The non-decussating and decussating trigeminothalamic tracts in humans: A combination of connectome-based tractography and histological validation.

BACKGROUND: Functional anatomical research proposed the existence of a bilateral trigeminal ascending system although the anatomy trajectories of the trigeminothalamic connections cranial to the pons remain largely elusive. This study therefore aimed to clarify the anatomical distributions of the trigeminothalamic connections in humans. METHODS: Advanced deterministic tractography to an averaged template of diffusion tensor imaging data from 1065 subjects from the Human Connectome Project was used. Seedings masks were placed in Montreal Neurological Institute standard space by use of the BigBrain histological dataset. Waypoint masks of the sensory thalamus was obtained from the Brainnetome Atlas. RESULTS: Tractography results were validated by use of the BigBrain histological dataset and Polarized Light Imaging microscopy. The trigeminothalamic tract bifurcated into a decussating ventral and a non-decussating dorsal tract. The ventral and dorsal tracts ascended to the contralateral thalamus and ipsilateral thalamus and reflected the ventral trigeminothalamic tract and the dorsal trigeminothalamic tract, respectively. The projection of the ventral trigeminothalamic tract and the dorsal trigeminothalamic tract to both thalami confirm the existence of a bilateral trigeminothalamic system in humans. CONCLUSIONS: Because our study is strictly anatomical, no further conclusions can be drawn with regard to physiological functionality. Future research should explore if the dorsal trigeminothalamic tract and the ventral trigeminothalamic tract actually transmit signals from noxious stimuli, this offers potential in understanding and possibly treating neuropathology in the orofacial region.

Four Decades of Occipital Nerve Stimulation for Headache Disorders: A Systematic Review.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Chronic headaches are a significant source of disability worldwide. Despite the development of conventional strategies, a subset of patients remain refractory and/or experience side effects following these treatments. Hence, occipital nerve stimulation (ONS) should be considered as an alternative strategy for intractable chronic headaches. This review aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the effectiveness, safety, mechanisms and practical application of ONS for the treatment of headache disorders. RECENT FINDINGS: Overall response rate of ONS is 35.7-100%, 17-100%, and 63-100% in patients with cluster headache, chronic migraine and occipital neuralgia respectively. Regarding the long-term effectivity in all groups, 41.6-88.0% of patients remain responders after ≥ 18.3 months. The most frequently reported adverse events include lead migration/fracture (13%) and local pain (7.3%). Based on our results, ONS can be considered a safe and effective treatment for chronic intractable headache disorders. To support more widespread application of ONS, additional research with larger sample sizes should be conducted.

The Untold Story of Occipital Nerve Stimulation in Patients With Cluster Headache: Surgical Technique in Relation to Clinical Efficacy.

OBJECTIVES: Approximately one in every 1000 adults experiences cluster headache (CH). Although occipital nerve stimulation (ONS) appears encouraging in treatment for most patients with refractory CH, some patients do not reach adequate pain relief with ONS. A reason for failure of ONS might be anatomical variations and different surgical approaches. Therefore, an extensive literature analysis was performed, and cadaveric experimentation was combined with our clinical experience to provide a standardized proposal for ONS and obtain optimal management of patients with refractory CH. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data from 36 articles published between 1998 and 2023 were analyzed to retrieve information on the anatomical landmarks and surgical technique of ONS. For the cadaveric experimentation (N = 1), two electrodes were inserted from the region over the foramen magnum and projected toward the lower third of the mastoid process. RESULTS: The existence of multiple approaches of ONS has been confirmed by the present analysis. Discrepancies have been found in the anatomical locations and corresponding landmarks of the greater and lesser occipital nerve. The surgical approaches differed in patient positioning, electrode placement, and imaging techniques, with an overall efficacy range of 35.7% to 90%. CONCLUSIONS: Reports on the surgical approach of ONS remain contradictory, hence emphasizing the need for standardization. Only if all implanting physicians perform the ONS surgery using a standardized protocol, can future data be combined and outcomes compared and analyzed.

Intra- and interindividual attack frequency variability of chronic cluster headache.

