Clinical features of chronic cluster headache based on the third edition of the International Classification of Headache Disorders: A prospective multicentre study.

The criterion for the remission period of chronic cluster headache (CCH) was recently revised from < 1 month to < 3 months in the third edition of the International Classification of Headache Disorders (ICHD-3). However, information on the clinical features of CCH based on the ICHD-3 criteria is currently limited. The present study aimed to investigate the clinical features of CCH based on ICHD-3 using data from the Korean Cluster Headache Registry (KCHR). The KCHR is a multicentre prospective registry of patients with cluster headache (CH) from 15 hospitals. Among the 250 participants with CH, 12 and 176 participants were classified as having CCH and episodic cluster headache (ECH), respectively. Among 12 participants with CCH, 6 (50%) had remission periods of < 1 month, and the remaining 6 (50%) had a remission period of 1-3 months. Six participants had CCH from the time of onset of CH, and in the other 6 participants, CCH evolved from ECH. CCH subjects had later age of onset of CH, developed the condition after a longer interval after CH onset, and had more migraine and less nasal congestion and/or rhinorrhoea than ECH subjects. Clinical features of CCH with remission periods < 1 month were not significantly different from those of CCH with remission periods of 1-3 months, except for the total number of bouts. More current smoking and less diurnal rhythmicity were observed in participants with CCH evolved from ECH compared to those with ECH. In conclusion, the number of subjects with CCH doubled when the revised ICHD-3 criteria were used. Most of clinical characteristics of CCH did not differ when the previous and current version of ICHD was applied and compared. Some clinical features of CCH were different from those of ECH, and smoking may have a role in CH chronification.

Cluster headache - clinical pattern and a new severity scale in a Swedish cohort.

Background The aim of this study was to investigate clinical features of a cluster headache cohort in Sweden and to construct and test a new scale for grading severity. Methods Subjects were identified by screening medical records for the ICD 10 code G44.0, that is, cluster headache. Five hundred participating research subjects filled in a questionnaire including personal, demographic and medical aspects. We constructed a novel scale for grading cluster headache in this cohort: The Cluster Headache Severity Scale, which included number of attacks per day, attack and period duration. The lowest total score was three and the highest 12, and we used the Cluster Headache Severity Scale to grade subjects suffering from cluster headache. We further implemented the scale by defining a cluster headache maximum severity subgroup with a high Cluster Headache Severity Scale score ≥ 9. Results A majority (66.7%) of the patients reported that attacks appear at certain time intervals. In addition, cluster headache patients who were current tobacco users or had a history of tobacco consumption had a later age of disease onset (31.7 years) compared to non-tobacco users (28.5 years). The Cluster Headache Severity Scale score was higher in the patient group reporting sporadic or no alcohol intake than in the groups reporting an alcohol consumption of three to four standard units per week or more. Maximum severity cluster headache patients were characterised by higher age at disease onset, greater use of prophylactic medication, reduced hours of sleep, and lower alcohol consumption compared to the non-cluster headache maximum severity group. Conclusion There was a wide variation of severity grade among cluster headache patients, with a very marked impact on daily living for the most profoundly affected.

Diagnosing and understanding adult headache.

Primary headaches are the most common headache disorders. The most common forms are tension-type headaches, migraine, and cluster headache. Knowing the clinical presentation coupled with taking a thorough history taking and performing a thorough physical examination usually helps in arriving at a correct diagnosis. Special attention should be paid to unusual clinical presentations. Further diagnostic work-up should be performed in the presence of atypical and worrisome signs.

Cluster-like headache. A comprehensive reappraisal.

Among the primary headaches, cluster headache (CH) presents very particular features allowing a relatively easy diagnosis based on criteria listed in Chapter 3 of the International Classification of Headache Disorders (ICHD-II). However, as in all primary headaches, possible underlying causal conditions must be excluded to rule out a secondary cluster-like headache (CLH). The observation of some cases with clinical features mimicking primary CH, but of secondary origin, led us to perform an extended review of CLH reports in the literature. We identified 156 CLH cases published from 1975 to 2008. The more frequent pathologies in association with CLH were the vascular ones (38.5%, n = 57), followed by tumours (25.7%, n = 38) and inflammatory infectious diseases (13.5%, n = 20). Eighty were excluded from further analysis, because of inadequate information. The remaining 76 were divided into two groups: those that satisfied the ICHD-II diagnostic criteria for CH, 'fulfilling' group (F), n = 38; and those with a symptomatology in disagreement with one or more ICHD-II criteria, 'not fulfilling' group (NF), n = 38. Among the aims of this study was the possible identification of clinical features leading to the suspicion of a symptomatic origin. In the differential diagnosis with CH, red flags resulted both for F and NF, older age at onset; for NF, abnormal neurological/general examination (73.6%), duration (34.2%), frequency (15.8%) and localization (10.5%) of the attacks. We stress the fact that, on first observation, 50% of CLH presented as F cases, perfectly mimicking CH. Therefore, the importance of accurate, clinical evaluation and of neuroimaging cannot be overestimated.

Trigeminal autonomic cephalalgias. Part 1: cluster headache.

Cluster headache is characterized by severe, strictly unilateral pain attacks lasting 15 to 180 minutes localized to orbital, temporal, and midface areas accompanied by ipsilateral autonomic features. It represents 1 of 3 primary headaches classified as trigeminal autonomic cephalalgias. While its prevalence is small, it is not uncommon for cluster headache patients to present at dental offices seeking relief for their pain. It is important for oral health care providers to recognize cluster headache and render an accurate diagnosis. This will avoid the pitfall of implementing unnecessary and inappropriate traditional dental treatments in hopes of alleviating this neurovascular pain. The following article is part 1 of a review on trigeminal autonomic cephalalgias and focuses on cluster headache. Aspects of cluster headache including its prevalence and incidence, genetics, pathophysiology, clinical presentation, classification and variants, diagnosis, medical management, and dental considerations are discussed.

