Debate: Are cluster headache and migraine distinct headache disorders?
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Al-Karagholi MA
PROVIDER: S-EPMC9706960 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Nov
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Debate: Are cluster headache and migraine distinct headache disorders?
Al-Karagholi Mohammad Al-Mahdi MA Peng Kuan-Po KP Petersen Anja Sofie AS De Boer Irene I Terwindt Gisela M GM Ashina Messoud M
The journal of headache and pain 20221129 1
Cluster headache and migraine are regarded as distinct primary headaches. While cluster headache and migraine differ in multiple aspects such as gender-related and headache specific features (e.g., attack duration and frequency), both show clinical similarities in trigger factors (e.g., alcohol) and treatment response (e.g., triptans). Here, we review the similarities and differences in anatomy and pathophysiology that underlie cluster headache and migraine, discuss whether cluster headache and ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:Although clinically distinguishable, migraine and cluster headache share prominent features such as unilateral pain, common pharmacological triggers such glyceryl trinitrate, histamine, calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) and response to triptans and neuromodulation. Recent data also suggest efficacy of anti CGRP monoclonal antibodies in both migraine and cluster headache. While exact mechanisms behind both disorders remain to be fully understood, the trigeminovascular system represents one possible common pathophysiological pathway and network of both disorders. Here, we review past and current literature shedding light on similarities and differences in phenotype, heritability, pathophysiology, imaging findings and treatment options of migraine and cluster headache. A continued focus on their shared pathophysiological pathways may be important in paving future treatment avenues that could benefit both migraine and cluster headache patients.
| S-EPMC6755613 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundUnderstanding the neural mechanisms underlying migraine and other primary headache disorders is critical for the development of long-term cures. Magnetoencephalography (MEG), an imaging modality that measures neuronal currents and cortical excitability with high temporal and superior spatial resolution, has been increasingly used in neurological research. Initial MEG studies showed promise in directly recording cortical spreading depression-a cortical correlate of migraine with aura. However, lately MEG technology has highly evolved with greater potential to reveal underlying pathophysiology of migraine and primary headache disorders, and aid in the identification of biomarkers.ObjectiveTo systematically review the use of MEG in migraine and other primary headache disorders and summarize findings.MethodsWe conducted a systematic search and selection of MEG studies in migraine and primary headache disorders from inception until June 8, 2023, in Medline, Embase, Cochrane, and Scopus databases. Peer-reviewed English articles reporting the use of MEG for clinical or research purposes in migraine and primary headache disorders were selected.ResultsWe found 560 articles and included 38 in this review after screening. Twelve studies investigated resting-state, while others investigated a sensory modality using an evoked or event-related paradigm with a total of 35 cohort and 3 case studies. Thirty-two studies focused exclusively on migraine, while the rest reported other primary headache disorders.ConclusionThe findings show an evolution of MEG from a 7- to a 306-channel system and analysis evolving from sensor-level evoked responses to more advanced source-level connectivity measures. A relatively few MEG studies portrayed migraine and primary headache disorders as a sensory abnormality, especially of the visual system. We found heterogeneity in the datasets, data reporting standards (due to constantly evolving MEG technology and analysis methods), and patient characteristics. Studies were inadequately powered and there was no evidence of blinding procedures to avoid selection bias in case-control studies, which could have led to false-positive findings. More studies are needed to investigate the affective-cognitive aspects that exacerbate pain and disability in migraine and primary headache disorders.
| S-EPMC11794981 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To examine factors for adherent and non-adherent behavior in patients with cluster headache and migraine. Adults with cluster headache or migraine were included in this anonymous online survey using a questionnaire accessed via homepages of headache support groups. Medication adherence in preventive treatment was measured with the Medication Adherence Report Scale (MARS-D). Factors for non-adherent behavior were examined (subjective socioeconomic status, psychological comorbidities, self-efficacy, coping, side effects, expectations of treatment, information on medical treatment, and trust in the physician/treatment concept). 200 participants (n = 58 with cluster headache, n = 142 with migraine) were included. The rate of medication adherence in preventive treatment was 32.8% for participants with cluster headache and 20.4% for migraine. The most common reasons for low adherence in participants with cluster headache were altering the prescribed medication dose (34%) or taking less than instructed (14%), which was mostly due to insufficient benefit from the medication or side effects. Positive expectations of medical treatment (p ≤ 0.05) correlated significantly with adherent behavior in cluster headache. Furthermore, the adherence-promoting factors coping and self-efficacy were more pronounced in patients with cluster headache than in those with migraine (p < 0.05). This study is the first to comprehensively investigate medication adherence and factors influencing adherent/non-adherent behavior in patients with cluster headache. Patients with cluster headache had similar adherence levels to patients with migraine, but had higher resources of adherence-promoting factors.
