Occipital nerve stimulation for headache disorders.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Paemeleire K
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5084103 | biostudies-other | 2010 Apr
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other
Publications
Occipital nerve stimulation for headache disorders.
Paemeleire Koen K Bartsch Thorsten T
Neurotherapeutics : the journal of the American Society for Experimental NeuroTherapeutics 20100401 2
Occipital nerve stimulation (ONS) was originally described in the treatment of occipital neuralgia. However, the spectrum of possible indications has expanded in recent years to include primary headache disorders, such as migraine and cluster headaches. Retrospective and some prospective studies have yielded encouraging results, and evidence from controlled clinical trials is emerging, offering hope for refractory headache patients. In this article we discuss the scientific rationale to use ONS ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:Chronic daily headache is a major worldwide health problem that affects 3-5% of the population and results in substantial disability. Advances in the management of headache disorders have meant that a substantial proportion of patients can be effectively treated with medical treatments. However, a significant minority of these patients are intractable to conventional medical treatments. Occipital nerve stimulation (ONS) is emerging as a promising treatment for patients with medically intractable, highly disabling chronic headache disorders, including migraine, cluster headache and other less common headache syndromes. Open-label studies have suggested that this treatment modality is effective and recent controlled trial data are also encouraging. The procedure is performed using several technical variations that have been reviewed along with the complications, which are usually minor and tolerable. The mechanism of action is poorly understood, though recent data suggest that ONS could restore the balance within the impaired central pain system through slow neuromodulatory processes in the pain neuromatrix. While the available data are very encouraging, the ultimate confirmation of the utility of a new therapeutic modality should come from controlled trials before widespread use can be advocated; more controlled data are still needed to properly assess the role of ONS in the management of medically intractable headache disorders. Future studies also need to address the variables that are predictors of response, including clinical phenotypes, surgical techniques and stimulation parameters.
| S-EPMC3251898 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundOccipital nerve stimulation (ONS) has raised new hope for drug-resistant chronic cluster headache (drCCH), a devastating condition. However its mode of action remains elusive. Since the long delay to meaningful effect suggests that ONS induces slow neuromodulation, we have searched for changes in central pain-control areas using metabolic neuroimaging.MethodsTen drCCH patients underwent an 18FDG-PET scan after ONS, at delays varying between 0 and 30 months. All were scanned with ongoing ONS (ON) and with the stimulator switched OFF.ResultsAfter 6-30 months of ONS, 3 patients were pain free and 4 had a ≥ 90% reduction of attack frequency (responders). In all patients compared to controls, several areas of the pain matrix showed hypermetabolism: ipsilateral hypothalamus, midbrain and ipsilateral lower pons. All normalized after ONS, except for the hypothalamus. Switching the stimulator ON or OFF had little influence on brain glucose metabolism. The perigenual anterior cingulate cortex (PACC) was hyperactive in ONS responders compared to non-responders.ConclusionsMetabolic normalization in the pain neuromatrix and lack of short-term changes induced by the stimulation might support the hypothesis that ONS acts in drCCH through slow neuromodulatory processes. Selective activation in responders of PACC, a pivotal structure in the endogenous opioid system, suggests that ONS could restore balance within dysfunctioning pain control centres. That ONS is nothing but a symptomatic treatment might be illustrated by the persistent hypothalamic hypermetabolism, which could explain why autonomic attacks may persist despite pain relief and why cluster attacks recur shortly after stimulator arrest. PET studies on larger samples are warranted to confirm these first results.
| S-EPMC3056751 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundNon-invasive stimulation of the vagus nerve has been proposed as a new neuromodulation therapy to treat primary headache disorders, as the vagus nerve is hypothesized to modulate the headache pain pathways in the brain. Vagus nerve stimulation can be performed by placing an electrode on the ear to stimulate the tragus nerve, which contains about 1% of the vagus fibers. Non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation (nVNS) conventionally refers to stimulation of the cervical branch of the vagus nerve, which is made up entirely of vagal nerve fibers. While used interchangeably, most of the research to date has been performed with nVNS or an implanted vagus nerve stimulation device. However, the exact mechanism of action of nVNS remains hypothetical and no clear overview of the effectiveness of nVNS in primary headache disorders is available.MethodsIn the present study, the clinical trials that investigated the effectiveness, tolerability and safety of nVNS in primary headache disorders were systematically reviewed. The second part of this study reviewed the central connections of the vagus nerve. Papers on the clinical use of nVNS and the anatomical investigations were included based on predefined criteria, evaluated, and results were reported in a narrative way.ResultsThe first part of this review shows that nVNS in primary headache disorders is moderately effective, safe and well-tolerated. Regarding the anatomical review, it was reported that fibers from the vagus nerve intertwine with fibers from the trigeminal, facial, glossopharyngeal and hypoglossal nerves, mostly in the trigeminal spinal tract. Second, the four nuclei of the vagus nerve (nuclei of the solitary tract, nucleus ambiguus, spinal nucleus of the trigeminal nerve and dorsal motor nucleus (DMX)) show extensive interconnections. Third, the efferents from the vagal nuclei that receive sensory and visceral input (i.e. nuclei of the solitary tract and spinal nucleus of the trigeminal nerve) mainly course towards the main parts of the neural pain matrix directly or indirectly via other vagal nuclei.ConclusionThe moderate effectiveness of nVNS in treating primary headache disorders can possibly be linked to the connections between the trigeminal and vagal systems as described in animals.