BACKGROUND: The lack of knowledge about the intra- and interindividual attack frequency variability in chronic cluster headache complicates power and sample size calculations for baseline periods of trials, and consensus on their most optimal duration. METHODS: We analyzed the 12-week baseline of the ICON trial (occipital nerve stimulation in medically intractable chronic cluster headache) for: (i) weekly vs. instantaneous recording of attack frequency; (ii) intra-individual and seasonal variability of attack frequency; and (iii) the smallest number of weeks to obtain a reliable estimate of baseline attack frequency. RESULTS: Weekly median (14.4 [8.2-24.0]) and instantaneous (14.2 [8.0-24.5]) attack frequency recordings were similar (p = 0.20; Bland-Altman plot). Median weekly attack frequency was 15.3 (range 4.2-140) and highest during spring (p = 0.001) compared to the other seasons. Relative attack frequency variability decreased with increasing attack frequency (p = 0.010). We tabulated the weekly attack frequency estimation accuracies compared to, and the associated deviations from, the 12-week gold standard for different lengths of the observation period. CONCLUSION: Weekly retrospective attack frequency recording is as good as instantaneous recording and more convenient. Attack frequency is highest in spring. Participants with ≥3 daily attacks show less attack frequency variability than those with <3 daily attacks. An optimal balance between 90% accuracy and feasibility is achieved at a baseline period of seven weeks.The ICON trial is registered in ClinicalTrials.gov under number NCT01151631.

Are psychedelics the answer to chronic pain: A review of current literature.

AIMS: We aim to provide an evidence-based overview of the use of psychedelics in chronic pain, specifically LSD and psilocybin. CONTENT: Chronic pain is a common and complex problem, with an unknown etiology. Psychedelics like lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) and psilocybin, may play a role in the management of chronic pain. Through activation of the serotonin-2A (5-HT2A) receptor, several neurophysiological responses result in the disruption of functional connections in brain regions associated with chronic pain. Healthy reconnections can be made through neuroplastic effects, resulting in sustained pain relief. However, this process is not fully understood, and evidence of efficacy is limited and of low quality. In cancer and palliative related pain, the analgesic potential of psychedelics was established decades ago, and the current literature shows promising results on efficacy and safety in patients with cancer-related psychological distress. In other areas, patients suffering from severe headache disorders like migraine and cluster headache who have self-medicated with psychedelics report both acute and prophylactic efficacy of LSD and psilocybin. Randomized control trials are now being conducted to study the effects in cluster headache Furthermore, psychedelics have a generally favorable safety profile especially when compared to other analgesics like opioids. In addition, psychedelics do not have the addictive potential of opioids. IMPLICATIONS: Given the current epidemic use of opioids, and that patients are in desperate need of an alternative treatment, it is important that further research is conducted on the efficacy of psychedelics in chronic pain conditions.

Antiepileptics in migraine prophylaxis: an updated Cochrane review.

INTRODUCTION: The efficacy of several antiepileptics in the preventive treatment of episodic migraine in adults has been systematically reviewed. Because many trial reports have been published since then, an updated systematic review was warranted. METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed/MEDLINE (1966 to January 15, 2013), MEDLINE In-Process (current week, January 15, 2013), and EMBASE (1974 to January 15, 2013) and hand-searched Headache and Cephalalgia through January 2013. Prospective, controlled trials of antiepileptics taken regularly to prevent the occurrence of migraine attacks, to improve migraine-related quality of life, or both, were selected. RESULTS: Mean headache frequency on topiramate and sodium valproate is significantly lower than placebo. Likewise, topiramate and divalproex demonstrated favorable results for the proportion of subjects with ≥ 50% reduction of migraine attacks. For topiramate, 100 mg and 200 mg outperformed 50 mg, but this was paralleled by a higher adverse event rate. For valproate/divalproex, a dose-effect correlation could not be established. There was no unequivocal evidence of efficacy for any of the other antiepileptics. CONCLUSION: Topiramate, sodium valproate and divalproex are effective prophylactic treatments for episodic migraine in adults. In contrast to previous reports, there is insufficient evidence to further support the use of gabapentin.

Extremely low-frequency magnetic field exposure, electrical shocks and risk of Parkinson's disease.

PURPOSE: Previous studies did not provide strong evidence for an increased Parkinson's disease (PD) risk after exposure to extremely low-frequency magnetic fields (ELF-MF), but were limited in their scope to address other exposures related to the use of electricity such as electrical shocks. We evaluated the associations of PD with exposure to ELF-MF, electrical shocks and having worked in "electrical occupations." METHODS: We conducted a hospital-based case-control study, including 444 PD patients and 876 age- and sex-matched controls. Occupational histories were collected in telephone interviews and were linked to job-exposure matrices on ELF-MF exposure and on electrical shocks. In addition, questions on use of household appliances involving ELF-MF exposure, experienced electrical shocks and potential confounders were asked. RESULTS: No association of PD risk with any of the evaluated exposures related to electricity was observed. We did, however, observe quite consistently reduced risk estimates across the majority of the exposure categories explored. Given the results of the previous studies and the absence of any postulated mechanism, this is unlikely to represent a true protective effect of ELF-MF or electrical shocks on the occurrence of PD. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study suggest that no association exists between PD and exposure to ELF-MF, electrical shocks or having worked in "electrical occupations."

