Diagnosis Of Cluster Headache Research Articles

Association between pain intensity and cognitive function in primary headache

Background: Patients suffering from primary headaches such as migraine, tension-type headache, and cluster headache frequently report cognitive problems, particularly with attention and memory. The aim of this study was to see if there was a link between pain intensity and cognitive function in people who had primary headaches. Methods: This cross-sectional study included 69 primary headache patients (37 migraines, 27 tension-type headaches and 5 cluster headaches; age range 18–80 year). Migraine, tension-type headache and cluster headache diagnosis were determined according to the International Classification of Headache Disorders 3rd edition beta version (ICHD-3 beta) diagnostic criteria. All eligible subjects underwent cognitive function examination using Montreal Cognitive Assessment Indonesian version (MoCA-INA), Trail Making test A (TMT-A), Trail Making test B (TMT-B), Trail Making test C (TMT-C), Forward Digit Span and Backward Digit Span. The intensity of pain was assessed using Numeric Rating Scale (NRS). Results: There were 69 primary headache patients included in this study, 52 (75.4%) patients had abnormal MoCA-INA, 52(75.4%) patients had abnormal Forward Digit Span and 48(69.6%) patients had abnormal Backward Digit Span. There was significant correlation between pain intensity and cognitive function in migraine, TTH and cluster headaches patients. The MoCA-INA, Forward Digit Span and Backward Digit Span had negative correlations with pain intensity, whereas TMT A-time, TMT A-error, TMT B-time and TMT B-error had positive correlation. Conclusion: There were significant associations between pain intensity of and cognitive function in primary headaches with p<0.05. It is suggested that the more severe pain intensity, the more impair of cognitive function.

Sex Differences in Clinical Features, Treatment, and Lifestyle Factors in Patients With Cluster Headache.

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. 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. 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). 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.

Genome-wide analyses identify novel risk loci for cluster headache in Han Chinese residing in Taiwan

BackgroundCluster headache is a highly debilitating neurological disorder with considerable inter-ethnic differences. Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) recently identified replicable genomic loci for cluster headache in Europeans, but the genetic underpinnings for cluster headache in Asians remain unclear. The objective of this study is to investigate the genetic architecture and susceptibility loci of cluster headache in Han Chinese resided in Taiwan.MethodsWe conducted a two-stage genome-wide association study in a Taiwanese cohort enrolled from 2007 through 2022 to identify the genetic variants associated with cluster headache. Diagnosis of cluster headache was retrospectively ascertained with the criteria of International Classification of Headache Disorders, third edition.Control subjects were enrolled from the Taiwan Biobank. Genotyping was conducted with the Axiom Genome-Wide Array TWB chip, followed by whole genome imputation. A polygenic risk score was developed to differentiate patients from controls. Downstream analyses including gene-set and tissue enrichment, linkage disequilibrium score regression, and pathway analyses were performed.ResultsWe enrolled 734 patients with cluster headache and 9,846 population-based controls. We identified three replicable loci, with the lead SNPs being rs1556780 in CAPN2 (odds ratio = 1.59, 95% CI 1.42‒1.78, p = 7.61 × 10–16), rs10188640 in MERTK (odds ratio = 1.52, 95% CI 1.33‒1.73, p = 8.58 × 10–13), and rs13028839 in STAB2 (odds ratio = 0.63, 95% CI 0.52‒0.78, p = 2.81 × 10–8), with the latter two replicating the findings in European populations. Several previously reported genes also showed significant associations with cluster headache in our samples. Polygenic risk score differentiated patients from controls with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.77. Downstream analyses implicated circadian regulation and immunological processes in the pathogenesis of cluster headache.ConclusionsThis study revealed the genetic architecture and novel susceptible loci of cluster headache in Han Chinese residing in Taiwan. Our findings support the common genetic contributions of cluster headache across ethnicities and provide novel mechanistic insights into the pathogenesis of cluster headache.