| S-EPMC6643160 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDefined as a headache lasting at least 15 days per month, chronic headache is reported by 3% of the general population, and a substantial proportion of them are refractory to current therapies. Occipital nerve stimulation (ONS) is a treatment option, but is still considered as a last resort treatment especially because of its invasive nature and the cost associated. Some reviews reported a limited efficacy of ONS for the treatment of migraines, with a high risk of complications. However, results reporting its efficacy and safety on other headache disorders are unclear. The aim of this review is to assess the efficacy and safety of ONS in regards to non-migrainous chronic headaches.MethodsWe will conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies evaluating the use of ONS in comparison to sham stimulation or the best available treatment in patients with chronic headache. MEDLINE, CINHAL, EMBASE, PsycINFO, ECRI Institute Library, WIKISTIM, the Cochrane Library databases, and clinical trial registries will be searched for eligible studies. The review will include adult patients diagnosed with chronic headache excluding migraine. Two independent reviewers will process to the screening of studies according to titles, abstracts, and then full texts. The primary outcome is the overall reduction of head pain severity. The secondary outcomes are rates of reduction in the severity of head pain, headache frequency, and duration, use of medication, impairment, quality of life, healthcare utilization, return to work, and adverse events. Extracted data will include patients' and procedure characteristics, details on comparative treatment or sham, and clinical outcomes. The risk of bias of the studies will be also independently assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tools.DiscussionThis systematic review will allow us to better evaluate the potential role of ONS for the treatment of patients with chronic headache that are refractory to less invasive therapies. It will help to determine the degree of safety of ONS. Moreover, it will help to design and conduct future randomized controlled trials focused on patients who may better respond to such treatment.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42019121623.
| S-EPMC6647252 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundChronic migraine is a debilitating headache disorder that has significant impact on quality of life. Stimulation of peripheral nerves is increasingly being used to treat chronic refractory pain including headache disorders. This systematic review examines the effectiveness and adverse effects of occipital nerve stimulation (ONS) for chronic migraine.MethodsDatabases, including the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and clinical trial registers were searched to September 2014. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), other controlled and uncontrolled observational studies and case series (n≥ 10) were eligible. RCTs were assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Meta-analysis was carried out using a random-effects model. Findings are presented in summary tables and forest plots.ResultsFive RCTs (total n=402) and seven case series (total n=115) met the inclusion criteria. Pooled results from three multicenter RCTs show that ONS was associated with a mean reduction of 2.59 days (95% CI 0.91 to 4.27, I2=0%) of prolonged, moderate to severe headache per month at 3 months compared with a sham control. Results for other outcomes generally favour ONS over sham controls but quantitative analysis was hampered by incomplete publication and reporting of trial data. Lead migration and infections are common and often require revision surgery. Open-label follow-up of RCTs and case series suggest long-term effectiveness can be maintained in some patients but evidence is limited.ConclusionsWhile the effectiveness of ONS compared to sham control has been shown in multiple RCTs, the average effect size is modest and may be exaggerated by bias as achieving effective blinding remains a methodological challenge. Further measures to reduce the risk of adverse events and revision surgery are needed.Systematic review registrationthis systematic review is an update and expanded work of part of a broader review registered with PROSPERO. Registration No. CRD42012002633.
| S-EPMC4368787 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the feasibility, safety, and tolerability of noninvasive vagus nerve stimulation (nVNS) for the prevention of chronic migraine (CM) attacks.MethodsIn this first prospective, multicenter, double-blind, sham-controlled pilot study of nVNS in CM prophylaxis, adults with CM (≥15 headache d/mo) entered the baseline phase (1 month) and were subsequently randomized to nVNS or sham treatment (2 months) before receiving open-label nVNS treatment (6 months). The primary endpoints were safety and tolerability. Efficacy endpoints in the intent-to-treat population included change in the number of headache days per 28 days and acute medication use.ResultsFifty-nine participants (mean age, 39.2 years; mean headache frequency, 21.5 d/mo) were enrolled. During the randomized phase, tolerability was similar for nVNS (n = 30) and sham treatment (n = 29). Most adverse events were mild/moderate and transient. Mean changes in the number of headache days were -1.4 (nVNS) and -0.2 (sham) (Δ = 1.2; p = 0.56). Twenty-seven participants completed the open-label phase. For the 15 completers initially assigned to nVNS, the mean change from baseline in headache days after 8 months of treatment was -7.9 (95% confidence interval -11.9 to -3.8; p < 0.01).ConclusionsTherapy with nVNS was well-tolerated with no safety issues. Persistent prophylactic use may reduce the number of headache days in CM; larger sham-controlled studies are needed.Clinicaltrialsgov identifierNCT01667250.Classification of evidenceThis study provides Class II evidence that for patients with CM, nVNS is safe, is well-tolerated, and did not significantly change the number of headache days. This pilot study lacked the precision to exclude important safety issues or benefits of nVNS.
