.6; the mean cluster period duration was 30.8 days. Most patients (69.3%) did not report a specific or predicable time when cluster periods occurred. Acute treatment was prescribed for 47.6% of patients, 10.3% of patients received preventive treatment, and 37.9% of patients received combined acute and preventive treatment; 4.2% of patients were not receiving treatment. Frequently prescribed acute treatments were sumatriptan, oxygen, and zolmitriptan; oxygen use varied considerably across countries and was prescribed least often in the United States. Frequently prescribed preventive treatments were verapamil, topiramate, and lithium. Lack of efficacy and tolerability were the most common reasons for discontinuing preventive treatment., Conclusions: We observed high use of acute treatments, but only half of patients used preventive treatments despite experiencing several cluster periods per year with multiple cluster APD. Further studies about the need for and benefits of preventive treatment for episodic CH are warranted.

Background: We demonstrated in the randomised controlled ICON study that 48-week treatment of medically intractable chronic cluster headache (MICCH) with occipital nerve stimulation (ONS) is safe and effective. In L-ICON we prospectively evaluate its long-term effectiveness and safety., Methods: ICON participants were enrolled in L-ICON immediately after completing ICON. Therefore, earlier ICON participants could be followed longer than later ones. L-ICON inclusion was stopped after the last ICON participant was enrolled in L-ICON and followed for ≥2 years by completing six-monthly questionnaires on attack frequency, side effects, subjective improvement and whether they would recommend ONS to others. Primary outcome was the change in mean weekly attack frequency 2 years after completion of the ICON study compared to baseline. Missing values for log-transformed attack-frequency were imputed for up to 5 years of follow-up. Descriptive analyses are presented as (pooled) geometric or arithmetic means and 95% confidence intervals., Findings: Of 103 eligible participants, 88 (85%) gave informed consent and 73 (83%) were followed for ≥2 year, 61 (69%) ≥ 3 year, 33 (38%) ≥ 5 years and 3 (3%) ≥ 8.5 years. Mean (±SD) follow-up was 4.2 ± 2.2 years for a total of 370 person years (84% of potentially 442 years). The pooled geometric mean (95% CI) weekly attack frequency remained considerably lower after one (4.2; 2.8-6.3), two (5.1; 3.5-7.6) and five years (4.1; 3.0-5.5) compared to baseline (16.2; 14.4-18.3). Of the 49/88 (56%) ICON ≥50% responders, 35/49 (71%) retained this response and 15/39 (38%) ICON non-responders still became a ≥50% responder for at least half the follow-up period. Most participants (69/88; 78% [0.68-0.86]) reported a subjective improvement from baseline at last follow-up and 70/88 (81% [0.70-0.87]) would recommend ONS to others. Hardware-related surgery was required in 44/88 (50%) participants in 112/122 (92%) events (0.35 person-year -1 [0.28-0.41]). We didn't find predictive factors for effectiveness., Interpretation: ONS is a safe, well-tolerated and long-term effective treatment for MICCH., Funding: The Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research, the Dutch Ministry of Health, the NutsOhra Foundation from the Dutch Health Insurance Companies, and Medtronic., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests WM reports honoraria from Novartis, Teva, AbbVie, Lundbeck and Lilly, and consultancy and lecture fees from Lilly; RF reports consultancy and lecture fees from Novartis, Lundbeck, AbbVie, Lilly and TEVA, and independent support from the Dutch Brain Foundation, Leiden University Fund and Innovation Fund Dutch Healthcare Providers; FH reports consultancy and lecture fees form ABBOTT, Saluda, Grunenthal and Pfizer; RB, EZ, LW, JH, IC and MF report no relevant conflict of interest. No funding was received for the ICON study group., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Purpose of Review: To provide an integrated overview of the current state of knowledge of neuromodulation for the sphenopalatine ganglion (SPG) by reviewing relevant and significant literature., Recent Findings: There are several case reports and clinical trials evaluating neuromodulation for the SPG. We identified two blinded, randomized clinical trials for patients with chronic cluster headache. The randomized trials and additional studies demonstrated the long-term safety, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness of neuromodulation for the SPG. Recent studies in Europe and the USA suggest that SPG neuromodulation is a novel modality with clinical importance for treating acute cluster headaches and reducing the frequency of attacks., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Migraine is a common, severe disease, affecting the brain and blood vessels, causing much pain, time missed from work and family, and severe disability. It affects approximately 12% of most Western populations studied and affects women three times more than men. Cluster headache is a much less common dysfunction of the hypothalamus, involving the sphenopalatine ganglion and other areas; it causes more frequent, shorter, and even more intense pain than migraine. The pain usually comes in cycles and is associated with ipsilateral autonomic features and associated with irritability and inability to stay still. It affects less than 0.1% of the population and is slightly more prevalent in men than women. Although we have some acute care and preventive medications for both types of headache, no treatment is optimal for each patient and some will not respond well or have significant adverse events to existing therapies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Chronic cluster headache (CCH) is a debilitating primary headache disorder. Occipital nerve stimulation (ONS) has shown the potential to reduce attack frequency, but the occipital paresthesia evoked by conventional (tonic) stimulation challenges a blinded comparison of active stimulation and placebo. Burst ONS offers paresthesia-free stimulation, enabling a blinded, placebo-controlled study. Identification of a feasible preoperative test would help select the best candidates for implantation. This study aims to explore ONS as a preventive treatment for CCH, comparing burst stimulation to tonic stimulation and placebo, and possibly identifying a potential preoperative predictor., Methods: An investigator-initiated, double-blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled trial is conducted, including 40 patients with CCH. Eligible patients complete a trial with the following elements: I) four weeks of baseline observation, II) 12 weeks of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) of the occipital nerves, III) implantation of a full ONS system followed by 2 week grace period, IV) 12 weeks of blinded trial with 1:1 randomization to either placebo (deactivated ONS system) or burst (paresthesia-free) stimulation, and V) 12 weeks of tonic stimulation. The primary outcomes are the reduction in headache attack frequency with TENS and ONS and treatment safety. Secondary outcomes are treatment efficacy of burst versus tonic ONS, the feasibility of TENS as a predictor for ONS outcome, reduction in headache pain intensity (numeric rating scale), reduction in background headache, the patient's impression of change (PGIC), health-related quality of life (EuroQoL-5D), self-reported sleep quality, and symptoms of anxiety and depression (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, HADS). Data on headache attack characteristics are registered weekly. Data on patient-reported outcomes are assessed after each trial phase., Discussion: The study design allows a comparison between burst ONS and placebo in refractory CCH and enables a comparison of the efficacy of burst and tonic ONS. It will provide information about the effect of burst ONS and explore whether the addition of this stimulation paradigm may improve stimulation protocols. TENS is evaluated as a feasible preoperative screening tool for ONS outcomes by comparing the effect of attack prevention of TENS and tonic ONS., Trial Registration: The study is registered at Clinicaltrials.gov (trial registration number NCT05023460, registration date 07-27-2023)., (© 2023. BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature.)