Is conventional brain MRI useful for the diagnosis of cluster headache in patients who meet ICHD-3 criteria? Experience in three hospitals in Spain

ObjectiveTo assess the frequency of symptomatic structural lesions and the diagnostic yield of conventional brain MRI in cluster headache (CH). BackgroundIn contrast to migraine, brain MRI is recommended in patients with CH to exclude potential mimics. The prevalence of symptomatic CH is not known. MethodsWe retrospectively analysed in detail the brain MRIs of patients diagnosed as CH in 3 Neurology Services in Spain and reviewed their clinical history. Clinical diagnoses were reassessed based on the ICHD-3 criteria. ResultsWe included 130 patients: 113 (86.9%) were male; mean age at diagnosis being 41.4 years (range 7–82). Forty-nine (37.7%) showed some abnormal MRI finding. Only in two cases potential symptomatic lesions were found: one trigeminal schwannoma and one craneopharyngioma, but both presented atypical features (facial hypoesthesia on examination and episodes of prolonged duration that had progressed to continuous refractory pain without specific pattern, respectively) and therefore did not fulfil the ICHD-3 CH criteria. The remaining abnormal MRI findings were: white matter lesions (24 patients; 18.4%), sinus inflammatory changes (13; 10.0%), small arachnoid cysts (5; 3.8%), empty sella turca (3; 2.3%), and other unspecific findings (8; 6.2%). All of them were not symptomatic based on neuroimaging characteristics, clinical course and response to treatment. ConclusionsBrain MRI in patients who meet ICHD-3 CH criteria, with no atypical clinical features, does not show any clinically-relevant findings, suggesting that these criteria are highly predictive of its primary origin and that systematic MRI is not useful for the diagnosis of typical CH.

Cluster headache epidemiology including pediatric onset, sex, and ICHD criteria: Results from the International Cluster Headache Questionnaire.

To validate the diagnoses and to investigate epidemiological data from an international, non-clinic-based, and large (n=1604) survey of participants with cluster headache. There are several limitations in current epidemiological data in cluster headache including a lack of large non-clinic-based studies. There is also limited information on several aspects of cluster headache, such as pediatric incidence. The International Cluster Headache Questionnaire was an internet-based survey that included questions on cluster headache demographics, criteria from the International Classification of Headache Disorders (ICHD), and medications. A total of 3251subjects participated in the survey, and 1604 respondents met ICHD criteria for cluster headache. For validation, we interviewed a random sample of 5% (81/1604) of participants and confirmed the diagnosis of cluster headache in 97.5% (79/81). Pediatric onset was found in 27.5% (341/1583) of participants, and only 15.2% (52/341) of participants with pediatric onset were diagnosed before the age of 18. Men were more likely to have episodic cluster headache between ages 10 and 50, but the sex ratio was approximately equal for other ages. An overwhelming majority of respondents had at least one autonomic feature (99.0%, 1588/1604) and had restlessness (96.6%, 1550/1604), but many also had prototypical migrainous features including photophobia or phonophobia (50.1%, 804/1604), pain aggravated by physical activity (31.4%, 503/1604), or nausea and vomiting (27.5%, 441/1604). Interestingly, the first-line medications for acute treatment (oxygen) and preventive treatment (calcium channel blockers) were perceived as significantly less effective in chronic cluster headache (3.2±1.1 and 2.1±1.0 respectively on a 5-point ordinal scale) compared with episodic cluster headache (3.5±1.0 and 2.4±1.1, respectively, p<0.001 for both comparisons). Cluster headache often occurs in the pediatric population, although they are typically not diagnosed until adulthood. The onset of cluster headache is the inverse of that in migraine; in migraine women are more likely to have migraine between ages 10 and 50 but the sex ratio is approximately equal otherwise. Prototypical migrainous features are not useful in differentiating cluster headache from migraine. Participant data from a large international study also suggest that chronic cluster headache is not only less responsive to newer treatments (like noninvasive vagus nerve stimulation and galcanezumab), but to traditional first-line treatments as well.

A brief diagnostic screen for cluster headache: Creation and initial validation of the Erwin Test for Cluster Headache.