Occupational exposure to pesticides and endotoxin and Parkinson disease in the Netherlands.

OBJECTIVES: Previous research has indicated that occupational exposure to pesticides and possibly airborne endotoxin may increase the risk of developing Parkinson disease (PD). We studied the associations of PD with occupational exposure to pesticides, specifically to the functional subclasses insecticides, herbicides and fungicides, and to airborne endotoxin. In addition we evaluated specific pesticides (active ingredients) previously associated with PD. METHODS: We used data from a hospital-based case-control study, including 444 patients with PD and 876 age and sex matched controls. Exposures to pesticides from application and re-entry work were estimated with the ALOHA+job-exposure matrix and with an exposure algorithm based on self-reported information on pesticide use. To assess exposure to specific active ingredients a crop-exposure matrix was developed. Endotoxin exposure was estimated with the DOM job-exposure matrix. RESULTS: The results showed almost no significant associations. However, ORs were elevated in the higher exposure categories for pesticides in general, insecticides, herbicides and fungicides, and below unity for endotoxin exposure. The analyses on specific active ingredients showed a significant association of PD risk with the fungicide benomyl. CONCLUSIONS: This study did not provide evidence for a relation between pesticide exposure and PD. However, the consistently elevated ORs in the higher exposure categories suggest that a positive association may exist. The possible association with the active ingredient benomyl requires follow-up in other studies. This study did not provide support for a possible association between endotoxin exposure and PD.

Occipital nerve stimulation in medically intractable, chronic cluster headache. The ICON study: rationale and protocol of a randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: About 10% of cluster headache patients have the chronic form. At least 10% of this chronic group is intractable to or cannot tolerate medical treatment. Open pilot studies suggest that occipital nerve stimulation (ONS) might offer effective prevention in these patients. Controlled neuromodulation studies in treatments inducing paraesthesias have a general problem in blinding. We have introduced a new design in pain neuromodulation by which we think we can overcome this problem. METHODS/DESIGN: We propose a prospective, randomised, double-blind, parallel-group international clinical study in medically intractable, chronic cluster headache patients of high- versus low-amplitude ONS. Primary outcome measure is the mean number of attacks over the last four weeks. After a study period of six months there is an open extension phase of six months. Alongside the randomised trial an economic evaluation study is performed. DISCUSSION: The ICON study will show if ONS is an effective preventive therapy for patients suffering medically intractable chronic cluster headache and if there is a difference between high- and low-amplitude stimulation. The innovative design of the study will, for the first time, assess efficacy of ONS in a blinded way.

Antiepileptics other than gabapentin, pregabalin, topiramate, and valproate for the prophylaxis of episodic migraine in adults.