Headache diseases remain one of the leading causes of disability in the world. With the development of neuromodulation strategies, high cervical spinal cord stimulation (hcSCS) targeting the trigeminocervical complex has been deployed to treat refractory headache diseases. In this article, we review the proposed mechanism behind hcSCS stimulation, and the various studies that have been described for the successful use of this treatment strategy in patients with chronic migraine, cluster headache, and other trigeminal autonomic cephalalgias., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Academy of Pain Medicine. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background and Purpose: Cluster headache is a relatively rare, disabling primary headache disorder with a major impact on patients' quality of life. This work presents evidence-based recommendations for the treatment of cluster headache derived from a systematic review of the literature and consensus among a panel of experts., Methods: The databases PubMed (Medline), Science Citation Index, and Cochrane Library were screened for studies on the efficacy of interventions (last access July 2022). The findings in these studies were evaluated according to the recommendations of the European Academy of Neurology, and the level of evidence was established using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation)., Recommendations: For the acute treatment of cluster headache attacks, there is a strong recommendation for oxygen (100%) with a flow of at least 12 L/min over 15 min and 6 mg subcutaneous sumatriptan. Prophylaxis of cluster headache attacks with verapamil at a daily dose of at least 240 mg (maximum dose depends on efficacy and tolerability) is recommended. Corticosteroids are efficacious in cluster headache. To reach an effect, the use of at least 100 mg prednisone (or equivalent corticosteroid) given orally or at up to 500 mg iv per day over 5 days is recommended. Lithium, topiramate, and galcanezumab (only for episodic cluster headache) are recommended as alternative treatments. Noninvasive vagus nerve stimulation is efficacious in episodic but not chronic cluster headache. Greater occipital nerve block is recommended, but electrical stimulation of the greater occipital nerve is not recommended due to the side effect profile., (© 2023 The Authors. European Journal of Neurology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Academy of Neurology.)