ObjectiveTo use 1) newly generated data, 2) existing evidence, and 3) expert opinion to create and validate a new cluster headache screening tool.MethodsIn phase 1 of the study, we performed a prospective study of an English translation of an Italian screen on 95 participants (45 with cluster headache, 17 with other trigeminal autonomic cephalalgias, 30 with migraine, and 3 with trigeminal neuralgia). In phase 2, we performed a systematic review in PubMed of all studies until September 2019 with diagnostic screening tools for cluster headache. In phase 3, a 6-person panel of cluster headache patients, research coordinators, and headache specialists analyzed the data from the first two phases to generate a new diagnostic screening tool. Finally, in phase 4 this new screen was validated on participants at a single headache center (all diagnoses) and through research recruitment (trigeminal autonomic cephalalgias only, as recruitment was essential but was otherwise low).ResultsIn total, this study included 319 unique participants including 109 cluster headache participants (95 total participants/45 cluster headache participants in phase 1, and 224 total participants/64 cluster headache participants in phase 4). It also found 123 articles on potential screening tools in our systematic review. In phase 1, analysis of the English translation of an Italian screen generated 7 questions with high sensitivity and specificity against migraine, trigeminal neuralgia, and other trigeminal autonomic cephalalgias, but had grammatical and other limitations as a general screening tool. In phase 2, the systematic review revealed nine studies that met inclusion criteria as diagnostic screening tools for cluster headache, including four where sensitivity and specificity were available for individual questions or small groups of questions. In phase 3, this data was reviewed by the expert panel to generate a brief (6-item), binary (yes/no), written screening test. In phase 4, a total of 224 participants completed the new 6-item screening test (81 migraine, 64 cluster headache, 21 other trigeminal autonomic cephalalgias, 35 secondary headaches, 7 neuralgias, 5 probable migraine, and 11 other headache disorders). Answers to the 6 items were combined in a decision tree algorithm and three items had a sensitivity of 84% (confidence interval or 95% confidence interval 73–92%), specificity of 89% (95% confidence interval 84–94%), positive predictive value of 76% (95% confidence interval 64-85%), and negative predictive value of 93% (95% confidence interval 88–97%) for the diagnosis of cluster headache. These three items focused on headache intensity, duration, and autonomic features.ConclusionThe 3-item Erwin Test for Cluster Headache is a promising diagnostic screening tool for cluster headache.

The impact of the disease burden on the quality of life of cluster headache patients

Background: Cluster headache cannot be cured, and not all attacks can be aborted or prevented. Nevertheless, therapeutic guidelines focus solely on the attacks and ignore reverberations of the disorder on patients’ lives. However, it is likely that not only pain reduces patients’ quality of life (QoL). Objective: To investigate whether the interictal burden independently influence the QoL of subjects suffering from cluster headache. Methods: In this cross-sectional study, we asked patients with a self-reported cluster headache diagnosis to answer a modified EUROLIGHT questionnaire that included the EURO-HIS QoL scale. We built a generalised linear model and included the QoL as the dependent variable. Independent variables comprised both the ictal and the interictal burden. Results: The data of 625 participants entered the analysis. Several aspects of the interictal burden independently reduced the QoL. Among them were fear of pain, self-concealment, and private life difficulties due to the disorder. Conclusion: Both the ictal and the interictal burden of cluster headache independently reduce patients’ QoL. We advocate adopting a more holistic approach to cluster headache management extending the focus towards the afflicted person and their QoL, which would generate novel therapeutic goals and strategies, complementary to treating and preventing cluster headache attacks.

Perceptions, experiences, and understandings of cluster headache among GPs and neurologists: a qualitative study.