BACKGROUND: Some antiepileptic drugs but not others are useful in clinical practice for the prophylaxis of migraine. This might be explained by the variety of actions of these drugs in the central nervous system. The present review is part of an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2004, and previously updated (conclusions not changed) in 2007. OBJECTIVES: To describe and assess the evidence from controlled trials on the efficacy and tolerability of antiepileptic drugs other than gabapentin, pregabalin, topiramate, and valproate (which are the subjects of separate Cochrane reviews) for preventing migraine attacks in adult patients with episodic migraine. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 12), PubMed/MEDLINE (1966 to 15 January 2013), MEDLINE In-Process (current week, 15 January 2013), and EMBASE (1974 to 15 January 2013) and handsearched Headache and Cephalalgia through January 2013. SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies were required to be prospective, controlled trials of antiepileptic drugs other than gabapentin, pregabalin, topiramate, and valproate taken regularly to prevent the occurrence of migraine attacks, to improve migraine-related quality of life, or both. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies and extracted data. For headache frequency data, we calculated mean differences (MDs) between antiepileptic drugs and comparators (placebo, active control, or same drug in a different dose) for individual studies and pooled these across studies. For dichotomous data on responders (patients with ≥ 50% reduction in headache frequency), we calculated odds ratios (ORs) and numbers needed to treat (NNTs). We also summarised data on adverse events from placebo-controlled trials and calculated risk differences (RDs) and numbers needed to harm (NNHs). MAIN RESULTS: Eleven papers describing 10 unique trials met the inclusion criteria. The 10 trials reported results for nine antiepileptic drugs other than gabapentin, pregabalin, topiramate, and valproate. Six of the eight drugs investigated in placebo-controlled trials were not better than placebo in reducing headache frequency per 28-day period during treatment (clonazepam, lamotrigine, oxcarbazepine, and vigabatrin) and/or in the proportion of responders (acetazolamide, carisbamate, lamotrigine, oxcarbazepine). One prospective, randomised, double-blind, single cross-over trial of 48 patients demonstrated a significant superiority of carbamazepine over placebo in the proportion of responders (OR 11.77; 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.92 to 35.32). The NNT was 2 (95% CI 2 to 3). In a small prospective, randomised, double-blind, parallel-group trial, levetiracetam 1000 mg was significantly superior to placebo in reducing headache frequency per 28-day period during treatment (MD -2.40; 95% CI -4.52 to -0.28; 26 patients), as well as in the proportion of responders (OR 26.07; 95% CI 1.30 to 521.91; 26 patients). The NNT was 2 (95% CI 1 to 4). The same trial examined levetiracetam 1000 mg versus topiramate 100 mg and found a small but significant difference favouring topiramate in headache frequency per 28-day period during treatment (MD 1.40; 95% CI 0.14 to 2.66; 28 patients). There was no significant difference between levetiracetam and topiramate in the proportion of responders (OR 0.71; 95% CI 0.16 to 3.23; 28 patients). Finally, one trial with 75 participants examined zonisamide versus topiramate (200 and 100 mg, respectively) and found no significant difference between them in reduction of headache frequency from baseline during the third month of treatment. Adverse events for active treatment versus placebo were available for all investigated drugs except levetiracetam, vigabatrin, and zonisamide. A high prevalence of adverse events was noted for carbamazepine, with a NNH of only 2 (95% CI 2 to 4). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Available evidence does not allow robust conclusions regarding the efficacy of antiepileptic drugs other than gabapentin, pregabalin, topiramate, and valproate in the prophylaxis of episodic migraine among adults. Acetazolamide, carisbamate, clonazepam, lamotrigine, oxcarbazepine, and vigabatrin were not more effective than placebo in reducing headache frequency. In one trial each, carbamazepine and levetiracetam were significantly superior to placebo in reducing headache frequency, and there was no significant difference in proportion of responders between zonisamide and active comparator. These three positive studies suffer from considerable methodological limitations.

Topiramate for the prophylaxis of episodic migraine in adults.