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., (© 2023. Springer-Verlag Italia S.r.l., part of Springer Nature.)

Objectives and Background: Chronic cluster headache (CCH) is a rare but severely debilitating primary headache condition. A growing amount of evidence suggests that occipital nerve stimulation (ONS) can offer effective treatment in patients with severe CCH for whom conventional medical therapy does not have a sufficient effect. The paresthesia evoked by conventional (tonic) stimulation can be bothersome and may thus limit therapy. Burst ONS produces paresthesia-free stimulation, but the amount of evidence on the efficacy of burst ONS as a treatment for intractable CCH is scarce., Methods: In this case series, we report 15 patients with CCH treated with ONS at Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark, from 2013 to 2020. Nine of these received burst stimulation either as primary treatment or as a supplement to tonic stimulation. The results were assessed in terms of the frequency of headache attacks per week and their intensity on the Numeric Rating Scale, as well as the Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) with ONS treatment., Results: At a median (range) follow-up of 38 (16-96) months, 12 of the 15 patients (80%) reported a reduction in attack frequency of ≥50% (a reduction from a median of 35 to 1 attack/week, p < 0.001). Seven of these patients were treated with burst ONS. A significant reduction was also seen in maximum pain intensity. Overall, 10 patients stated a clinically important improvement in their headache condition following ONS treatment, rated on the PGIC scale. A total of 16 adverse events (nine of which were in the same patient) were registered., Conclusion: Occipital nerve stimulation significantly reduced the number of weekly headache attacks and their intensity. Burst ONS seems to function well alone or as a supplement to conventional tonic ONS as a preventive treatment for CCH; however, larger prospective studies are needed to determine whether the effect can be confirmed and whether the efficacy of the two stimulation paradigms is even., (© 2023 The Authors. Headache: The Journal of Head and Face Pain published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Headache Society.)

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.

Cluster headache is a disorder with increased hereditary risk. Associations between cluster headache and polymorphism rs2653349 of the HCRTR2 gene have been demonstrated. The less common allele (A) seems to reduce disease susceptibility. The polymorphism rs5443 of the GNB3 gene positively influences triptan treatment response. Carriers of the mutated T allele are more likely to respond positively compared to C:C homozygotes, when treated with triptans. DNA was extracted from buccal swabs obtained from 636 non-related Southeastern European Caucasian individuals and was analyzed by real-time PCR. Gene distribution for the rs2653349 was G:G = 79.1%, G:A = 19.2%, and A:A = 1.7%. The frequency of the wild-type G allele was 88.7%. The frequencies for rs5443 were C:C = 44.0%, C:T = 42.6%, and T:T = 13.4%. The frequency of the wild-type C allele was 65.3%. The frequency distribution of rs2653349 in the Southeastern European Caucasian population differs significantly when compared with other European and East Asian populations, and the frequency distribution of rs5443 showed a statistically significant difference between Southeastern European Caucasian and African, South Asian, and East Asian populations. For rs2653349, a marginal statistically significant difference between genders was found (p = 0.080) for A:A versus G:G and G:A genotypes (OR = 2.78), indicating a higher representation of male homozygotes for the protective mutant A:A allele than female. No statistically significant difference was observed between genders for rs5443. Cluster headache pathophysiology and pharmacotherapy response may be affected by genetic factors, indicating the significant role of genotyping in the overall treatment effectiveness of cluster headaches. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Objectives: Cluster headache is considered a male-dominated disorder, but we have previously suggested that female patients may display a more severe phenotype. Studies on sex differences in cluster headache have been conflicting; therefore, this study, with the largest validated cluster headache material at present, gives more insights into sex-specific characteristics of the disease. The objective of this study was to describe sex differences in patient demographics, clinical phenotype, chronobiology, triggers, treatment, and lifestyle in a Swedish cluster headache population., Methods: Study participants were identified by screening medical records from 2014 to 2020, requested from hospitals and neurology clinics in Sweden for the ICD-10 code G44.0 for cluster headache. Each study participant answered a detailed questionnaire on clinical information and lifestyle, and all variables were compared with regard to sex., Results: A total of 874 study participants with a verified cluster headache diagnosis were included. Of the participants, 575 (66%) were male and 299 (34%) were female, and biological sex matched self-reported sex for all. Female participants were to a greater extent diagnosed with the chronic cluster headache subtype compared with male participants (18% vs 9%, p = 0.0002). In line with this observation, female participants report longer bouts than male participants ( p = 0.003) and used prophylactic treatment more often (60% vs 48%, p = 0.0005). Regarding associated symptoms, female participants experienced ptosis (61% vs 47%, p = 0.0002) and restlessness (54% vs 46%, p = 0.02) more frequently compared with male participants. More female than male study participants had a positive family history of cluster headache (15% vs 7%, p = 0.0002). In addition, female participants reported diurnal rhythmicity of their attacks more often than male participants (74% vs 63%, p = 0.002). Alcohol as a trigger occurred more frequently in male participants (54% vs 48%, p = 0.01), whereas lack of sleep triggering an attack was more common in female participants (31% vs 20%, p = 0.001)., Discussion: With this in-depth analysis of a well-characterized cluster headache population, we could demonstrate that there are significant differences between male and female participants with cluster headache, which should be regarded at the time of diagnosis and when choosing treatment options. The data suggest that female patients generally may be more gravely affected by cluster headache than male patients., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the American Academy of Neurology.)

