Treatment Of Chronic Cluster Headache Research Articles

The HortONS study. Treatment of chronic cluster headache with transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation and occipital nerve stimulation: study protocol for a prospective, investigator-initiated, double-blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled trial

BackgroundChronic 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.MethodsAn 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.DiscussionThe 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 registrationThe study is registered at Clinicaltrials.gov (trial registration number NCT05023460, registration date 07–27-2023).

Treatment of chronic cluster headache with burst and tonic occipital nerve stimulation: A case series.

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. 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. 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. 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.

An open-label observational study and meta-analysis of non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation in medically refractory chronic cluster headache.

Many patients with cluster headache (CH) are inadequately controlled by current treatment options. Non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation (nVNS) is reported to be effective in the management of CH though some studies suggest that it is ineffective. To assess the safety and efficacy of nVNS in chronic cluster headache (CCH) patients. We prospectively analysed data from 40 patients with refractory CCH in this open-label, observational study. Patients were seen in tertiary headache clinics at the National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery and trained to use nVNS as preventative therapy. Patients were reivewed at one month and then three-monthly from onset. The primary endpoint was number of patients achieving ≥50% reduction in attack frequency at 3 months. A meta-analysis of all published studies evaluating the efficacy of nVNS in CCH was also conducted. We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE for all studies investigating the use of nVNS as a preventive or adjunctive treatment for CCH with five or more participants. Combined mean difference and responder proportions with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated from the included studies. 17/40 patients (43%) achieved ≥50% reduction in attack frequency at 3 months. There was a significant reduction in monthly attack frequency from a baseline of 124 (±67) attacks to 79 (±63) attacks in month 3 (mean difference 44.7; 95% CI 25.1 to 64.3; p < 0.001). In month 3, there was also a 1.2-point reduction in average severity from a baseline Verbal Rating Scale of 8/10 (95% CI 0.5 to 1.9; p = 0.001). Four studies, along with the present study, were deemed eligible for meta-analysis, which showed a responder proportion of 0.35 (95% CI 0.07 to 0.69, n = 137) and a mean reduction in headache frequency of 35.3 attacks per month (95% CI 11.0 to 59.6, n = 108), from a baseline of 105 (±22.7) attacks per month. This study highlights the potential benefit of nVNS in CCH, with significant reductions in headache frequency and severity. To better characterise the effect, randomised sham-controlled trials are needed to confirm the beneficial response of VNS reported in some, but not all, open-label studies.

PO218 / #874 OCCIPITAL NERVE STIMULATION IN THE TREATMENT OF CHRONIC CLUSTER HEADACHE: E-POSTER VIEWING

Chronic cluster headache is a disabling pain syndrome that leads to impaired function and increases the incidence of psychological and social challenges. Occipital nerve stimulation (ONS) is an efficient treatment for chronic cluster headache decreasing frequency and intensity of attacks. Lead migration has been a common complication of ONS treatment, causing revision surgery. We have analyzed the effect of ONS in the treatment of cluster headache with the novel lead (AnkerStimTM, Medtronic).

CGRP-Targeted Therapy for Episodic and Chronic Cluster Headache.

Chronic cluster headache (CH) substantially affects patients' quality of life, and treatment remains challenging. The current article reviewed controlled studies for new treatment options targeting calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) or its receptors in CH and discussed the current gaps and future directions for the treatment of chronic CH. Two anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies (i.e., galcanezumab and fremanezumab) completed randomized-control trials for efficacy for the preventive treatment of episodic and chronic CH. Galcanezumab was effective for preventing episodic CH but not chronic CH. Fremanezumab was ineffective in preventing episodic and chronic CH. Studies for other anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies and CGRP antagonists are still pending for results. There are no randomized controlled trials for CGRP-targeted therapies that showed efficacy for chronic CH prevention. The different responses to galcanezumab between episodic and chronic CH may be due to the study design, i.e., the allowance of concomitant preventive therapies in the chronic CH study but not in the episodic CH study. Another reason for the discrepancies is the different roles and sensitivity of CGRP in chronic CH.