BACKGROUND: Some antiepileptic drugs but not others are useful in clinical practice for the prophylaxis of migraine. This might be explained by the variety of actions of these drugs in the central nervous system. The present review is part of an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2004, and previously updated (conclusions not changed) in 2007. OBJECTIVES: To describe and assess the evidence from controlled trials on the efficacy and tolerability of topiramate for preventing migraine attacks in adult patients with episodic migraine. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 12), PubMed/MEDLINE (1966 to 15 January 2013), MEDLINE In-Process (current week, 15 January 2013), and EMBASE (1974 to 15 January 2013) and handsearched Headache and Cephalalgia through January 2013. SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies were required to be prospective, controlled trials of topiramate taken regularly to prevent the occurrence of migraine attacks, to improve migraine-related quality of life, or both. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies and extracted data. For headache frequency data, we calculated mean differences (MDs) between topiramate and comparator (placebo, active control, or topiramate in a different dose) for individual studies and pooled these across studies. For dichotomous data on responders (patients with ≥ 50% reduction in headache frequency), we calculated odds ratios (ORs) and, in select cases, risk ratios (RRs); we also calculated numbers needed to treat (NNTs). We calculated MDs for selected quality of life instruments. Finally, we summarised data on adverse events from placebo-controlled trials and calculated risk differences (RDs) and numbers needed to harm (NNHs). MAIN RESULTS: Twenty papers describing 17 unique trials met the inclusion criteria. Analysis of data from nine trials (1737 participants) showed that topiramate reduced headache frequency by about 1.2 attacks per 28 days as compared to placebo (MD -1.20; 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.59 to -0.80). Data from nine trials (1190 participants) show that topiramate approximately doubled the proportion of responders relative to placebo (RR 2.02; 95% CI 1.57 to 2.60; NNT 4; 95% CI 3 to 6). Separate analysis of different topiramate doses produced similar MDs versus placebo at 50 mg (-0.95; 95% CI -1.95 to 0.04; three studies; 520 participants), 100 mg (-1.15; 95% CI -1.58 to -0.71; six studies; 1620 participants), and 200 mg (-0.94; 95% CI -1.53 to -0.36; five studies; 804 participants). All three doses significantly increased the proportion of responders relative to placebo; ORs were as follows: for 50 mg, 2.35 (95% CI 1.60 to 3.44; three studies; 519 participants); for 100 mg, 3.49 (95% CI 2.23 to 5.45; five studies; 852 participants); and for 200 mg, 2.49 (95% CI 1.61 to 3.87; six studies; 1025 participants). All three doses also significantly improved three or more domains of quality of life as compared to placebo. Meta-analysis of the three studies that included more than one dose of topiramate suggests that 200 mg is no more effective than 100 mg. With regard to mean headache frequency and/or responder rate, seven trials using active comparators found (a) no significant difference between topiramate and amitriptyline (one study, 330 participants); (b) no significant difference between topiramate and flunarizine (one study, 83 participants); (c) no significant difference between topiramate and propranolol (two studies, 342 participants); (d) no significant difference between topiramate and relaxation (one study, 61 participants); but (e) a slight significant advantage of topiramate over valproate (two studies, 120 participants). Relaxation improved migraine-specific quality of life significantly more than topiramate. In trials of topiramate against placebo, seven adverse events (AEs) were reported by at least three studies. These were usually mild and of a non-serious nature. Except for taste disturbance and weight loss, there were no significant differences in the frequency of AEs in general, or of the seven specific AEs, between placebo and topiramate 50 mg. AEs in general and all of the specific AEs except nausea were significantly more common on topiramate 100 mg than on placebo, with NNHs varying from 3 to 25, and the RDs versus placebo were even higher for topiramate 200 mg, with NNHs varying from 2 to 17. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Meta-analysis demonstrates that topiramate in a 100 mg/day dosage is effective in reducing headache frequency and reasonably well-tolerated in adult patients with episodic migraine. This provides good evidence to support its use in routine clinical management. More studies designed specifically to compare the efficacy or safety of topiramate versus other interventions with proven efficacy in the prophylaxis of migraine are needed.

Gabapentin or pregabalin for the prophylaxis of episodic migraine in adults.

BACKGROUND: Some antiepileptic drugs but not others are useful in clinical practice for the prophylaxis of migraine. This might be explained by the variety of actions of these drugs in the central nervous system. The present review is part of an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2004, and previously updated (conclusions not changed) in 2007. OBJECTIVES: To describe and assess the evidence from controlled trials on the efficacy and tolerability of gabapentin/gabapentin enacarbil or pregabalin for preventing migraine attacks in adult patients with episodic migraine. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 12), PubMed/MEDLINE (1966 to 15 January 2013), MEDLINE In-Process (current week, 15 January 2013), and EMBASE (1974 to 15 January 2013) and handsearched Headache and Cephalalgia through January 2013. SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies were required to be prospective, controlled trials of gabapentin/gabapentin enacarbil or pregabalin taken regularly to prevent the occurrence of migraine attacks, to improve migraine-related quality of life, or both. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies and extracted data. For headache frequency data, we calculated mean differences (MDs) between gabapentin and comparator (placebo, active control, or gabapentin in a different dose) for individual studies and pooled these across studies. For dichotomous data on responders (patients with ≥ 50% reduction in headache frequency), we calculated odds ratios (ORs) and numbers needed to treat (NNTs). We also summarised data on adverse events from all single dosage studies and calculated risk differences (RDs) and numbers needed to harm (NNHs). MAIN RESULTS: Five trials on gabapentin and one trial on its prodrug gabapentin enacarbil met the inclusion criteria; no reports on pregabalin were identified. In total, data from 1009 patients were considered. One trial each of gabapentin 900 mg (53 patients), and gabapentin titrated to 1200 mg (63 patients) and 1800 mg (122 patients) failed to show a statistically significant reduction in headache frequency in the active treatment group as compared to the placebo group, whereas one trial of gabapentin titrated to 1800 to 2400 mg (113 patients) demonstrated a small but statistically significant superiority of active treatment for this outcome (MD -0.80; 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.55 to -0.05). The pooled results of these four studies (MD -0.44; 95% CI -1.43 to 0.56; 351 patients) do not demonstrate a significant difference between gabapentin and placebo. One trial of gabapentin titrated to 1800 mg (122 patients) failed to demonstrate a significant difference between active treatment and placebo in the proportion of responders (OR 0.97; 95% CI 0.45 to 2.11), whereas one trial of gabapentin titrated to 1800 to 2400 mg (113 patients) demonstrated a small but statistically significant superiority of active treatment for this outcome (OR 2.79; 95% CI 1.09 to 7.17). The pooled results of these two studies (OR 1.59; 95% CI 0.57 to 4.46; 235 patients) do not demonstrate a significant difference between gabapentin and placebo. Comparisons from one study (135 patients) suggest that gabapentin 2000 mg is no more effective than gabapentin 1200 mg. One trial of gabapentin enacarbil (523 participants) failed to demonstrate a significant difference versus placebo or between doses for gabapentin enacarbil titrated to between 1200 mg and 3000 mg with regard to proportion of responders; there was also no evidence of a dose-response trend. Adverse events, most notably dizziness and somnolence, were common with gabapentin. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The pooled evidence derived from trials of gabapentin suggests that it is not efficacious for the prophylaxis of episodic migraine in adults. Since adverse events were common among the gabapentin-treated patients, it is advocated that gabapentin should not be used in routine clinical practice. Gabapentin enacarbil is not efficacious for the prophylaxis of episodic migraine in adults. There is no published evidence from controlled trials of pregabalin for the prophylaxis of episodic migraine in adults.