Cluster headache is a severe primary headache with a similar prevalence to that of multiple sclerosis. Cluster headache is characterised by unilateral trigeminal distribution of pain, ipsilateral cranial autonomic features, and a tendency to circadian and circannual periodicity. To explore the perceptions, experiences, and understandings of cluster headache among GPs and neurologists. Qualitative interview study in primary care surgeries and neurology departments in the north of England. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with GPs and neurologists, recorded, and transcribed. A thematic analysis was applied to the dataset. Sixteen clinicians participated in this study: eight GPs and eight neurologists. Four main themes were identified following thematic analysis: challenges with the cluster headache diagnosis; impact of cluster headache; challenges with treatment; and appropriateness of referrals to secondary care. Clinicians recognised the delays in the diagnosis of cluster headache, misdiagnosis, and mismanagement, and were aware of the potential impact cluster headache can have on patients' mental health and ability to remain in employment. Findings highlighted tensions between primary and secondary care around the cost of medication and the remit of prescribing treatment regimens. Patients' anxiety, their need for reassurance, and their insistence about seeing a specialist are some of the reasons for referrals. Clinicians acknowledged delays in diagnosis, misdiagnosis, and mismanagement of cluster headache. The responsibility of prescribing causes ongoing tensions between primary and secondary care. Clear referral and management pathways for primary headaches are required to improve patient outcomes and healthcare costs.

Patient experience with non-invasive vagus nerve stimulator: gammaCore patient registry.

gammaCore is cleared by the FDA for acute and preventive treatment of cluster headache and the acute treatment of migraine in adults. Previously, only 2 treatments were approved for acute treatment of cluster headache while none were approved for preventive treatment. Following the initial FDA clearance, based on the ACT-1 and ACT-2 studies, a gammaCore Patient Registry (GPR) was designed to provide insights on the use of gammaCore and prescription patterns in the real-world setting and to characterize respective benefits and challenges during the acute treatment of episodic cluster headache. GPR was a prospective observational registry in which patients with episodic cluster headache (3rd edition of the International Classification of Headache Disorders criteria) who were prescribed gammaCore were invited to voluntarily enroll and provide information on their experiences between July 2017 and June 2018. Participants provided baseline information and were trained to self-administer treatment with gammaCore for cluster pain. Participants were also requested to record information for each cluster attack. Of the 182 patients who provided baseline demographic and cluster headache characteristics, 152 provided health index baseline data using EuroQol Health Index tool, 5-level format (EQ5D-5L) and 17 patients provided attack data on a total of 192 cluster headache attacks. The mean age was 49 years; 65% were male and 82% were white; the mean number of months of known diagnosis of cluster headache was 57; the mean number of attacks per cluster headache 4-week period was 14; and the mean pain score was 3.7 (0-4 scale) with a mean attack duration of 74 minutes. Sixty-seven percent of patients had used preventive treatments and 83% had used abortive treatments for cluster headaches; 25% of participants reported at least 1 comorbidity. The mean EQ5D-5L score (scale 0-1) was 0.83. Of the 192 cluster headache attacks reported, gammaCore was used in 116 (60%) attacks. Within this group, the mean pain score at the start of the attacks was 2.7, the mean number of stimulations used was 3.6, and the pain score after 30 minutes was 1.3. At 30 minutes, the pain of 81 (70%) attacks was reduced to none (27%) or mild (43%) (a pain score of 0 or 1) and in 94 (81%) attacks, patients experienced a reduction of at least 1 point in the pain score. This real-world observational evidence suggests that gammaCore adds clinically meaningful value to patients with episodic cluster headache by providing rapid pain relief and confirms that there is significant interest among prescribers in providing this new treatment and technology. This evidence further supports the need to redefine gammaCore as no longer investigational or experimental during considerations for reimbursement.

Development and Evaluation of a Screening Tool to Aid the Diagnosis of a Cluster Headache.

Cluster headache (CH), a severe primary headache, is often misdiagnosed and mismanaged. The aim of this study was to develop and evaluate a screening tool to aid the diagnosis of CH. We developed a novel 12-item screening tool. This was comprised of four components: (1) images depicting headache pain; (2) pain descriptors; (3) key questions that could differentiate between CH and migraine; and (4) a visual analogue pain scale. The total possible questionnaire score ranged from 3-32. Patients with CH and migraines (control group) were recruited prospectively from a headache centre in the North of England, UK. Two-hundred and ninety-six patients were included in the study: 81 CH patients, 36 of which suffer with episodic CH and 45 with chronic CH; 215 migraine patients, 92 of which suffer with episodic migraine and 123 with chronic migraine. The mean questionnaire score was higher in CH patients versus migraine patients (28.4 versus 19.5). At a cut-off score of >25 out of 32, the screening tool had a sensitivity of 86.4% and a specificity of 92.0% in differentiating between CH and migraine. The screening tool could be a useful instrument to aid the diagnosis of a CH. The images depicting headache pain do not clearly discriminate between CH and migraine.