| S-EPMC4970666 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The aim of this study was to clarify the topographical relationships between the greater occipital nerve and the trapezius muscle and between the greater occipital nerve and the occipital artery in the occiput in order to increase the success rate of greater occipital nerve blockade. Fifty-six halved heads of 28 cadavers were used in this study. The piercing points and the courses of the greater occipital nerve and occipital artery were analyzed by dividing a line connecting between the external occipital protuberance and mastoid process into three equal parts. A circle with a radius of 2 cm drawn at the medial trisection point of this line was divided into four equal sectors. The greater occipital nerve simply passed the lateral border of the trapezius muscle and then pierced the fascia connecting the cranial attachment of the trapezius muscle with the sternocleidomastoid muscle in 62.5% of the specimens, whereas it pierced the muscle itself in the other 37.5%. The greater occipital nerve and occipital artery pierced the fascia within the 2-cm-radius circle in 85.7% and 98.2% of the specimens, respectively. The piercing points of the greater occipital nerve and occipital artery were observed most frequently in the inferomedial (42.9%) and inferolateral (37.5%) sectors of the circle, respectively. The greater occipital nerve and occipital artery pierced the same sector of the circle and accompanied each other in 51.8% of the specimens. These results are expected to improve the understanding of the topographical relationships between the greater occipital nerve and trapezius muscle and between the greater occipital nerve and occipital artery in the occiput, and thus provide helpful information for the management of occipital neuralgia.
| S-EPMC6093687 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Evidence supports the use of non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation (nVNS; gammaCore®) as a promising therapeutic option for patients with cluster headache (CH). We conducted this audit of real-world data from patients with CH, the majority of whom were treatment refractory, to explore early UK clinical experience with nVNS used acutely, preventively, or both. METHODS:We retrospectively analysed data from 30 patients with CH (29 chronic, 1 episodic) who submitted individual funding requests for nVNS to the National Health Service. All patients had responded to adjunctive nVNS therapy during an evaluation period (typical duration, 3-6 months). Data collected from patient interviews, treatment diaries, and physician notes were summarised with descriptive statistics. Paired t tests were used to examine statistical significance. RESULTS:The mean (SD) CH attack frequency decreased from 26.6 (17.1) attacks/wk. before initiation of nVNS therapy to 9.5 (11.0) attacks/wk. (P < 0.01) afterward. Mean (SD) attack duration decreased from 51.9 (36.7) minutes to 29.4 (28.5) minutes (P < 0.01), and mean (SD) attack severity (rated on a 10-point scale) decreased from 7.8 (2.3) to 6.0 (2.6) (P < 0.01). Use of abortive treatments also decreased. Favourable changes in the use of preventive medication were also observed. No serious device-related adverse events were reported. CONCLUSIONS:Significant decreases in attack frequency, severity, and duration were observed in these patients with CH who did not respond to or were intolerant of multiple preventive and/or acute treatments. These real-world findings complement evidence from clinical trials demonstrating the efficacy and safety of nVNS in CH.
| S-EPMC6755582 | biostudies-other
Project description:Occipital nerve field (OCF) stimulation with subcutaneously implanted electrodes is used to treat headaches, more generalized pain, and even failed back surgery syndrome via unknown mechanisms. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) can predict the efficacy of implanted electrodes. The purpose of this study is to unravel the neural mechanisms involved in global pain suppression, mediated by occipital nerve field stimulation, within the realm of fibromyalgia. Nineteen patients with fibromyalgia underwent a placebo-controlled OCF tDCS. Electroencephalograms were recorded at baseline after active and sham stimulation. In comparison with healthy controls, patients with fibromyalgia demonstrate increased dorsal anterior cingulate cortex, increased premotor/dorsolateral prefrontal cortex activity, and an imbalance between pain-detecting dorsal anterior cingulate cortex and pain-suppressing pregenual anterior cingulate cortex activity, which is normalized after active tDCS but not sham stimulation associated with increased pregenual anterior cingulate cortex activation. The imbalance improvement between the pregenual anterior cingulate cortex and the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex is related to clinical changes. An imbalance assumes these areas communicate and, indeed, abnormal functional connectivity between the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex and pregenual anterior cingulate cortex is noted to be caused by a dysfunctional effective connectivity from the pregenual anterior cingulate cortex to the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex, which improves and normalizes after real tDCS but not sham tDCS. In conclusion, OCF tDCS exerts its effect via activation of the descending pain inhibitory pathway and de-activation of the salience network, both of which are abnormal in fibromyalgia.
| S-EPMC5398977 | biostudies-literature
Project description: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.
| S-EPMC4840129 | biostudies-literature