BackgroundWe 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... Show moreBackgroundWe 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.MethodsICON 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.FindingsOf 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. Show less
In 1995, a committee of the International Headache Society developed and published the first edition of the Guidelines for Controlled Trials of Drugs in Cluster Headache. These have not been... Show moreIn 1995, a committee of the International Headache Society developed and published the first edition of the Guidelines for Controlled Trials of Drugs in Cluster Headache. These have not been revised. With the emergence of new medications, neuromodulation devices and trial designs, an updated version of the International Headache Society Guidelines for Controlled Clinical Trials in Cluster Headache is warranted. Given the scarcity of evidence-based data for cluster headache therapies, the update is largely consensus-based, but takes into account lessons learned from recent trials and demands by patients. It is intended to apply to both drug and neuromodulation treatments, with specific proposals for the latter when needed. The primary objective is to propose a template for designing high quality, state-of-the-art, controlled clinical trials of acute and preventive treatments in episodic and chronic cluster headache. The recommendations should not be regarded as dogma and alternative solutions to particular methodological problems should be explored in the future and scientifically validated. Show less
Background: The pathophysiology of cluster headache and how cluster episodes are triggered, are still poorly understood. Recurrent inflammation of the trigeminovascular system has been hypothesized... Show moreBackground: The pathophysiology of cluster headache and how cluster episodes are triggered, are still poorly understood. Recurrent inflammation of the trigeminovascular system has been hypothesized. It was noted that some long-term attack-free cluster headache patients suddenly developed a new cluster episode shortly after COVID-19 vaccination. Methods: Cases are described from patients with cluster headache who reported a new cluster episode within days after COVID-19 vaccination. All cases were seen in a tertiary university referral center and a general hospital in the Netherlands between March 2021 and December 2021, when the first COVID-19 vaccinations were carried out in The Netherlands. Clinical characteristics of the previous and new cluster episodes, and time between the onset of a new cluster episode and a previous COVID-19 vaccination were reported. Results: We report seven patients with cluster headache, who had been attack-free for a long time, in whom a new cluster episode occurred within a few days after a COVID-19 vaccination. Interpretation: COVID-19 vaccinations may trigger new cluster episodes in patients with cluster headache, possibly by activating a pro-inflammatory state of the trigeminocervical complex. COVID-19 vaccinations may also exacerbate other neuroinflammatory conditions. Show less
Background and Objectives Increased sensitivity to light and patterns is typically associated with migraine, but has also been anecdotally reported in cluster headache, leading to diagnostic... Show moreBackground and Objectives Increased sensitivity to light and patterns is typically associated with migraine, but has also been anecdotally reported in cluster headache, leading to diagnostic confusion. We wanted to assess whether visual sensitivity is increased ictally and interictally in cluster headache.Methods We used the validated Leiden Visual Sensitivity Scale (L-VISS) questionnaire (range 0-36 points) to measure visual sensitivity in people with episodic or chronic cluster headache: (i) during attacks; (ii) in-between attacks; and in episodic cluster headache (iii) in-between bouts. The L-VISS scores were compared with the L-VISS scores obtained in a previous study in healthy controls and participants with migraine.Results Mean L-VISS scores were higher for: (i) ictal vs interictal cluster headache (episodic cluster headache: 11.9 +/- 8.0 vs. 5.2 +/- 5.5, chronic cluster headache: 13.7 +/- 8.4 vs 5.6 +/- 4.8; p < 0.001); (ii) interictal cluster headache vs controls (5.3 +/- 5.2 vs 3.6 +/- 2.8, p < 0.001); (iii) interictal chronic cluster headache vs interictal ECH in bout (5.9 +/- 0.5 vs 3.8 +/- 0.5, p = 0.009), and (iv) interictal episodic cluster headache in bout vs episodic cluster headache out-of-bout (5.2 +/- 5.5 vs. 3.7 +/- 4.3, p < 0.001). Subjective visual hypersensitivity was reported by 110/121 (91%; 9 missing) participants with cluster headache and was mostly unilateral in 70/110 (64%) and ipsilateral to the ictal pain in 69/70 (99%) participants.Conclusion Cluster headache is associated with increased ictal and interictal visual sensitivity. In contrast to migraine, this is mostly unilateral and ipsilateral on the side of the ictal pain. Show less
