Explore the vast range of titles available.

Cluster headache is a trigeminal autonomic cephalalgia characterised by extremely painful, strictly unilateral, short-lasting headache attacks accompanied by ipsilateral autonomic symptoms or the sense of restlessness and agitation, or both. The severity of the disorder has major effects on the patient's quality of life and, in some cases, might lead to suicidal ideation. Cluster headache is now thought to involve a synchronised abnormal activity in the hypothalamus, the trigeminovascular system, and the autonomic nervous system. The hypothalamus appears to play a fundamental role in the generation of a permissive state that allows the initiation of an episode, whereas the attacks are likely to require the involvement of the peripheral nervous system. Triptans are the most effective drugs to treat an acute cluster headache attack. Monoclonal antibodies against calcitonin gene-related peptide, a crucial neurotransmitter of the trigeminal system, are under investigation for the preventive treatment of cluster headache. These studies will increase our understanding of the disorder and perhaps reveal other therapeutic targets.

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.

Chronic cluster headache is the most disabling form of cluster headache. The mainstay of treatment is attack prevention, but the available management options have little efficacy and are associated with substantial side-effects. In this study, we aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of sphenopalatine ganglion stimulation for treatment of chronic cluster headache. We did a randomised, sham-controlled, parallel group, double-blind, safety and efficacy study at 21 headache centres in the USA. We recruited patients aged 22 years or older with chronic cluster headache, who reported a minimum of four cluster headache attacks per week that were unsuccessfully controlled by preventive treatments. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) via an online adaptive randomisation procedure to either stimulation of the sphenopalatine ganglion or a sham control that delivered a cutaneous electrical stimulation. Patients and the clinical evaluator and surgeon were masked to group assignment. The primary efficacy endpoint, which was analysed with weighted generalised estimated equation logistic regression models, was the difference between groups in the proportion of stimulation-treated ipsilateral cluster attacks for which relief from pain was achieved 15 min after the start of stimulation without the use of acute drugs before that timepoint. Efficacy analyses were done in all patients who were implanted with a device and provided data for at least one treated attack during the 4-week experimental phase. Safety was assessed in all patients undergoing an implantation procedure up to the end of the open-label phase of the study, which followed the experimental phase. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02168764. Between July 9, 2014, and Feb 14, 2017, 93 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned, 45 to the sphenopalatine ganglion stimulation group and 48 to the control group. 36 patients in the sphenopalatine ganglion stimulation group and 40 in the control group had at least one attack during the experimental phase and were included in efficacy analyses. The proportion of attacks for which pain relief was experienced at 15 min was 62·46% (95% CI 49·15–74·12) in the sphenopalatine ganglion stimulation group versus 38·87% (28·60–50·25) in the control group (odds ratio 2·62 [95% CI 1·28–5·34]; p=0·008). Nine serious adverse events were reported by the end of the open-label phase. Three of these serious adverse events were related to the implantation procedure (aspiration during intubation, nausea and vomiting, and venous injury or compromise). A fourth serious adverse event was an infection that was attributed to both the stimulation device and the implantation procedure. The other five serious adverse events were unrelated. There were no unanticipated serious adverse events. Sphenopalatine ganglion stimulation seems efficacious and is well tolerated, and potentially offers an alternative approach to the treatment of chronic cluster headache. Further research is need to clarify its place in clinical practice. Autonomic Technologies.

Primary headaches are one of the most prevalent neurological disorders and can occur during a wide range of lifespan. Primary headaches, especially migraine, are cyclic disorders with a complex sequence of symptoms within every headache attack. There is no systematic review of whether these symptoms changes during lifespan. Indeed, the clinical presentation of migraine shows an age-dependent change with a significantly shorter duration of the attacks and occurrence of different paroxysmal symptoms, such as vomiting, abdominal pain or vertigo, in childhood and, in contrast, largely an absence of autonomic signs and a more often bilateral headache in the elderly. The age-dependent differences in the clinical presentation are less distinct in cluster headache and, especially, in tension-type headache. The differences in the clinical presentation are in agreement with the idea that the connectivity of hypothalamic areas with different brainstem areas, especially the central parasympathetic areas, is important for the clinical manifestation of migraine, as well as, the change during lifespan.