Images depicting headache pain - a tool to aid the diagnosis of cluster headache: a pilot study.

Introduction and objectiveThe diagnosis of primary headaches is based on the International Classification of Headache Disorders (ICHD-3). Cluster headache (CH), a debilitating primary headache, is often misdiagnosed as migraine. In the absence of biological markers, a new visual screening tool with images depicting pain could aid the correct diagnosis of CH. The objective of the study is to test the tool on healthy participants and participants with CH and migraine.MethodsIn phase 1, 6 images portraying people with pain were tested on 150 healthy participants. The healthy participants were asked to rate the images as mild, moderate, severe or excruciating pain. In phase 2, the images were further tested on 116 participants with headache (16 participants with CH, 100 participants with migraine). The participants were recruited prospectively from a tertiary headache center between February and May 2017. The participants were asked to choose which image best illustrated their headache attacks.ResultsPhase 1 results showed that the images represent a range of headache pain severities from mild to excruciating as rated by healthy participants. They rated two images as excruciating, one image as severe, one image as moderate/severe, one image as moderate and one image as mild. Phase 2 results showed that two-thirds of participants with CH (69%) and half of the participants with migraine (52%) chose an image described as excruciating by the healthy participants.ConclusionWe developed a screening tool with six drawings depicting headache pain severities from mild to excruciating as rated by the healthy participants. Although the images did not differentiate between CH and migraine, the study indicated the potential of using visual aids to assess headache severity.

Effectiveness of Oxygen and Other Acute Treatments for Cluster Headache: Results From the Cluster Headache Questionnaire, an International Survey.

ObjectiveTo assess the effectiveness and adverse effects of acute cluster headache medications in a large international sample, including recommended treatments such as oxygen, commonly used medications such as opioids, and emerging medications such as intranasal ketamine. Particular focus is paid to a large subset of respondents 65 years of age or older.BackgroundLarge international surveys of cluster headache are rare, as are examinations of treatments and side effects in older cluster headache patients. This article presents data from the Cluster Headache Questionnaire, with respondents from over 50 countries and with the vast majority from the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada.MethodsThis internet‐based survey included questions on cluster headache diagnostic criteria, which were used as part of the inclusion/exclusion criteria for the study, as well as effectiveness of medications, physical and medical complications, psychological and emotional complications, mood scores, and difficulty obtaining medications. The diagnostic questions were also used to create a separate group of respondents with probable cluster headache. Limitations to the methods include the use of nonvalidated questions, the lack of a formal clinical diagnosis of cluster headache, and the grouping of some medications (eg, all triptans as opposed to sumatriptan subcutaneous alone).ResultsA total of 3251 subjects participated in the questionnaire, and 2193 respondents met criteria for this study (1604 cluster headache and 589 probable cluster headache). Of the respondents with cluster headache, 68.8% (1104/1604) were male and 78.0% (1245/1596) had episodic cluster headache. Over half of respondents reported complete or very effective treatment for triptans (54%, 639/1139) and oxygen (54%, 582/1082). Between 14 and 25% of respondents reported complete or very effective treatment for ergot derivatives (dihydroergotamine 25%, 42/170; cafergot/ergotamine 17%, 50/303), caffeine and energy drinks (17%, 7/41), and intranasal ketamine (14%, 5/37). Less than 10% reported complete or very effective treatment for opioids (6%, 30/541), intranasal capsaicin (5%, 7/151), and intranasal lidocaine (2%, 5/241). Adverse events were especially low for oxygen (no or minimal physical and medical complications 99%, 1077/1093; no or minimal psychological and emotional complications 97%, 1065/1093), intranasal lidocaine (no or minimal physical and medical complications 97%, 248/257; no or minimal psychological and emotional complications 98%, 251/257), intranasal ketamine (no or minimal physical and medical complications 95%, 38/40; no or minimal psychological and emotional complications 98%, 39/40), intranasal capsaicin (no or minimal physical and medical complications 91%, 145/159; no or minimal psychological and emotional complications 94%, 150/159), and caffeine and energy drinks (no or minimal physical and medical complications 89%, 39/44; no or minimal psychological and emotional complications 91%, 40/44). This is in comparison to ergotamine/cafergot (no or minimal physical and medical complications 83%, 273/327; no or minimal psychological and emotional complications 89%, 290/327), dihydroergotamine (no or minimal physical and medical complications 81%, 143/176; no or minimal psychological and emotional complications 91%, 160/176), opioids (no or minimal physical and medical complications 76%, 416/549; no or minimal psychological and emotional complications 77%, 423/549), or triptans (no or minimal physical and medical complications 73%, 883/1218; no or minimal psychological and emotional complications 85%, 1032/1218). A total of 139 of 1604 cluster headache respondents (8.7%) were age 65 and older and reported similar effectiveness and adverse events to the general population. The 589 respondents with probable cluster headache reported similar medication effectiveness to respondents with a full diagnosis of cluster headache.ConclusionsOxygen is reported by survey respondents to be a highly effective treatment with few complications in cluster headache in a large international sample, including those 65 years or over. Triptans are also very effective with some side effects, and newer medications deserve additional study. Patients with probable cluster headache may respond similarly to acute medications as patients with a full diagnosis of cluster headache.

