Efficacy of surgical treatment in patients with trigeminal neuralgia secondary to multiple sclerosis: A prospective study of 18 cases with evaluation of outcome and complications by independent evaluators.

INTRODUCTION: Medical treatments for trigeminal neuralgia secondary to multiple sclerosis have low efficacy and tolerability and scientific evidence regarding efficacy of neurosurgery is scarce. We aimed to assess neurosurgical outcome and complications in trigeminal neuralgia secondary to multiple sclerosis. METHODS: Patients with trigeminal neuralgia secondary to multiple sclerosis who underwent microvascular decompression, glycerol rhizolysis or balloon compression were prospectively and consecutively included from 2012 to 2019. Preoperatively, we systematically obtained clinical characteristics and performed a 3.0 Tesla MRI. Follow-up at three, six and 12 months was performed by independent assessors. RESULTS: We included 18 patients. Of the seven patients treated with microvascular decompression, two patients (29%) had an excellent outcome (both had neurovascular contact with morphological changes), three patients (43%) had a good outcome, one patient (14%) had treatment failure and one patient (14%) had a fatal outcome. Three patients (43%) had major complications. Of 11 patients treated with percutaneous procedures, seven patients (64%) had an excellent or good outcome with major complications in three patients (27%). CONCLUSION: Percutaneous procedures provided acceptable outcome and complication rates and should be offered to the majority of patients with trigeminal neuralgia secondary to multiple sclerosis who need surgery. Microvascular decompression is less effective and has a higher complication rate in trigeminal neuralgia secondary to multiple sclerosis compared to microvascular decompression in classical and idiopathic trigeminal neuralgia. Microvascular decompression should only be considered in patients with trigeminal neuralgia secondary to multiple sclerosis when they have neurovascular contact with morphological changes.

Comparing migraine with and without aura to healthy controls using RNA sequencing.

BACKGROUND: Migraine mechanisms are *These authors contributed equally to this work. only partly known. Some studies have previously described genes differentially expressed between blood from migraineurs and controls. The objective of this study was to describe gene expression in subtypes of migraine outside of attack and in healthy controls. METHODS: We extensively phenotyped 17 migraine without aura and nine migraine with aura female patients, and 20 age-matched female controls. Cubital venous blood was RNA sequenced. Genes differentially expressed between migraineurs (migraine without aura and migraine with aura) and controls, and between migraine without aura and migraine with aura were identified using a case-control design. A co-expression network was constructed to investigate the difference between migraineurs and healthy controls at the network level. RESULTS: We found two differentially expressed genes: NMNAT2 and RETN. Both were differentially expressed between migraine with aura and controls, but they could not be replicated in an independent cohort. Co-expression network analysis resulted in one cluster of highly interconnected genes that was nominally significantly associated with migraine; however, no pathways or gene ontology terms were detected. CONCLUSIONS: We showed no clear distinct difference in gene expression profiles of peripheral blood of migraineurs and controls and were not able to replicate findings from previous studies. A larger sample size may be needed to detect minor differences.

Histamine and migraine revisited: mechanisms and possible drug targets.

OBJECTIVE: To review the existing literature on histamine and migraine with a focus on the molecule, its receptors, its use in inducing migraine, and antihistamines in the treatment of migraine. BACKGROUND: Histamine has been known to cause a vascular type headache for almost a hundred years. Research has focused on antihistamines as a possible treatment and histamine as a migraine provoking agent but there has been little interest in this field for the last 25 years. In recent years two additional histamine (H3 and H4) receptors have been discovered and a series of non-sedating antihistamines have been developed. It is therefore timely to review the field again. METHODS: For this review the PubMed/MEDLINE database was searched for eligible studies. We searched carefully for all articles on histamine, antihistamines and histamine receptors in relation to migraine and the nervous system. The following search terms were used: histamine, migraine disorders, migraine, headache, antihistamines, histamine antagonists, clinical trials, induced headache, histamine H3 receptor, histamine H4 receptor and pharmacology. Four hundred thirty-six titles were read, 135 abstracts were read, 112 articles were read in full and 53 articles were used in this review. Review process resulted in 12 articles added to a total of 65. FINDINGS: Early studies of H1 and H2 antihistamines lack scientific strength and show conflicting results. Most of the antihistaminic drugs used in these trials bind also to other receptors which makes it difficult to conclude on the antihistaminic effect. Histamine is an efficient inducer of migraine attacks in migraine patients by an H1 mechanism most likely extracerebrally. These findings merit further investigation of antihistamines in clinical drug trials. The H3 and H4 receptors are found in primarily in CNS and immune tissues, respectively. H3 is likely to be involved in antinociception and has been linked with cognitive, neurodegenerative and sleep disorders. The only marketed H3 agent, pitolisant, is a brain penetrant H3 antagonist/inverse agonist which increases central histamine and causes headache. The experimental H3 agonist Nα-methylhistamine has shown promising results as a migraine preventative in studies of uncertain quality. With the current limited knowledge of the H4 receptor it is questionable whether or not the receptor is involved in migraine. CONCLUSION: There is insufficient support for first generation antihistamines (both H1 and H2) as preventive migraine medications and sedation and weight gain are unacceptable side effects. Non-sedating H1 antihistamines need to be appropriately tested. Central H3 receptors seem to have a role in migraine that merit further investigation. The histaminergic system may be a goal for novel migraine drugs.