Importance: Trigeminal autonomic cephalalgias (TACs) comprise a unique collection of primary headache disorders characterized by moderate or severe unilateral pain, localized in in the area of distribution of the first branch of the trigeminal nerve, accompanied by cranial autonomic symptoms and signs. Most TACs are rare diseases, which hampers the possibility of performing randomized clinical trials and large studies. Therefore, knowledge of treatment efficacy must be based only on observational studies, rare disease registries, and case reports, where real-world data and evidence play an important role in health care decisions., Observations: Chronic cluster headache is the most common of these disorders, and the literature offers some evidence from randomized clinical trials to support the use of pharmacologic and neurostimulation treatments. Galcanezumab, a monoclonal antibody targeting the calcitonin gene-related peptide, was not effective at 3 months in a randomized clinical trial but showed efficacy at 12 months in a large case series. For the other TACs (ie, paroxysmal hemicrania, hemicrania continua, short-lasting unilateral neuralgiform headache attacks with conjunctival injection and tearing, and short-lasting unilateral neuralgiform headache attacks with cranial autonomic symptoms), only case reports and case series are available to guide physicians in everyday management., Conclusions and Relevance: The accumulation of epidemiologic, pathophysiologic, natural history knowledge, and data from case series and small controlled trials, especially over the past 20 years from investigators around the world, has added to the previously limited evidence and has helped advance and inform the treatment approach to rare TACs, which can be extremely challenging for clinicians.

Cluster headache (CH) is included under section 3 - Trigeminal autonomic cephalalgias (TAC) of the International Headache Society (IHS) classification. It is one of the most frequent, painful and disabling primary headaches. Acute and preventive pharmacological treatments are often poorly tolerated and of limited effectiveness. Due to improved understanding of the pathophysiology of CH, neuromodulation devices are now considered safe and effective options for preventive and acute treatment of CH. In this paper, we review the information available to date, and present the case of a patient with disabling cluster headache highly resistant to medical treatment who underwent implantation of a peripheral nerve neurostimulation system to stimulate the supraorbital nerves (SON) and greater occipital nerve (GON) in our Pain Unit. We also review the diagnostic criteria for CH, the state of the knowledge on the pathophysiology of CH, and the role played by neuromodulation in treating this condition., (Copyright © 2021 Sociedad Española de Anestesiología, Reanimación y Terapéutica del Dolor. Publicado por Elsevier España, S.L.U. All rights reserved.)

Background: The lack of knowledge about the intra- and interindividual attack frequency variability in chronic cluster headache complicates power and sample size calculations for baseline periods of trials, and consensus on their most optimal duration., Methods: We analyzed the 12-week baseline of the ICON trial (occipital nerve stimulation in medically intractable chronic cluster headache) for: (i) weekly vs. instantaneous recording of attack frequency; (ii) intra-individual and seasonal variability of attack frequency; and (iii) the smallest number of weeks to obtain a reliable estimate of baseline attack frequency., Results: Weekly median (14.4 [8.2-24.0]) and instantaneous (14.2 [8.0-24.5]) attack frequency recordings were similar (p = 0.20; Bland-Altman plot). Median weekly attack frequency was 15.3 (range 4.2-140) and highest during spring (p = 0.001) compared to the other seasons. Relative attack frequency variability decreased with increasing attack frequency (p = 0.010). We tabulated the weekly attack frequency estimation accuracies compared to, and the associated deviations from, the 12-week gold standard for different lengths of the observation period., Conclusion: Weekly retrospective attack frequency recording is as good as instantaneous recording and more convenient. Attack frequency is highest in spring. Participants with ≥3 daily attacks show less attack frequency variability than those with <3 daily attacks. An optimal balance between 90% accuracy and feasibility is achieved at a baseline period of seven weeks.The ICON trial is registered in ClinicalTrials.gov under number NCT01151631.