| S-EPMC10027659 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCluster headache is a severe headache disorder with unknown aetiology. The pathophysiology and symptoms present certain common features with migraine. Specifically, activation of the trigeminal vascular system seems to be involved in both disorders, which is hypothesized to result in neurogenic inflammation and vasodilation of the cerebral vessels. In addition, genetic factors have been implicated in both migraine and cluster headache.ObjectiveIn order to determine whether or not migraine and cluster headache share genetic risk factors, we screened two genetic variants known to increase the risk of migraine in Sweden in a Swedish cluster headache case-control study population.MethodsIn all, 541 patients and 581 control subjects were genotyped for rs1835740 in close proximity to MTDH (metadherin) and rs2651899 in the PRDM16 (PR/SET domain 16) gene, using TaqMan® real-time PCR and pyrosequencing. In addition, we analyzed MTDH gene expression in a subset of the material, using reverse transcription real-time PCR to determine relative mRNA levels in primary fibroblast cell lines from patients and controls.ResultsWe found a trend for association between rs1835740, which is reported to affect MTDH mRNA levels, and cluster headache in our Swedish case-control material (p = 0.043, Χ2 = 4.102). This association was stronger in a subgroup of patients suffering from both cluster headache and migraine (p = 0.031, Χ2 = 6.964). We could further confirm that rs1835740 has an effect on the transcriptional activity of MTDH. In this Swedish cluster headache cohort we did not find an association with the rs2651899 variant.ConclusionsWe conclude that rs1835740 is a potential risk factor for cluster headache in Sweden. Our data indicates that rs1835740 and MTDH might be involved in neurovascular headaches in general whilst rs2651899 is specifically related to migraine.
| S-EPMC6755538 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThe present study endeavors to identify natural subgroups of migraine patients based on the patterns of non-headache symptoms, utilizing cluster analysis. Subsequently, network analysis was performed to estimate the structure of symptoms and explore the potential pathophysiology of these findings.MethodA total of 475 patients who met the diagnostic criteria for migraine were surveyed face-to-face during the period of 2019 to 2022. The survey included collecting demographic and symptom data. Four different solutions were generated by the K-means for mixed large data (KAMILA) clustering algorithm, from which the final cluster solutions were selected based on a series of cluster metrics. Subsequently, we performed network analysis using Bayesian Gaussian graphical models (BGGM) to estimate the symptom structure across subgroups and conducted global and pairwise comparisons between structures.ResultCluster analysis identified two distinct patient groups, and the onset age of migraine proved to be an effective characteristic differentiating the two patient groups. Participants assigned to late-onset group showed a longer course of migraine, higher frequency of monthly headache attacks, and greater tendency toward medication overuse. In contrast, patients in early-onset group exhibited a higher frequency of nausea, vomiting, and phonophobia compared to their counterparts in the other group. The network analysis revealed a different symptom structure between the two groups globally, while the pairwise differences indicated an increasing connection between tinnitus and dizziness, and a decreasing connection between tinnitus and hearing loss in the early-onset group.ConclusionUtilizing clustering and network analysis, we have identified two distinct non-headache symptom structures of migraine patients with early-onset age and late-onset age. Our findings suggest that the vestibular-cochlear symptoms may differ in the context of different onset ages of migraine patients, which may contribute to a better understanding of the pathology of vestibular-cochlear symptoms in migraine.
| S-EPMC10251495 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Our aim was to investigate the relationship between coexisting cluster headache (CH) and migraine with anxiety and depression during active cluster bouts, and how symptoms change during remission. METHODS:We analyzed data from 222 consecutive CH patients and 99 age- and sex-matched controls using a prospective multicenter registry. Anxiety or depression was evaluated using the Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7) or Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9), respectively. Moderate-to-severe anxiety or depression was defined as a score of ≥10 at baseline (during a cluster bout). We assessed for changes in anxiety and depression during CH remission periods. RESULTS:Among the CH patients, the prevalence of moderate-to-severe anxiety and depression was seen in 38.2% and 34.6%, respectively. Compared with controls, CH patients were associated with moderate-to-severe anxiety and depression (multivariable-adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 7.32, 95% confidence intervals [CI] = 3.35-15.99 and aOR = 4.95, 95% CI = 2.32-10.57, respectively). CH patients with migraine were significantly more likely to have moderate-to-severe anxiety and depression (aOR = 32.53, 95% CI = 6.63-159.64 and aOR = 16.88, 95% CI = 4.16-68.38, respectively), compared to controls without migraine. The GAD-7 and PHQ-9 scores were significantly reduced between cluster bout and remission periods (from 6.8 ± 5.6 to 1.6 ± 2.8; P < 0.001, and from 6.1 ± 5.0 to 1.8 ± 2.4; P < 0.001, respectively). CONCLUSIONS:Our results indicate that CH patients are at increased risk of anxiety and depression, especially in the presence of coexisting migraine. However, the anxiety and depression can improve during remission periods.