Valproate (valproic acid or sodium valproate or a combination of the two) for the prophylaxis of episodic migraine in adults.

BACKGROUND: Some antiepileptic drugs but not others are useful in clinical practice for the prophylaxis of migraine. This might be explained by the variety of actions of these drugs in the central nervous system. The present review is part of an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2004, and previously updated (conclusions not changed) in 2007. OBJECTIVES: To describe and assess the evidence from controlled trials on the efficacy and tolerability of valproate (valproic acid or sodium valproate or a combination of the two) for preventing migraine attacks in adult patients with episodic migraine. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 12), PubMed/MEDLINE (1966 to 15 January 2013), MEDLINE In-Process (current week, 15 January 2013), and EMBASE (1974 to 15 January 2013) and handsearched Headache and Cephalalgia through January 2013. SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies were required to be prospective, controlled trials of valproate taken regularly to prevent the occurrence of migraine attacks, to improve migraine-related quality of life, or both. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies and extracted data. For headache frequency data, we calculated mean differences (MDs) between valproate and comparator (placebo, active control, or valproate in a different dose) for individual studies and pooled these across studies. For dichotomous data on responders (patients with ≥ 50% reduction in headache frequency), we calculated odds ratios (ORs) and, in select cases, risk ratios (RRs); we also calculated numbers needed to treat (NNTs). We calculated MDs for Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) scores. We also summarised data on adverse events from placebo-controlled trials and calculated risk differences (RDs) and numbers needed to harm (NNHs). MAIN RESULTS: Ten papers describing 10 unique trials met the inclusion criteria. Analysis of data from two trials (63 participants) showed that sodium valproate reduced headache frequency by approximately four headaches per 28 days as compared to placebo (MD -4.31; 95% confidence interval (CI) -8.32 to -0.30). Data from four trials (542 participants) showed that divalproex sodium (a stable combination of sodium valproate and valproic acid in a 1:1 molar ratio) more than doubled the proportion of responders relative to placebo (RR 2.18; 95% CI 1.28 to 3.72; NNT 4; 95% CI 2 to 11). One study of sodium valproate (34 participants) versus placebo supported the latter findings (RR for responders 2.83; 95% CI 1.27 to 6.31; NNT 3; 95% CI 2 to 9). There was no significant difference in the proportion of responders between sodium valproate versus flunarizine (one trial, 41 participants) or between divalproex sodium versus propranolol (one trial, 32 participants). Pooled analysis of post-treatment mean headache frequencies in two trials (88 participants) demonstrates a slight but significant advantage for topiramate 50 mg over valproate 400 mg (MD -0.90; 95% CI -1.58 to -0.22). For placebo-controlled trials of sodium valproate and divalproex sodium, NNHs for clinically important adverse events ranged from 7 to 14. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Valproate is effective in reducing headache frequency and is reasonably well tolerated in adult patients with episodic migraine.