Background: Sphenopalatine ganglion (SPG) is a peripheral structure that plays an important role in cluster headache (CH). Hence, a reliable method to measure the volume of SPG is crucial for studying the peripheral mechanism of CH. Additionally, the association between the clinical profiles and the morphology of the SPG in CH remains undetermined. This study aims to use the manual measurement of SPG volume to investigate its associations with CH, including headache laterality, cranial autonomic symptoms (CASs), presence of restlessness or agitation, and other clinical profiles., Methods: We prospectively recruited consecutive CH patients at a tertiary medical center between April 2020 and April 2022. A total of eighty side-locked, in-bout, episodic CH patients and 40 non-headache healthy controls received 1.5 T brain MRI focusing on structural neuroimaging of the SPG. The manual measurement process for SPG was under axial and sagittal FIESTA imaging, with reference T2 weight images (sagittal and axial) for localization. The inter-observer agreement of the SPG volume (both sides of the SPG from CH patients and controls) between the two observers was calculated. In CH patients, clinical profiles and the number of CASs (range 0-5) were recorded to analyze their association with SPG volume., Results: The inter-observer agreement between the two raters was excellent for the new SPG volumetry method at 0.88 (95% CI: 0.84-0.90, p < 0.001). The mean [SD] SPG volume was larger in CH patients than in non-headache controls (35.89 [12.94] vs. 26.13 [8.62] μL, p < 0.001). In CH patients, the SPG volume was larger on the pain side than on the non-pain side (38.87 [14.71] vs. 32.91 [12.70] μL, p < 0.001). The number of CASs was positively moderately correlated with the pain-side SPG volume (Pearson r = 0.320, p = 0.004) but not the non-pain side SPG volume (Pearson r = 0.207, p = 0.066)., Conclusions: This proof-of-concept study successfully measured the SPG volume and demonstrated its associations with symptomatology in patients with episodic CH. The direct measurement of SPG provide insights into studies on peripheral mechanism of CH., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

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.

Objective Little is known about the prevalence and characteristics of chronic cluster headache (CCH) in Japan. We therefore characterized the clinical profile of CCH in Japan by surveying patients with CCH who were registered at a Japanese regional headache center. We also reviewed the existing literature for the prevalence and clinical characteristics of CCH reported in various populations. Methods In this single-center retrospective study, we assessed consecutive patients with cluster headache (CH) who visited a regional tertiary headache center between February 2011 and July 2020. They were treated following the Clinical Practice Guideline for Chronic Headache 2013. We compared their demographic characteristics and clinical features according to the CCH onset pattern (primary vs. secondary). Results Of 420 patients with CH, 19 (4.2%) had CCH (9 primary and 10 secondary). The incidence of CCH in Japan is relatively low compared to that in Western countries but is comparable to that in other Asian countries. CCH showed a higher predominance of men than women. Compared to primary CCH, secondary CCH included a higher proportion of current smokers and older patients during clinic visits. Subcutaneous sumatriptan and oxygen inhalation were the most common abortive treatments, and oral prednisolone and verapamil were the most common preventive treatments. Home oxygen therapy was effective in six of seven patients. Only two patients with coexisting migraine received calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP)-targeted therapies. Conclusions CCH remains refractory to treatment. Improving treatment outcomes will require maximizing the use of currently available drugs and expanding the use of neuromodulation, nerve block, and CGRP-targeted therapies.