| S-EPMC7257141 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Non-invasive neuromodulation therapies for migraine and cluster headache are a practical and safe alternative to pharmacologics. Comparisons of these therapies are difficult because of the heterogeneity in study designs. In this systematic review of clinical trials, the scientific rigour and clinical relevance of the available data were assessed to inform clinical decisions about non-invasive neuromodulation. PubMed, Cochrane Library and ClinicalTrials.gov databases and the WHO's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for relevant clinical studies of non-invasive neuromodulation devices for migraine and cluster headache (1 January 1990 to 31 January 2018), and 71 were identified. This analysis compared study designs using recommendations of the International Headache Society for pharmacological clinical trials, the only available guidelines for migraine and cluster headache. Non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation (nVNS), single-transcranial magnetic stimulation and external trigeminal nerve stimulation (all with regulatory clearance) were well studied compared with the other devices, for which studies frequently lacked proper blinding, sham controls and sufficient population sizes. nVNS studies demonstrated the most consistent adherence to available guidelines. Studies of all neuromodulation devices should strive to achieve the same high level of scientific rigour to allow for proper comparison across devices. Device-specific guidelines for migraine and cluster headache will be soon available, but adherence to current guidelines for pharmacological trials will remain a key consideration for investigators and clinicians.
| S-EPMC6585264 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMigraine disorders are a leading cause of morbidity and decreased economic productivity in the United States among both men and women. As such, it is important to consider patient opinions, and have an accurate representation of the burden and sentiment toward currently available interventions among those suffering from migraines.ObjectivesThe aim of the study was to assess patient options regarding adverse outcomes of the various treatment options available for migraine headaches.MethodsA prospective cross-sectional study of volunteers recruited through an internet crowdsourcing service, Amazon Mechanical Turk©, was conducted. Surveys were administered to collect patient-reported opinions regarding adverse outcomes of both surgical and nonsurgical treatment options for migraine headaches.ResultsThe prevalence of migraine headache across all study participants was 15.6% and varied slightly across participant demographics. Individuals ages 35-44 (2.73 migraines per month) experienced the fewest migraine and with the lowest severity. Those individuals ages 45+ experienced the most severe headaches (Visual Analog Scale = 44.23 mm). Additionally, the greatest migraine frequency and severity existed among those households with yearly income of $75,000-$100,000. The lowest injection therapy utility scores were obtained for adverse outcomes of hematoma (47.60 mm) and vertigo (54.40 mm).ConclusionsMigraine headaches remains a significant problem among the US population, with an overall prevalence of 15.6% (approximately 50 million Americans). Additionally, physicians interesting in offering minimally invasive or surgical treatment for migraine headaches should focus on mitigating patient fears regarding clinical outcomes and cost of care.
| S-EPMC7670936 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The simultaneous occurrence of primary headaches and temporomandibular disorders can pose a challenge in determining the best clinical management of patients. Therefore, we aimed to summarize evidence regarding the risk and prevalence of temporomandibular disorders (TMDs) in migraine and tension-type headaches (TTH) patients. Cross-sectional studies published in English comparing the presence of TMDs in adults with TTH or migraine to subjects without headaches were included, International Classification of Orofacial Pain, Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders or Research Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders, and large epidemiological studies (sensitive diagnostic criteria (SDC)). The methodological quality was assessed by Modified Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale. Odds ratio (OR) and random effects were calculated. 1405 articles were identified in PubMed, Embase and Central databases, and 13 cross-sectional studies were finally included. Overall Risk of TMDs was statistically significantly higher than control groups in both Migraine (SDC: 11 studies; OR: 3.79 (2.43, 5.90); I2 = 99%), with higher values in chronic migraine (OR: 24.27; (95% Confidence interval (CI): 5.84, 100.82); I2 = 0%) and TTH populations (SDC: 8 studies; OR: 4.45 (2.63, 7.53); I2 = 86%). Headache subjects presented a higher risk of muscular TMDs (5 studies; OR: 2.01 (1.62, 2.50); I2 = 0%), Combined TMDs (5 studies; OR: 2.74 (1.40, 5.36); I2 = 63%), or Painful TMDs (8 studies; OR: 5.31 (2.96, 9.54); I2 = 96%). Headache patients didn't show the risk of arthrogenous TMDs (4 studies; OR: 0.96 (0.54, 1.71); I2 = 33%) or nonpainful TMDs (2 studies; OR: 1.10 (0.28, 4.26); I2 = 84%). The high heterogeneity in the results was reduced following subgroup analysis. Migraine and TTH appear to increase the risk of painful, myogenous or combined arthrogenous and myogenous TMDs.
| S-EPMC11810655 | biostudies-literature
Project description:A new treatment option for cluster headache (CH) prevention is needed. Monoclonal antibodies (mABs) against calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) ligands are used as a preventative treatment for migraine. Considering the CGRP's role in the CH attack's ignition and upkeep, fremanezumab and galcanezumab have been evaluated for CH preventative treatment. However, only high-dose (300 mg) galcanezumab has been approved for episodic CH prevention. We herein report three cases of migraine and comorbid CH with previous failures of preventive treatments. Two cases were treated with fremanezumab and one with non-high-dose galcanezumab. All three cases showed good results, not only for migraine, but also for CH attacks. This report suggests the efficacy of CGRP-mABs for CH prevention. Our cases differed from cases in the phase 3 trials of CGRP-mABs for CH prevention in two ways: first, our patients had both migraine and comorbid CH, and second, we used a combination of CGRP-mABs with preventative drugs, such as verapamil and/or prednisolone, to treat CH. Future accumulation of real-world data may prove the efficacy of CGRP-mABs for CH prevention.
| S-EPMC10057600 | biostudies-literature