A prospective open label 2-8 year extension of the randomised controlled ICON trial on the long-term efficacy and safety of occipital nerve stimulation in medically intractable chronic cluster headache.

BACKGROUND: We demonstrated in the randomised controlled ICON study that 48-week treatment of medically intractable chronic cluster headache (MICCH) with occipital nerve stimulation (ONS) is safe and effective. In L-ICON we prospectively evaluate its long-term effectiveness and safety. METHODS: ICON participants were enrolled in L-ICON immediately after completing ICON. Therefore, earlier ICON participants could be followed longer than later ones. L-ICON inclusion was stopped after the last ICON participant was enrolled in L-ICON and followed for ≥2 years by completing six-monthly questionnaires on attack frequency, side effects, subjective improvement and whether they would recommend ONS to others. Primary outcome was the change in mean weekly attack frequency 2 years after completion of the ICON study compared to baseline. Missing values for log-transformed attack-frequency were imputed for up to 5 years of follow-up. Descriptive analyses are presented as (pooled) geometric or arithmetic means and 95% confidence intervals. FINDINGS: Of 103 eligible participants, 88 (85%) gave informed consent and 73 (83%) were followed for ≥2 year, 61 (69%) ≥ 3 year, 33 (38%) ≥ 5 years and 3 (3%) ≥ 8.5 years. Mean (±SD) follow-up was 4.2 ± 2.2 years for a total of 370 person years (84% of potentially 442 years). The pooled geometric mean (95% CI) weekly attack frequency remained considerably lower after one (4.2; 2.8-6.3), two (5.1; 3.5-7.6) and five years (4.1; 3.0-5.5) compared to baseline (16.2; 14.4-18.3). Of the 49/88 (56%) ICON ≥50% responders, 35/49 (71%) retained this response and 15/39 (38%) ICON non-responders still became a ≥50% responder for at least half the follow-up period. Most participants (69/88; 78% [0.68-0.86]) reported a subjective improvement from baseline at last follow-up and 70/88 (81% [0.70-0.87]) would recommend ONS to others. Hardware-related surgery was required in 44/88 (50%) participants in 112/122 (92%) events (0.35 person-year-1 [0.28-0.41]). We didn't find predictive factors for effectiveness. INTERPRETATION: ONS is a safe, well-tolerated and long-term effective treatment for MICCH. FUNDING: The Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research, the Dutch Ministry of Health, the NutsOhra Foundation from the Dutch Health Insurance Companies, and Medtronic.

White matter changes in the trigeminal spinal tract in chronic migraineurs: an ex vivo study combining ultra-high-field diffusion tensor imaging and polarized light imaging microscopy.

ABSTRACT: Chronic migraine (CM) is a disabling neurologic disorder that affects approximately 2% of the general population. Neuroimaging studies show functional involvement of trigeminal structures, such as the trigeminal spinal nucleus (Sp5) in migraine. However, structural changes in the Sp5 and the afferent trigeminal spinal tract (sp5) have never been found. The aim of this study was to test the hypothesis that white matter changes in the sp5 are a key feature of brain alterations in patients with CM. We used diffusion magnetic resonance imaging and polarized light imaging of postmortem brainstem specimens from healthy controls (n = 5) and patients with CM (n = 5) to study white matter alterations in the sp5. Within the sp5, diffusion magnetic resonance imaging metrics included fractional anisotropy, mean diffusivity, axial diffusivity, and radial diffusivity values. Polarized light imaging was used to assess myelin density by a measure of the retardance values in the sp5. This study provides histological evidence that structural alterations occur in the sp5 in patients with CM as compared with healthy controls. Myelin density, as assessed by retardance values, showed to be higher, and a corresponding increase in fractional anisotropy values was observed. In addition, accompanying decreases in mean diffusivity, axial diffusivity, and radial diffusivity values were observed. This study shows that the sp5 undergoes neuroplastic changes, a feature which substantiates evidence for the hyperactivity of the Sp5 in patients with migraine. More insights are needed to observe whether these changes only occur in patients with CM.

Safety and efficacy of occipital nerve stimulation for attack prevention in medically intractable chronic cluster headache (ICON): a randomised, double-blind, multicentre, phase 3, electrical dose-controlled trial.

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

The ParkinsonNet concept: development, implementation and initial experience.