Cluster headache.

Cluster headache is an excruciating, strictly one-sided pain syndrome with attacks that last between 15 minutes and 180 minutes and that are accompanied by marked ipsilateral cranial autonomic symptoms, such as lacrimation and conjunctival injection. The pain is so severe that female patients describe each attack as worse than childbirth. The past decade has seen remarkable progress in the understanding of the pathophysiological background of cluster headache and has implicated the brain, particularly the hypothalamus, as the generator of both the pain and the autonomic symptoms. Anatomical connections between the hypothalamus and the trigeminovascular system, as well as the parasympathetic nervous system, have also been implicated in cluster headache pathophysiology. The diagnosis of cluster headache involves excluding other primary headaches and secondary headaches and is based primarily on the patient's symptoms. Remarkable progress has been achieved in developing effective treatment options for single cluster attacks and in developing preventive measures, which include pharmacological therapies and neuromodulation.

Societal burden of cluster headache in the United States: a descriptive economic analysis

Aim: To estimate direct and indirect costs in patients with a diagnosis of cluster headache in the US.Methods: Adult patients (18–64 years of age) enrolled in the Marketscan Commercial and Medicare Databases with ≥2 non-diagnostic outpatient (≥30 days apart between the two outpatient claims) or ≥1 inpatient diagnoses of cluster headache (ICD-9-CM code 339.00, 339.01, or 339.02) between January 1, 2009 and June 30, 2014, were included in the analyses. Patients had ≥6 months of continuous enrollment with medical and pharmacy coverage before and after the index date (first cluster headache diagnosis). Three outcomes were evaluated: (1) healthcare resource utilization, (2) direct healthcare costs, and (3) indirect costs associated with work days lost due to absenteeism and short-term disability. Direct costs included costs of all-cause and cluster headache-related outpatient, inpatient hospitalization, surgery, and pharmacy claims. Indirect costs were based on an average daily wage, which was estimated from the 2014 US Bureau of Labor Statistics and inflated to 2015 dollars.Results: There were 9,328 patients with cluster headache claims included in the analysis. Cluster headache-related total direct costs (mean [standard deviation]) were $3,132 [$13,396] per patient per year (PPPY), accounting for 17.8% of the all-cause total direct cost. Cluster headache-related inpatient hospitalizations ($1,604) and pharmacy ($809) together ($2,413) contributed over 75% of the cluster headache-related direct healthcare cost. There were three sub-groups of patients with claims associated with indirect costs that included absenteeism, short-term disability, and absenteeism + short-term disability. Indirect costs PPPY were $4,928 [$4,860] for absenteeism, $803 [$2,621] for short-term disability, and $3,374 [$3,198] for absenteeism + disability.Conclusion: Patients with cluster headache have high healthcare costs that are associated with inpatient admissions and pharmacy fulfillments, and high indirect costs associated with absenteeism and short-term disability.