Background: Oxygen inhalation aborts cluster headache attacks, and case reports show the effect of continuous positive airway pressure. The aim of this study was to investigate the prophylactic effect of continuous positive airway pressure in chronic cluster headache., Methods: This was a randomized placebo-controlled triple-blind crossover study using active and sham continuous positive airway pressure treatment for chronic cluster headache. Patients entered a one month's baseline period before randomly being assigned to two months' active continuous positive airway pressure treatment followed by a four weeks' washout period and two months' sham continuous positive airway pressure or vice versa. Primary outcome measure was number of cluster headache attacks/week., Results: Of the 30 included participants (12 males, median age 49.5 years, min-max 20-66 years), 25 completed both treatment/sham cycles (two discontinued, three lost to follow-up). The median number of cluster headache attacks per week was reduced from 8.25 (0.75-89.75) attacks to 6.25 (0-56.00) attacks for active continuous positive airway pressure and to 7.50 (0.50-43.75) attacks for sham continuous positive airway pressure, but there was no difference in active versus sham (p = 0.904). One patient had a serious adverse event during active treatment, none occurred during sham treatment., Conclusions: Continuous positive airway pressure treatment did not reduce the number of cluster headache attacks compared to sham treatment in chronic cluster headache patients., Trial Registration Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT03397563 .

Background: While migraine and cluster headache share some clinical features and therapies, they differ considerably in the frequency and duration of the headache, as well as the inter-attack, or inter-bout, pathophysiology. Neither is fully understood, with their shared pathways being of interest., Findings: Five patients for whom it was difficult to distinguish migraine from cluster headache are presented. They had aspects of their phenotypes, which could be attributed to both disorders. Each patient was thoroughly examined, excluding secondary causes of headache, and had been treated with a number of medicines., Conclusion: A correct diagnosis is key to the appropriate treatment approach. Especially, if treatment is not successful for the suspected headache type, and enlargement of the diagnostic and therapeutic range, respectively, should be evaluated. Whether in such settings there is shared or different pathophysiology can only be speculated upon.

In clinical practice, patients with cluster headache often ask questions or mention information that they have seen or heard on the Internet. Because YouTube (www.youtube.com) is the second most visited Web site worldwide and offers a plethora of video content, we found it timely to ascertain the quality of information on cluster headache that is freely available on YouTube. We conducted an inquiry on YouTube on January 24, 2022, with the search term "cluster headache." Eligible YouTube videos included those with ≥10,000 views and content related to cluster headache. We assessed the quality and reliability of the videos with the Global Quality Scale and DISCERN, respectively. The search strategy identified 644 videos of which 134 were eligible for inclusion. The sources of the included videos were categorized as "healthcare professional/institution" (n = 45), "personal experience" (n = 52), and "other" (n = 37). According to the Global Quality Scale, 70 (52%) were low quality, 34 (25%) were of moderate quality, and 30 (22%) were of high quality. According to DISCERN, 104 (78%) were of low reliability, 28 (21%) were of moderate reliability, and 2 (1%) were of high reliability. The quality and reliability of cluster headache-related information on YouTube has room for improvement, even the content provided by healthcare providers. These findings should incentivize stakeholders, for example, government services, professional societies, healthcare providers, to provide accessible and better information on cluster headache., (© 2022 The Authors. Headache: The Journal of Head and Face Pain published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Headache Society.)

Abstract: Cluster headache is a primary headache disorder that leads to attacks of excruciating unilateral head pain with ipsilateral cranial autonomic features. These attacks can cluster, with frequent occurrences for weeks or months at a time followed by a period of complete remission. The excruciating pain of these attacks often is accompanied by increased suicidality, delays in diagnosis, and unnecessary invasive interventions. This article reviews the clinical presentation, differential diagnosis, evaluation, and treatment of cluster headache., (Copyright © 2022 American Academy of Physician Associates.)

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., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Headache disorders can produce recurrent, incapacitating pain. Migraine and cluster headache are notable for their ability to produce significant disability. The anatomy and physiology of headache disorders is fundamental to evolving treatment approaches and research priorities. Key concepts in headache mechanisms include activation and sensitization of trigeminovascular, brainstem, thalamic, and hypothalamic neurons; modulation of cortical brain regions; and activation of descending pain circuits. This review will examine the relevant anatomy of the trigeminal, brainstem, subcortical, and cortical brain regions and concepts related to the pathophysiology of migraine and cluster headache disorders., Competing Interests: A.M.H. reports grants or contracts from any entity NIH – K08NS124991–01 and authorship agreement—Abbvie (unpaid); payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Headache Cooperative of New England; Presentation Stowe and Boston Meetings; Honoraria and Grand Round presentations – Honoraria; participation on the Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board from DSMB Safety Officer, Mindful RAVANS Study; leadership or fiduciary role in other board, society, committee, or advocacy group; paid or unpaid from Board of Directors Headache Cooperative of New England, Board of Directors American Headache Society, and Scientific Committee AAN; and other financial or nonfinancial interests from co-study site investigator Gore Closure Trial for Migraine—unpaid.Y.O. reports payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from an article to the NEJM Group Clinical Neurology Update, April 2022., (Thieme. All rights reserved.)