New Management of Cluster Headache

Galcanezumab, a CGRP monoclonal antibody drug, has been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the prevention of recurrent cluster headaches. This was done after a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial found it to be effective and safe. Similarly sphenopalatine ganglion stimulation has been found to be effective and safe in a randomized, controlled trial as an acute treatment for chronic cluster headache. This article reviews the mechanisms of action of these therapies and their clinical trial results, clinical uses, and prospects in Japan.

Location and Volume of MRI Artifacts in Patients With Implanted Sphenopalatine Ganglion Neurostimulators for Treatment of Chronic Cluster Headache

Sphenopalatine ganglion stimulation (SPG-S) is an invasive form of neuromodulation by which a neurostimulator is implanted into the pterygopalatine fossa to treat refractory chronic cluster headache. The implant is MRI conditional, up to 3 T, however there is no clinical data on the shape, size, and location of the artifact produced by the implant. Records of patients with SPG-S were analyzed for postoperative cranial MRI scans. MRI and intraoperative CT scans for visualization of the implant were fused and volumetry was performed for both the implant and the MRI artifact in different MRI sequences. In total, n = 3 patients with postoperative MRI scans were identified. The mean CT artifact volume was 0.73 cm3 (±0.15 cm3 ). MRI artifact volume differed between sequences (range: 25.2-220.7 cm3 ). The intracranial space was largely unaffected besides the pole of the ipsilateral temporal lobe and the basal frontal gyrus. MRI artifacts affected the extracranial space (orbit, maxillary and ethmoid sinuses, and parts of the parotid gland). No adverse events occurred during or after MRI scans. Cranial MRI scans with SPG-S implants were safely performed in three patients following the manufacturer's MRI conditions. MRI artifacts were mostly located in the extracranial space. Brain MRI imaging is largely unaffected. The authors declare no potential conflicts of interest with respect to research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Effect of Ketamine Intranasal Spray in Treatment of Chronic Cluster Headache

Effect of Ketamine Intranasal Spray in Treatment of Chronic Cluster Headache

Safety and efficacy of sphenopalatine ganglion stimulation for chronic cluster headache: a double-blind, randomised controlled trial

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.

High-Volume Anesthetic Suboccipital Nerve Blocks for Treatment Refractory Chronic Cluster Headache With Long-Term Efficacy Data: An Observational Case Series Study.

To determine the efficacy of high-volume anesthetic suboccipital nerve blocks (HVSON) for chronic cluster headache (CCH) and to define consistency of response over long-term use. There are studies showing efficacy of greater occipital and suboccipital nerve block injections for CCH and also their possible use as a preventive treatment modality. There are scant data about the long-term efficacy of repetitive greater occipital and suboccipital nerve injections in CCH. HVSON has not been studied for CH. This was an open label, observational, case series study. Patients with CCH seen at a dedicated headache clinic over a 7-year time period and injected on at least 2 separate occasions were used for analysis. All were deemed medicinal treatment refractory. HVSON consisted of 9 mL 1% lidocaine and 1 mL triamcinolone 40mg/mL injected on the side of CH. Ten CCH patients were retrospectively studied. Range of mean average response to HVSON (all patients had complete pain freedom) was 1.5-31 weeks (longest: 44 weeks in 2 patients). Only one patient did not respond; 2 patients had 1.5-2 weeks of response; the remainder had at least 4 weeks of response. The mean average duration of effect was 10.3 weeks in the responders. Five patients were injected serially for 2-4 years (30x, 17x, 15x, 10x and 3x, respectively) with a consistent response of 6 weeks, 4 weeks, 12 weeks, 4 weeks, and 31 weeks, respectively, after each injection. Response duration was very reliable per individual patient. All 5 patients felt HVSON was effective as a preventive treatment. Smoking history did not appear to alter treatment response (8/10 were chronic current smokers and 7/8 responded to HVSON). The one patient who received the most injections developed avascular necrosis of the hip; the remainder of the subjects had no adverse events. HVSON from this open label study appears to be effective in the preventive treatment of medicinal refractory CCH and shows consistent response over long-term use with high rates of pain freedom.