Objective Identifying common genetic variants that confergenetic risk for cluster headache. Methods We conducted a case-control study in the Dutch Leiden University Cluster headache neuro-Analysis... Show moreObjective Identifying common genetic variants that confergenetic risk for cluster headache. Methods We conducted a case-control study in the Dutch Leiden University Cluster headache neuro-Analysis program (LUCA) study population (n = 840) and unselected controls from the Netherlands Epidemiology of Obesity Study (NEO; n = 1,457). Replication was performed in a Norwegian sample of 144 cases from the Trondheim Cluster headache sample and 1,800 controls from the Nord-Trondelag Health Survey (HUNT). Gene set and tissue enrichment analyses, blood cell-derived RNA-sequencing of genes around the risk loci and linkage disequilibrium score regression were part of the downstream analyses. Results An association was found with cluster headache for 4 independent loci (r(2) < 0.1) with genomewide significance (p < 5 x 10(-8)), rs11579212 (odds ratio [OR] = 1.51, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.33-1.72 near RP11-815 M8.1), rs6541998 (OR = 1.53, 95% CI = 1.37-1.74 near MERTK), rs10184573 (OR = 1.43, 95% CI = 1.26-1.61 near AC093590.1), and rs2499799 (OR = 0.62, 95% CI = 0.54-0.73 near UFL1/FHL5), collectively explaining 7.2% of the variance of cluster headache. SNPs rs11579212, rs10184573, and rs976357, as proxy SNP for rs2499799 (r(2) = 1.0), replicated in the Norwegian sample (p < 0.05). Gene-based mapping yielded ASZ1 as possible fifth locus. RNA-sequencing indicated differential expression of POLR1B and TMEM87B in cluster headache patients. Interpretation This genomewide association study (GWAS) identified and replicated genetic risk loci for cluster headaches with effect sizes larger than those typically seen in complex genetic disorders. ANN NEUROL 2021 Show less
Introduction Current prophylactic drugs for cluster headache are associated with limited efficacy, serious side effects and poor tolerability. Greater occipital nerve injection (GON-injection) has... Show moreIntroduction Current prophylactic drugs for cluster headache are associated with limited efficacy, serious side effects and poor tolerability. Greater occipital nerve injection (GON-injection) has been proven effective and safe as a single, one-time injection in episodic (ECH), and to a lesser extent, chronic cluster headache (CCH). We aim to analyse the effectiveness and safety of repeated GON-injections in medically intractable chronic cluster headache (MICCH). Methods Clinical data of all cluster headache patients who had received at least one GON-injection between 2014 and 2018 in our tertiary headache centre were retrieved from patients' medical records. Clinical history was taken as part of routine care shortly before and 6 weeks after GON-injection. Results We identified 47 MICCH patients (79 injections), and compared results with 22 non-MI CCH patients (30 injections) and 50 ECH patients (63 injections). Nineteen MICCH patients received repeated injections (32 in total, range 2-8). Rates of clinical relevant improvement to a first injection were similar in all groups (MICCH: 60%, non-MICCH 73%, ECH 76%; attack freedom: MICCH: 30%, non-MICCH 32%, ECH 43%). Furthermore, no difference in response to the first and second injection was shown between groups (all p > 0.29). Median effect duration in MICCH was 6 weeks (IQR 2.8-12 weeks). Side effects were only mild and local. Conclusion In this retrospective analysis, first and repeated GON-injections were well-tolerated and equally effective in MICCH as in non-MICCH, and ECH. Show less
Cluster headache is characterised by attacks of excruciating unilateral headache or facial pain lasting 15 min to 3 h and is seen as one of the most intense forms of pain. Cluster headache attacks... Show moreCluster headache is characterised by attacks of excruciating unilateral headache or facial pain lasting 15 min to 3 h and is seen as one of the most intense forms of pain. Cluster headache attacks are accompanied by ipsilateral autonomic symptoms such as ptosis, miosis, redness or flushing of the face, nasal congestion, rhinorrhoea, peri-orbital swelling and/or restlessness or agitation. Cluster headache treatment entails fast-acting abortive treatment, transitional treatment and preventive treatment. The primary goal of prophylactic and transitional treatment is to achieve attack freedom, although this is not always possible. Subcutaneous sumatriptan and high-flow oxygen are the most proven abortive treatments for cluster headache attacks, but other treatment options such as intranasal triptans may be effective. Verapamil and lithium are the preventive drugs of first choice and the most widely used in first-line preventive treatment. Given its possible cardiac side effects, electrocardiogram (ECG) is recommended before treating with verapamil. Liver and kidney functioning should be evaluated before and during treatment with lithium. If verapamil and lithium are ineffective, contraindicated or discontinued because of side effects, the second choice is topiramate. If all these drugs fail, other options with lower levels of evidence are available (e.g. melatonin, clomiphene, dihydroergotamine, pizotifen). However, since the evidence level is low, we also recommend considering one of several neuromodulatory options in patients with refractory chronic cluster headache. A new addition to the preventive treatment options in episodic cluster headache is galcanezumab, although the long-term effects remain unknown. Since effective preventive treatment can take several weeks to titrate, transitional treatment can be of great importance in the treatment of cluster headache. At present, greater occipital nerve injection is the most proven transitional treatment. Other options are high-dose prednisone or frovatriptan. Show less