The comorbidity burden of patients with cluster headache: a population-based study

BackgroundEvidence is limited regarding the comorbidity burden of patients with cluster headache (CH). We aimed to characterize comorbid conditions in a cohort of CH patients diagnosed by headache experts, using electronic health record information from the Partners Research Patient Data Registry (RPDR).MethodsWe identified and reviewed the charts of unique patients diagnosed by headache specialists over an 11-year period, and a set of matched controls. Patients were categorized as having Definite, Unconfirmed or no CH. We calculated the prevalence of and tested for statistically significant differences of selected comorbid conditions in these populations.ResultsAn RPDR query identified 170 patients with a free text or ICD diagnosis of cluster headache. 15 records belonging to Partners employees were excluded. 75 patients met diagnostic criteria for CH (Definite CH). 22 had headaches with some features of CH but the diagnosis was uncertain (Unconfirmed CH). In 58 the diagnosis was determined to be inaccurate due to data entry errors. Patients with Definite CH had an average age of 43.4 years; 80% were male. The average time from CH onset to diagnosis was 12.7 years (range 1–51). The average number of yearly emergency department and outpatient visits for the group of Definite CH patients was 4.5 and 25.4, respectively, compared with 1.1 and 6.9 in controls. Of the 55 examined conditions, four were statistically significantly less common in patients with definite CH compared with controls (diabetes, musculoskeletal/orthopaedic problems, “other gastrointestinal diagnoses” and skin conditions) and four were statistically significantly more common (smoking, depression, dental disorders and deviated septum).ConclusionsIn this large population-based study, we identified a surprisingly small number of patients who met strict diagnostic criteria for CH. In these patients, however, we identified a distinct pattern of selected comorbidities. The pattern is somewhat but not entirely consistent with that of the “classic” CH patient depicted in the medical literature. CH patients are frequently diagnosed with sinus or dental problems. Many experience substantial delay in receiving a diagnosis. These things may in part explain the high frequency of medical visits in this population. It is difficult to distinguish conditions that are genuinely comorbid with CH from those that reflect misdiagnoses or medical scrutiny of patients in frequent contact with the healthcare system.

Cefalea en racimos en edad pediátrica: descripción de cuatro casos y revisión de la bibliografía

Cluster headache is a rare cause of primary headache in children. We report four cases with a mean age of onset of 8.6, ranged from 2 to 13 years. Three males and one female with onset at 2, 7, 13, and 12 years-old, respectively, were included. The symptoms of all patients fulfill the criteria for the diagnosis of cluster headache according to the International Society of Headache. Despite being rare during childhood, cluster headache should be part of the differential diagnosis of headache in childhood. This report highlights the variable features of this disorder in children, often misdiagnosed. It can be useful in making a quick diagnosis and starting the appropriate treatment early. Verapamil was more effective than flunarizine in terminating the headache in our patients. Oxygen treatment and triptans resulted the treatments with the best response in acute cluster headache.

Evaluation of the new ICHD-III beta cluster headache criteria.