In a trial of galcanezumab, an antibody to calcitonin gene–related peptide, for the treatment of cluster headache, a subcutaneous dose reduced the mean weekly frequency of cluster attacks from 17.8 to 9.1, as compared with 17.3 to 12.1 in the placebo group. Injection-site reactions occurred in 8% of the patients receiving galcanezumab.

Purpose of Review This review aims to summarize the current understanding of cluster headaches (CH) in children, focusing on epidemiology, pathophysiology, clinical characteristics, diagnostic challenges, treatment strategies, and future research directions. Recent Findings Cluster headaches in children are infrequent, with an incidence that appears to be significantly lower than that observed in adults, highlighting the need for more comprehensive studies. Pediatric patients often present with atypical symptoms, such as shorter pain duration and less pronounced autonomic features, leading to frequent misdiagnosis or delayed diagnosis. The hypothalamus plays a central role in the pathophysiology of CH, involving circadian rhythm disturbances, trigeminal nerve-vascular activation, and autonomic dysfunction. High-flow oxygen and triptan medications are effective for acute treatment in adults, but their safety and efficacy in children require further validation. Preventive treatments, such as verapamil, are used cautiously in pediatric patients, with close monitoring for side effects. Non-pharmacological interventions, including lifestyle adjustments and psychological support, are critical for long-term management. Summary Cluster headaches in children are a rare but debilitating condition that poses significant diagnostic and therapeutic challenges. Current diagnostic criteria, primarily based on adult data, may not fully capture the unique clinical features of pediatric patients, leading to misdiagnosis or missed diagnosis. Treatment strategies are largely extrapolated from adult studies, with limited evidence-based data for children. Future research should focus on improving diagnostic criteria, exploring pediatric-specific pathophysiological mechanisms, and validating safe and effective treatment options. Early identification and intervention are essential to improving the quality of life and long-term outcomes for pediatric patients.

Background Cluster headache (CH) is considered the most excruciating primary headache syndrome; although much less prevalent than migraine, it is not rare as it affects more than 1/1000 people. While its clinical presentation is considered stereotypic, atypical features are often encountered. Internationally, cluster headache is often misdiagnosed, undertreated and mistreated. Methods We prospectively studied 302 CH patients, all examined by the same headache specialist. The aim of our study was to describe the demographic and clinical characteristics of CH patients in Greece and draw attention to under-management, under-treatment and mis-treatment often encountered in clinical practice; our purpose is to improve recognition and successful treatment of cluster patients by Greek neurologists and other physicians. Results In the present cohort, clinical characteristics of CH are similar to those described in other populations. Beyond the standard clinical characteristics, features like side shifts (12.6 %), location of maximal pain intensity outside the first trigeminal branch division (10.2 %), lack of autonomic features (7 %), presence of associated features of migraine and aggravation by physical activity (10 %) were encountered. Four out of five patients had consulted a physician prior to diagnosis. The median number of physicians seen prior to diagnosis was 3 and the median time to diagnosis was 5 years, though it improved for patients with recent onset. Chronic cluster headache, side shifts, pain location in the face or the back of the head and aggravation by physical activity were found, among others, to be statistically significantly related to delayed diagnosis or more physicians seen prior to diagnosis. Even properly diagnosed patients were often undertreated or mistreated. Conclusions Cluster headache, in a large cohort of Greek patients, has the same phenotypic characteristics as described internationally. Uncommon clinical features do exist and physicians should be aware of those, since they may eventuate in diagnostic problems. Most CH patients in Greece remain misdiagnosed or undiagnosed for rather lengthy periods of time, but time to diagnosis has improved recently. Even after diagnosis, treatment received was suboptimal.