Relationship between oral surgical and endodontic procedures and episodic cluster headache.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to evaluate the possible relationship between oral surgery and endodontic procedures and the subsequent appearance of cluster headache (CH) in 54 patients. STUDY DESIGN: This study included 54 patients diagnosed and treated for episodic CH. The characteristics of pain, the extractions, and the endodontic procedures performed in the same or a contralateral quadrant were recorded and analyzed by using the chi-square test. RESULTS: Prior tooth extraction or endodontics had been performed in the pain-affected quadrant in 58% of cases and in the contralateral quadrant in 33%. The differences between quadrants were statistically significant. After the onset of pain, extractions were performed in the affected quadrant in 44% of patients. CONCLUSIONS: Although the appearance of pain after dental extraction could suggest a relationship between damage to the nerve supply and the development of CH, the possibility that dental extraction and endodontics may have been performed in response to CH-related pain must also be taken into account. With respect to the differential diagnosis of pain, it is easy for CH to be misdiagnosed as dental pulp pain.

[Treatment of cluster headache]. / Le traitement de l'algie vasculaire de la face.

INTRODUCTION: The cluster headache (CH) is one of the most severe types of head pain. It is a typical example of a periodic disease and the International Headache Society classification recognizes two forms of this disease: episodic and chronic CH. Its prevalence is about 0.1 to 0.4% in the general population. PATHOPHYSIOLOGY: A global hypothesis is still lacking to explain the pain, the vasodilation, the autonomic features (ipsilateral lacrimation, conjunctiva injection, rhinorrhea, partial Horner syndrome, etc.) and the periodicity of the CH. Pain and vasodilation seem secondary to an activation of the trigeminal vascular system and the periodicity of the attacks is thought to be due to a dysfunction of hypothalamic biologic clock mechanisms. Treatment of acute CH attacks. The most effective agents are oxygen inhalation and subcutaneous sumatriptan, a 5HT1B and D receptor agonist which has vasoconstrictor and anti-neurogenic inflammation properties by blocking the release from the trigeminal-sensitive fibers of neuropeptides such as CGRP and substance P. With subcutaneous sumatriptan, headache relief is very rapid, within 5 to 10 min. Prophylactic treatment of CH: The number of attacks per day varies from one to three, but some patients can have four to eight per day and acute treatments fail to provide sufficient relief or give rise to side-effects. Several different regimens have been proven effective. FUTURE PROSPECTS AND PROJECTS: Contraindications and side-effects of the drugs limit the choice of the prophylactic treatment: corticosteroids in a tapering course, verapamil and methysergide are the most useful treatments of the episodic form. Lithium carbonate is more effective for the chronic stage of CH, but side-effects are often troublesome. Numerous other medications have been used for prophylaxis: valproate, capsaicin, beta-blockers. Unfortunately, double-blind studies are often lacking and are difficult to realize due to spontaneous variable remission of episodic CH. When adequate trials of drug therapies show a total resistance to the treatments, surgery may be considered. Radiofrequency trigeminal rhizotomy is the treatment of choice with 70% of beneficial effects. Risks and complications have to be discussed in balance with the benefit of the different surgical procedures.

Primary and secondary chronic cluster headache: two separate entities?

The International Headache Society (IHS) classification divides chronic cluster headache (CH) into two subtypes: chronic CH unremitting from onset (CCHU) and chronic CH evolved from episodic (CCHE). The purpose of our study was to point out any similarities and differences between the two chronic CH subtypes and to determine whether or not they can be considered as two separate clinical entities. We reviewed data about 31 CCHE patients and 38 CCHU patients referred to the Parma Headache Centre between 1975 and 1999. Clinically, CCHE patients exhibited statistically significant differences from CCHU patients, i.e. earlier CH onset and duration of attacks varying more frequently between 120 and 180 min. From the point of view of lifestyle, heavy alcohol and coffee drinkers prevailed among CCHU patients, while CCHE patients were more frequently heavy smokers. Based on clinical features, it seems reasonable to suppose that chronic CH may occur as two distinct entities.

Long-term results of radiofrequency rhizotomy in the treatment of cluster headache.

Although the primary treatment of chronic cluster headache is medical, surgical treatment is sometimes used. The authors reviewed the charts of seven patients (ages 36 to 68 years) with chronic cluster headache to identify who responded best to percutaneous stereotactic radiofrequency rhizotomy after medical treatment failed. All patients had immediate pain relief after surgery. At follow-up (median 5 years, range 2 to 20 years), two patients remained pain-free 7 and 20 years later (excellent results); three patients had mild pain recurrence that was well controlled on medications (good results) 6 to 12 months after surgery; and two patients had major pain recurrence 4 days and 2 months after surgery (poor results). Six patients had relief of vasomotor symptoms. One patient had transient diplopia and keratitis without permanent sequelae. Both patients with excellent results had preoperative major pain around the eye; both patients with poor results had major pain around the temple, ear, and cheek; and the three patients with good results had pain equally severe in the eye, temple, and cheek. There was no association between patient age or sex, pain duration, preoperative response to lidocaine blockade, or previous surgery with pain relief. No differences occurred in pain relief between patients with dense hypalgesia and patients with analgesia. The authors conclude that (1) some patients with chronic cluster headache treated by percutaneous stereotactic radiofrequency rhizotomy achieve long-term pain relief, and (2) surgery on the trigeminovascular system alone may not cure the condition in patients with major pain around the temple, ear, and cheek.