Long-Term Results of Deep Brain Stimulation of the Mamillotegmental Fasciculus in Chronic Cluster Headache

Background: Deep brain stimulation (DBS) and the proper target for chronic cluster headache (CCH) are still subjects of controversy. Objectives: We present our long-term results of analysis of the target and its structural connectivity. Methods: Fifteen patients with drug-resistant CCH underwent DBS in coordinates 4 mm lateral to the III ventricular wall and 2 mm behind and 5 mm below the intercommissural point. The clinical parameters recorded were the number of weekly attacks, pain intensity, and duration of the headache. Structural connectivity was studied using 3-T MR diffusion tensor imaging (DTI). Results: All of our patients improved from a mean of 39 attacks/week to 2; pain intensity decreased from 9 to 3 out of 10, and the mean cephalalgia duration decreased from 53 to 8 min. The mean stereotactic coordinates of the effective contact location were 6.1 mm lateral to the midcommissural point and 1.2 mm behind and 4.0 mm below the intercommissural point. DTI analysis showed that this target was connected to tracts and nuclei of the posterior mesencephalic tegmentum, specifically the dorsal longitudinal and mamillotegmental fasciculi. Conclusions: Our data showed DBS to be a safe and useful procedure for the treatment of drug-resistant CCH; the rate of improvement was higher than those found in other series. Although these are promising results, larger series targeting those fasciculi with a longer follow-up are needed.

OnabotulinumtoxinA in the treatment of refractory chronic cluster headache

BackgroundCluster headache (CH) is a clinically well-defined primary headache disorder, approximately 20% of cluster headache sufferers experience recurrent attacks without periods of significant remission. For the treatment of chronic cluster headache (CCH) only limited therapeutic options are available.MethodsA potential refractory CCH patient group was identified according to the clinical definition of rCCH based on the consensus statement of the European Headache Federation (EHF). Treatment with OnabotulinumtoxinA (BoNT-A; Botox®, 150 Allergan IU) was done according to the PREEMPT study protocol. A standardized headache diary was used for recording frequency, duration of attacks and pain intensity. To assess personal burden the HIT-6 and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression scale was used. Primary outcome measure was a > 50% reduction in headache minutes.ResultsSeventeen male patients suffering from rCCH, aged 32 ± 11 (mean ± SD) years, presenting a mean disease duration of 6.6 years completed the study of 28 weeks. The cut-off point of > 50% reduction in headache minutes as positive result was reached in 58.8%, 29.4% experienced an improvement of 30–50%. Mean frequency of headache days dropped from 28.2 to 11.8 days at week 24 (p = 0.0001; 95% CI -21.33 to − 11.61;). Intensity of remaining attacks was also reduced significantly. Headache disability scores showed a trend to improvement after BoNT-A.ConclusionsEncouraging results for the treatment with BoNT-A in rCCH patients were observed in our study population.

Changes in medication cost observed in chronic cluster headache patients treated with sphenopalatine ganglion (SPG) stimulation: Analysis based on 1-year data from the Pathway R-1 Registry.

Background On-demand stimulation of the sphenopalatine ganglion (SPG) by means of an implantable neurostimulation system has been shown to be a safe and effective therapy for treatment-refractory cluster headache patients. Our objective was to estimate changes in cluster headache medication cost observed in SPG-treated chronic patients. Methods Detailed patient-level data of 71 chronic patients treated with the Pulsante® SPG Microstimulator System were available from the Pathway R-1 Registry through 12 months' follow-up. We used utilization data of preventive and acute medications reported at baseline, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months to estimate annualized drug costs for SPG-treated patients and compared it to baseline. Cost estimates for all drug/dosage combinations were developed based on German medication prices for 2016. Results In the base case analysis, mean annual acute and preventive medication costs decreased from €14,178 to €6924 (-€7254; -51%), and €559 to €328 (-€231; -41%), respectively, leading to total estimated annual drug cost savings of €7484, 97% of which were attributable to acute medications. Conclusions Our analysis suggests that SPG stimulation for the treatment of chronic cluster headache is associated with pronounced reductions in cluster headache medication usage that might lead to sizable annual savings in medication costs.

Treatment of the Patient with Refractory Headache.