In the revised criteria of the International Classification of Headache Disorders (ICHD-III beta) the following items are added to the diagnostic criteria of cluster headache: ipsilateral sensation of fullness in the ear and ipsilateral forehead/facial flushing. We evaluated the possible additional value of these symptoms for diagnosing cluster headache. In this cross-sectional cohort study of (potential) cluster headache patients we investigated these additional symptoms using a Web-based questionnaire. Patients not fulfilling the ICHD-II criteria for cluster headache but fulfilling the ICHD-III beta criteria were interviewed. Response rate was 916/1138 (80.5%). Of all 573 patients with cluster headache according to ICHD-II criteria, 192 (33.5%) reported ipsilateral ear fullness and 113 (19.7%) facial flushing during attacks. There was no difference in reporting ipsilateral ear fullness and facial flushing between patients who received a diagnosis of cluster headache and patients who did not. None of the patients who did not fulfill all ICHD-II criteria could be categorized as cluster headache according to the ICHD-III beta criteria. The results of this study do not support the addition of ear fullness and facial flushing to the new ICHD-III beta criteria.

Cefalea (III): cefalea en racimos, secundarias, farmacológicas y respondedoras a indometacina

The diagnosis of cluster headache is a well-defined clinical. Symptomatic treatment is the highflow inhaled oxygen. The headache is associated with a variety of processes, this requires when the pattern does not conform to a primary headache conduct appropriate studies. Often the presence of headache associated with the use of drugs such as adverse effects thereof. Some headaches characteristically respond to indomethacin and one of them is diagnosed as paroxysmal hemicrania and hemicrania continua criterion. Headache special consideration in certain age ranges for modifying the clinical expression of some primary headaches also prevalence and etiology of migraine changes with age. In the treatment in elderly patients should take into account the fragility of this age group (pluripatilogía, polypharmacy). In women there is a relationship between the influence of sex hormones and the clinical expression of primary headaches such as migraine which determines treatment guidelines. Pregnancy causes hormonal changes that influence the clinical course of primary headaches and the possibility of teratogenicity limits. There are headaches with low prevalence but whose knowledge is essential.

EHMTI-0381. Visual images can prove to be an important tool to aid in the diagnosis of cluster headaches

Background Cluster headache is one of the most distressing and painful clinical conditions seen in medical practice, and affect 1-2 % of the population. Although its clinical presentation does not vary widely in terms of the symptoms experienced by patients, it still presents a significant diagnostic challenge particularly to the primary and secondary care physicians. This results in patients having to bear with agonizing symptoms before they are given the correct diagnosis and appropriate therapy. The time taken to diagnose cluster headache has reduced from 22 years in the 1970’s to 3.4 years about 8 years ago1 and on average a patient sees 5 doctors before receiving the correct diagnosis., however, the severity of the condition merits early recognition.

Patient satisfaction with conventional, complementary, and alternative treatment for cluster headache in a Norwegian cohort

Objective. Cluster headache (CH) may cause excruciating pain and not all patients get satisfactory help. Patient dissatisfaction with general practitioners (GPs) and neurologists, and use of complementary and alternative treatment (CAM) may reflect this. The authors studied patient satisfaction with doctors’ treatment and use of CAM in a Norwegian CH cohort. Subjects. A total of 196 subjects with a cluster headache diagnosis were identified in the registers of two neurological departments in North Norway. Design. Of these, 70 with a confirmed diagnosis according to the second edition of the International Classification of Headache Disorders (ICHD-2) completed a comprehensive questionnaire with questions concerning satisfaction with doctors’ treatment, use of CAM, and effect of both treatment regimes. Results. Satisfaction with doctors’ treatment was reported in 44/70 (63%) (GPs) and 50/70 (71%) (neurologists) while 39/70 (56%) were satisfied with both. Too long a time to diagnosis, median four years, was the most commonly reported claim regarding doctors’ treatment. Use of CAM was reported in 27/70 (39%), and 14/70 (20%) reported experience with ≥ 2 CAM. Ten patients reported benefit from CAM (37% of “CAM users”). The average cluster period was longer in CAM-users than others (p = 0.02), but CAM use was not associated with age, education, use of medication, effect of conventional treatment, duration of cluster attacks, or time to diagnosis. Conclusion. About two-thirds of CH patients were satisfied with treatment from either GPs or neurologists, and about one-third had used CAM. Despite experiencing diagnostic delay and severe pain, cluster patients seem in general to be satisfied with doctors’ conventional treatment.