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., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

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)., Competing Interests: Competing interests: We have read and understood the BMJ policy on declaration of interests and declare the following interests: EADS previously received research funding from Clusterbusters for research on oxygen in cluster headache, receives research funding from Ceruvia (previously through Heffter Research Institute) for her clinical trial of psilocybin in cluster headache, receives research funding from the Wallace Research Foundation for work unrelated to cluster headache, anticipates receiving additional research funding from Ceruvia for cluster headache research in the next 12 months, and is an unpaid member of the medical advisory board of Clusterbusters and Ceruvia; MJB was a paid consultant for the American Headache Society in presenting material for its 2020 annual meeting, was an unpaid medical adviser for Praxis Precision Medicines (in lieu of compensation a fee was paid to the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston), and was an unpaid consultant for Beckley Psytech Ltd (in lieu of compensation a donation was made to the Will Erwin Headache Research Foundation); his roles as adviser and consultant were not related to cluster headache; additionally, he is employed by the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, receives research funding from the Will Erwin Headache Research Foundation, is an unpaid member of the medical advisory board of Clusterbusters, and is a site investigator for a clinical trial in cluster headache funded by Lundbeck., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.)

Purpose of Review: We reviewed the literature that explored the use of central and peripheral neuromodulation techniques for chronic daily headache (CDH) treatment., Recent Findings: Although the more invasive deep brain stimulation (DBS) is effective in chronic cluster headache (CCH), it should be reserved for extremely difficult-to-treat patients. Percutaneous occipital nerve stimulation has shown similar efficacy to DBS and is less risky in both CCH and chronic migraine (CM). Non-invasive transcutaneous vagus nerve stimulation is a promising add-on treatment for CCH but not for CM. Transcutaneous external trigeminal nerve stimulation may be effective in treating CM; however, it has not yet been tested for cluster headache. Transcranial magnetic and electric stimulations have promising preventive effects against CM and CCH. Although the precise mode of action of non-invasive neuromodulation techniques remains largely unknown and there is a paucity of controlled trials, they should be preferred to more invasive techniques for treating CDH., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Cluster headache, the most common form of trigeminal autonomic cephalgia, is a rare primary headache disorder that affects less than 1% of the population. The mean age of onset is 30 years, and it is two to three times more common in males. Cluster headache consists of attacks of severe unilateral pain located in the orbital, supraorbital, and/or temporal region that occur from every other day up to eight times per day and last from 15 to 180 minutes. The pain is associated with ipsilateral autonomic symptoms (most commonly lacrimation, conjunctival injection, nasal congestion or rhinorrhea, ptosis, edema of the eyelid, sweating of the forehead or face, and miosis) and a sense of agitation or restlessness. Attacks occur in clusters, called bouts, and are episodic or chronic. Common triggers include alcohol, nitroglycerin, food containing nitrates, and strong odors. Abortive treatments include triptans and oxygen; transitional treatments include steroids and suboccipital steroid injections; and prophylactic treatments include verapamil, lithium, melatonin, and topiramate. Newer treatments for cluster headache include galcanezumab, neurostimulation, and somatostatin receptor agonists.

Purpose of Review: In this narrative review, the current literature on neurostimulation methods in the treatment of chronic cluster headache is evaluated. These neurostimulation methods include deep brain stimulation, vagus nerve stimulation, greater occipital nerve stimulation, sphenopalatine ganglion stimulation, transcranial magnetic stimulation, transcranial direct current stimulation, supraorbital nerve stimulation, and cervical spinal cord stimulation., Recent Findings: Altogether, only nVNS and SPG stimulation are supported by at least one positive sham-controlled clinical trial for preventive and acute attack (only SPG stimulation) treatment. Other clinical trials either did not control at all or controlled by differences in the stimulation technique itself but not by a sham-control. Case series report higher responder rates. The evidence for these neurostimulation methods in the treatment of chronic cluster headache is poor and in part contradictive. However, except deep brain stimulation, tolerability and safety of these methods are good so that in refractory situations application might be justified in individual cases., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Competing Interests: The authors report no conflicts of interest.