To review recent studies outlining the management of refractory primary headache patients, including emerging therapies such as neuromodulation. This includes both noninvasive and invasive neuromodulation techniques. Recent studies on the management of medication overuse headache were also reviewed. There is no consensus as yet on the definitions of refractory chronic migraine and chronic cluster headache although there is broad agreement on some aspects of these terms. The importance of identifying medication overuse headache and dealing effectively with it has been highlighted in several studies although there is still not consensus on how best to achieve the cessation of medication overuse. Some recommend the use of preventative medication together with medication cessation, while others do not. Recent studies on neuromodulation have used both noninvasive vagal nerve stimulation as well invasive techniques. Recent studies using noninvasive vagal nerve stimulation for chronic migraine have been disappointing although the data in chronic cluster headache are more encouraging. Similarly, recent studies on occipital nerve stimulation have again been more positive in chronic cluster headache and generally negative in chronic migraine. In recent years, new forms of neuromodulation have emerged and long-term follow-up data from previous invasive neuromodulation techniques have become available. The sphenopalatine ganglion has been increasingly targeted by various interventions in several different headache types. Sphenopalatine ganglion stimulation is yielding encouraging data for the treatment of chronic cluster headache. New studies and long-term follow-up data from previous studies have provided further evidence for the benefit of deep brain stimulation for refractory chronic cluster headache although the exact target location is still debated. Data from phase 3 trials using CGRP monoclonal antibodies in chronic migraine and chronic cluster headache, if positive, may herald a long overdue, new and effective treatment for our refractory headache patients.

Sphenopalatine ganglion stimulation in cluster headache and other types of headache.

Objectives The cluster headache is the most excruciatingly painful primary headache. In some patients, neither preventive treatment nor acute treatment is effective or treatment is poorly tolerated. The sphenopalatine ganglion (SPG) has an important role in the pathophysiology of cluster headache and, for this reason, SPG stimulation has been used to treat cluster headache. Methods We have reviewed the published literature on the role of the SPG in cluster headache and the use of different treatments targeting the SPG. Results Multiple procedures have been used over the SPG to treat pain and trigemino-autonomic symptoms in patients with refractory cluster headache. After obtaining good results in a small number of patients, a miniaturized stimulator was developed. Stimulation of the SPG with this device proved to be efficacious in acute and preventive treatment in a clinical trial involving patients with chronic refractory cluster headache. Implantation of the device is minimally invasive and the most frequent side-effects are mild, such as paraesthesia and pain over the maxillary area. In patients who have used the SPG device for longer than one year, the therapeutic effect remains effective and the side-effects decrease. Conclusions The reported studies have demonstrated that SPG stimulation is a safe and effective treatment for chronic cluster headache. Long-term studies have shown that the effect remains over time and this treatment could be a good choice in patients with chronic refractory headache. We need more data about its potential use in other forms of headache, such as other trigemino-autonomic headaches or migraine.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation for the treatment of chronic cluster headache.

BackgroundCluster headache (CH) is a debilitating condition that is generally associated with substantial health care costs. Few therapies are approved for abortive or prophylactic treatment. Results from the prospective, randomised, open-label PREVA study suggested that adjunctive treatment with a novel non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation (nVNS) device led to decreased attack frequency and abortive medication use in patients with chronic CH (cCH). Herein, we evaluate whether nVNS is cost-effective compared with the current standard of care (SoC) for cCH.MethodsA pharmacoeconomic model from the German statutory health insurance perspective was developed to estimate the 1-year cost-effectiveness of nVNS + SoC (versus SoC alone) using data from PREVA. Short-term treatment response data were taken from the clinical trial; longer-term response was modelled under scenarios of response maintenance, constant rate of response loss, and diminishing rate of response loss. Health-related quality of life was estimated by modelling EQ-5D™ data from PREVA; benefits were defined as quality-adjusted life-years (QALY). Abortive medication use data from PREVA, along with costs for the nVNS device and abortive therapies (i.e. intranasal zolmitriptan, subcutaneous sumatriptan, and inhaled oxygen), were used to assess health care costs in the German setting.ResultsThe analysis resulted in mean expected yearly costs of €7096.69 for nVNS + SoC and €7511.35 for SoC alone and mean QALY of 0.607 for nVNS + SoC and 0.522 for SoC alone, suggesting that nVNS generates greater health benefits for lower overall cost. Abortive medication costs were 23 % lower with nVNS + SoC than with SoC alone. In the alternative scenarios (i.e. constant rate of response loss and diminishing rate of response loss), nVNS + SoC was more effective and cost saving than SoC alone.ConclusionsIn all scenarios modelled from a German perspective, nVNS was cost-effective compared with current SoC, which suggests that adjunctive nVNS therapy provides economic benefits in the treatment of cCH. Notably, the current analysis included only costs associated with abortive treatments. Treatment with nVNS will likely promote further economic benefit when other potential sources of cost savings (e.g. reduced frequency of clinic visits) are considered.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT01701245, 03OCT2012.