Occipital nerve stimulation (ONS) has shown promising results in small uncontrolled trials in patients with medically intractable chronic cluster headache (MICCH). We aimed to establish whether ONS could serve as an effective treatment for patients with MICCH. The ONS in MICCH (ICON) study is an investigator-initiated, international, multicentre, randomised, double-blind, phase 3, electrical dose-controlled clinical trial. The study took place at four hospitals in the Netherlands, one hospital in Belgium, one in Germany, and one in Hungary. After 12 weeks’ baseline observation, patients with MICCH, at least four attacks per week, and history of being non-responsive to at least three standard preventive drugs, were randomly allocated (at a 1:1 ratio using a computer-generated permuted block) to 24 weeks of occipital nerve stimulation at either 100% or 30% of the individually determined range between paraesthesia threshold and near-discomfort (double-blind study phase). Because ONS causes paraesthesia, preventing masked comparison versus placebo, we compared high-intensity versus low-intensity ONS, which are hypothesised to cause similar paraesthesia, but with different efficacy. In weeks 25–48, participants received individually optimised open-label ONS. The primary outcome was the weekly mean attack frequency in weeks 21–24 compared with baseline across all patients and, if a decrease was shown, to show a group-wise difference. The trial is closed to recruitment (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01151631). Patients were enrolled between Oct 12, 2010, and Dec 3, 2017. We enrolled 150 patients and randomly assigned 131 (87%) to treatment; 65 (50%) patients to 100% ONS and 66 (50%) to 30% ONS. One of the 66 patients assigned to 30% ONS was not implanted and was therefore excluded from the intention-to-treat analysis. Because the weekly mean attack frequencies at baseline were skewed (median 15·75; IQR 9·44 to 24·75) we used log transformation to analyse the data and medians to present the results. Median weekly mean attack frequencies in the total population decreased from baseline to 7·38 (2·50 to 18·50; p<0·0001) in weeks 21–24, a median change of –5·21 (–11·18 to –0·19; p<0·0001) attacks per week. In the 100% ONS stimulation group, mean attack frequency decreased from 17·58 (9·83 to 29·33) at baseline to 9·50 (3·00 to 21·25) at 21–24 weeks (median change from baseline –4·08, –11·92 to –0·25), and for the 30% ONS stimulation group, mean attack frequency decreased from 15·00 (9·25 to 22·33) to 6·75 (1·50 to 16·50; –6·50, –10·83 to –0·08). The difference in median weekly mean attack frequency between groups at the end of the masked phase in weeks 21–24 was –2·42 (95% CI –5·17 to 3·33). In the masked study phase, 129 adverse events occurred with 100% ONS and 95 occurred with 30% ONS. None of the adverse events was unexpected but 17 with 100% ONS and eight with 30% ONS were labelled as serious, given they required brief hospital admission for minor hardware-related issues. The most common adverse events were local pain, impaired wound healing, neck stiffness, and hardware damage. In patients with MICCH, both 100% ONS intensity and 30% ONS intensity substantially reduced attack frequency and were safe and well tolerated. Future research should focus on optimising stimulation protocols and disentangling the underlying mechanism of action. The Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research, the Dutch Ministry of Health, the NutsOhra Foundation from the Dutch Health Insurance Companies, and Medtronic.

AimTreatment 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.FindingsThe 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.ConclusionWe 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.

Background There is lack of population-based studies evaluating the prevalence of paroxysmal hemicrania, hemicrania continua and short-lasting unilateral neuralgiform headache attacks. Objectives The aim of this study was to investigate the gender-specific 1-year prevalence of cluster headache, paroxysmal hemicrania, hemicrania continua, and short-lasting unilateral neuralgiform headache attacks. Methods A nationwide study was conducted from January 1 2022 and December 31 2022 by linking diagnostic codes from Norwegian Patient Registry and prescription of relevant drugs from Norwegian Prescription Database on an individual basis. The 1-year prevalence with 95% confidence intervals (CI) of cluster headache, paroxysmal hemicrania, hemicrania continua and short-lasting unilateral neuralgiform headache attacks are estimated based on the combination of diagnostic codes, prescription of drugs and corresponding reimbursement codes. Results Among 4,316,747 individuals aged ≥ 18 years, the 1-year prevalence per 100,000 was 14.6 (95% CI 13.5–15.8) for cluster headache, 2.2 (95% CI 1.8–2.7) for hemicrania continua, 1.4 (95% CI 1.0–1.8) for paroxysmal hemicrania, and 1.2 (95% CI 0.8–1.4) for short-lasting unilateral neuralgiform headache attacks. For all the trigeminal autonomic cephalalgies, cluster headache included, the prevalence was higher for women than men. Conclusions In this nationwide register-based study, we found a 1-year prevalence per 100,100 of 14.6 for cluster headache, 2.2 for hemicranias continua, 1.4 for paroxysmal hemicranias, and 1.2 for short-lasting unilateral neuralgiform headache attacks. This is the first study reporting higher prevalence of cluster headache for women than men.