The quality and efficiency of allied health care in Parkinson's disease (PD) must be improved. We have developed the ParkinsonNet concept: a professional regional network within the catchment area of hospitals. ParkinsonNet aims to: (1) improve PD-specific expertise among allied health personnel, by training a selected number of therapists according to evidence-based guidelines; (2) enhance the accuracy of referrals by neurologists; (3) boost patient volumes per therapist, by stimulating preferred referral to ParkinsonNet therapists; and (4) stimulate collaboration between therapists, neurologists, and patients. We describe the procedures for developing a ParkinsonNet network. Our initial experience with this new concept is promising, showing an increase in PD-specific and a steady rise in the patient volume of individual therapists.

Safety and efficacy of galcanezumab in patients for whom previous migraine preventive medication from two to four categories had failed (CONQUER): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3b trial.

BACKGROUND: Many patients who require migraine preventive treatment have not been able to tolerate or have not responded to multiple previous preventive medications. We aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of galcanezumab, an antibody to calcitonin gene-related peptide, in patients with migraine who had not benefited from preventive medications from two to four categories. METHODS: CONQUER was a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3b trial done at 64 sites (hospitals, clinics, or research centres) in 12 countries (Belgium, Canada, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Hungary, Japan, the Netherlands, South Korea, Spain, the UK, and the USA). Patients were 18-75 years of age, with episodic or chronic migraine, with migraine onset before the age of 50 years, who had a documented failure of preventive medications from two to four drug categories in the past 10 years owing to lack of efficacy or tolerability, or both. Patients were randomised 1:1 to receive subcutaneous placebo or galcanezumab 120 mg per month (with a 240 mg loading dose administered as two 120 mg injections) for 3 months. For masking purposes, patients receiving placebo also received two injections during the first dosing visit. Randomisation was done by a computer-generated random sequence by means of an interactive web-response system stratified by country and migraine frequency (low frequency episodic migraine, four to fewer than eight migraine headache days per month; high frequency episodic migraine, eight to 14 migraine headache days per month and fewer than 15 headache days per month; chronic migraine, at least eight migraine headache days per month and at least 15 headache days per month). The primary endpoint was the overall mean change from baseline in number of monthly migraine headache days during the 3-month treatment period in all patients who were randomly assigned and received at least one dose of study drug. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03559257, and is now completed. FINDINGS: Between Sept 10, 2018, and March 21, 2019, 462 participants with episodic (269 [58%]) or chronic (193 [42%]) migraine were randomly assigned and received at least one injection with placebo (n=230) or galcanezumab (n=232). Galcanezumab-treated patients had significantly greater reduction in migraine headache days versus placebo across months 1-3. The galcanezumab group had on average 4·1 fewer monthly migraine headache days compared with baseline (13·4), while the placebo group had on average 1·0 fewer than at baseline (13·0; between-group difference -3·1 [95% CI -3·9 to -2·3]; p<0·0001; effect size=0·72). Types and number of treatment-emergent adverse events were similar between galcanezumab and placebo. Treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in 122 (53%) of 230 patients in the placebo group and 119 (51%) of 232 patients in the galcanezumab group. There were four serious adverse events during the study, two (1%) reported in the placebo group and two (1%) reported in the galcanezumab group. INTERPRETATION: Galcanezumab was superior to placebo in the preventive treatment of migraine and was safe and well tolerated in patients for whom multiple previous standard-of-care preventive treatments had failed. Galcanezumab might represent an important treatment option for patients who have not benefited from or tolerated previous standard-of-care treatments. FUNDING: Eli Lilly.

Allied health care in Parkinson's disease: referral, consultation, and professional expertise.

There is evidence for the efficacy of allied health care in Parkinson's disease (PD). However, barriers exist that hamper implementation of evidence into daily practice. We conducted a survey to investigate: (1) to what extent PD patients currently utilize allied health care for relevant problems in the core areas of allied health care and (2) the level of PD-specific expertise among allied health professionals. Questionnaires were sent to 260 patients and 297 allied health professionals. Referral rates were 63% for physical therapy, 9% for occupational therapy, and 14% for speech therapy. PD patients with problems that can potentially be alleviated by input from allied health professionals are often not being referred. Furthermore, most patients were treated by allied health professionals who lacked PD-specific expertise. Current referral to and delivery of allied health care in PD are suboptimal. Evidence-based guidelines for allied health care in PD and active implementation of these guidelines are needed.