Anodal Transcranial Direct Stimulation (tDCS) Targeting the Anterior Cingulate Gyrus for the Treatment of Chronic Cluster Headache: A Proof-of-Concept Trial (I3.005)

Anodal Transcranial Direct Stimulation (tDCS) Targeting the Anterior Cingulate Gyrus for the Treatment of Chronic Cluster Headache: A Proof-of-Concept Trial (I3.005)

Anodal Transcranial Direct Stimulation (tDCS) Targeting the Anterior Cingulate Gyrus for the Treatment of Chronic Cluster Headache: A Proof-of-Concept Trial (P2.208)

Anodal Transcranial Direct Stimulation (tDCS) Targeting the Anterior Cingulate Gyrus for the Treatment of Chronic Cluster Headache: A Proof-of-Concept Trial (P2.208)

Non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation for PREVention and Acute treatment of chronic cluster headache (PREVA): A randomised controlled study.

BackgroundChronic cluster headache (CH) is a debilitating disorder for which few well-controlled studies demonstrate effectiveness of available therapies. Non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation (nVNS) was examined as adjunctive prophylactic treatment of chronic CH.MethodsPREVA was a prospective, open-label, randomised study that compared adjunctive prophylactic nVNS (n = 48) with standard of care (SoC) alone (control (n = 49)). A two-week baseline phase was followed by a four-week randomised phase (SoC plus nVNS vs control) and a four-week extension phase (SoC plus nVNS). The primary end point was the reduction in the mean number of CH attacks per week. Response rate, abortive medication use and safety/tolerability were also assessed.ResultsDuring the randomised phase, individuals in the intent-to-treat population treated with SoC plus nVNS (n = 45) had a significantly greater reduction in the number of attacks per week vs controls (n = 48) (−5.9 vs −2.1, respectively) for a mean therapeutic gain of 3.9 fewer attacks per week (95% CI: 0.5, 7.2; p = 0.02). Higher ≥50% response rates were also observed with SoC plus nVNS (40% (18/45)) vs controls (8.3% (4/48); p < 0.001). No serious treatment-related adverse events occurred.ConclusionAdjunctive prophylactic nVNS is a well-tolerated novel treatment for chronic CH, offering clinical benefits beyond those with SoC.

Cost-effectiveness of stimulation of the sphenopalatine ganglion (SPG) for the treatment of chronic cluster headache: a model-based analysis based on the Pathway CH-1 study.

BackgroundIn the recent Pathway CH-1 study, on-demand stimulation of the sphenopalatine ganglion (SPG) by means of an implantable neurostimulation system was proven to be a safe and effective therapy for the treatment of chronic cluster headache. Our objective was to assess the cost-effectiveness of SPG stimulation in the German healthcare system when compared to medical management.MethodsClinical data from the Pathway CH-1 study were used as input for a model-based projection of the cost-effectiveness of SPG stimulation through 5 years. Medical management as the comparator treatment was modeled on the basis of clinical events observed during the baseline period of CH-1. The costs of treatment were derived from a previously published cluster headache costing study and 2014 medication, neurostimulator, and procedure costs. We computed the 5-year incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) in euros per quality-adjusted life year (QALY), with costs and effects discounted at 3 % per year.ResultsSPG stimulation was projected to add 0.325 QALYs over the study period, while adding €889 in cost, resulting in a 5-year ICER of €2,736 per QALY gained. Longer follow-up periods, higher baseline attack frequency, and higher utilization of attack-aborting medications led to overall cost savings. SPG stimulation was found either cost-effective or cost-saving across all scenarios investigated in sensitivity analyses.ConclusionsOur model-based analysis suggests that SPG stimulation for the treatment of chronic cluster headache, under the assumption of sustained therapy effectiveness, leads to meaningful gains in health-related quality of life and is a cost-effective treatment strategy in the German healthcare system.