The aim was to capture interdisciplinary expertise from a large group of clinicians, reflecting practice from across the UK and further, to inform subsequent development of a national consensus guidance for optimal management of idiopathic intracranial hypertension (IIH).MethodsBetween September 2015 and October 2017, a specialist interest group including neurology, neurosurgery, neuroradiology, ophthalmology, nursing, primary care doctors and patient representatives met. An initial UK survey of attitudes and practice in IIH was sent to a wide group of physicians and surgeons who investigate and manage IIH regularly. A comprehensive systematic literature review was performed to assemble the foundations of the statements. An international panel along with four national professional bodies, namely the Association of British Neurologists, British Association for the Study of Headache, the Society of British Neurological Surgeons and the Royal College of Ophthalmologists critically reviewed the statements.ResultsOver 20 questions were constructed: one based on the diagnostic principles for optimal investigation of papilloedema and 21 for the management of IIH. Three main principles were identified: (1) to treat the underlying disease; (2) to protect the vision; and (3) to minimise the headache morbidity. Statements presented provide insight to uncertainties in IIH where research opportunities exist.ConclusionsIn collaboration with many different specialists, professions and patient representatives, we have developed guidance statements for the investigation and management of adult IIH.

No abstract

Objective This study was undertaken to identify susceptibility loci for cluster headache and obtain insights into relevant disease pathways. Methods We carried out a genome‐wide association study, where 852 UK and 591 Swedish cluster headache cases were compared with 5,614 and 1,134 controls, respectively. Following quality control and imputation, single variant association testing was conducted using a logistic mixed model for each cohort. The 2 cohorts were subsequently combined in a merged analysis. Downstream analyses, such as gene‐set enrichment, functional variant annotation, prediction and pathway analyses, were performed. Results Initial independent analysis identified 2 replicable cluster headache susceptibility loci on chromosome 2. A merged analysis identified an additional locus on chromosome 1 and confirmed a locus significant in the UK analysis on chromosome 6, which overlaps with a previously known migraine locus. The lead single nucleotide polymorphisms were rs113658130 (p = 1.92 × 10−17, odds ratio [OR] = 1.51, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.37–1.66) and rs4519530 (p = 6.98 × 10−17, OR = 1.47, 95% CI = 1.34–1.61) on chromosome 2, rs12121134 on chromosome 1 (p = 1.66 × 10−8, OR = 1.36, 95% CI = 1.22–1.52), and rs11153082 (p = 1.85 × 10−8, OR = 1.30, 95% CI = 1.19–1.42) on chromosome 6. Downstream analyses implicated immunological processes in the pathogenesis of cluster headache. Interpretation We identified and replicated several genome‐wide significant associations supporting a genetic predisposition in cluster headache in a genome‐wide association study involving 1,443 cases. Replication in larger independent cohorts combined with comprehensive phenotyping, in relation to, for example, treatment response and cluster headache subtypes, could provide unprecedented insights into genotype–phenotype correlations and the pathophysiological pathways underlying cluster headache. ANN NEUROL 2021;90:193–202

There is increasing interest in using neurostimulation to treat headache disorders. There are now several non-invasive and invasive stimulation devices available with some open-label series and small controlled trial studies that support their use. Non-invasive stimulation options include supraorbital stimulation (Cefaly), vagus nerve stimulation (gammaCore) and single-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation (SpringTMS). Invasive procedures include occipital nerve stimulation, sphenopalatine ganglion stimulation and ventral tegmental area deep brain stimulation. These stimulation devices may find a place in the treatment pathway of headache disorders. Here, we explore the basic principles of neurostimulation for headache and overview the available methods of neurostimulation.

No abstract

BackgroundEvidence 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.MethodsWe 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.ResultsThe 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.ConclusionsSignificant 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.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s10194-018-0936-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Data from the Prolonged Migraine Prevention (PROMPT) with Topiramate trial were evaluated post hoc to determine whether topiramate could prevent migraine auras, and whether its efficacy in preventing migraine headaches was similar in patients with (MA; n = 269) and without (MoA; n = 542) aura. Migraines and auras were recorded during prospective baseline, 6-month open-label (OL) topiramate and 6-month double-blind (DB), placebo-controlled phases. In the last 28 OL days, migraines without aura and migraine auras decreased by 43.1% and 54.1%, respectively, in MA patients. MoA patients experienced a 44.3% reduction in migraines. In the DB phase, increases in migraines with placebo vs. topiramate were similar to the full study, but were generally not statistically significant, probably due to lack of power in the subgroup analysis. Similarly, there were no statistically significant changes in number of auras between groups. Thus, topiramate appears to reduce migraine auras in parallel with headache reductions, which are similar in patients with and without aura.

Introduction/Aims: We aimed to determine whether specific severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV2) vaccines may be associated with acute-onset polyradiculoneuropathy and if they may result in particular clinical presentations. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed records of all persons presenting with acuteonset polyradiculoneuropathy from January 1, 2021, to June 30, 2021, admitted to two Neuroscience centers, of the West and North Midlands, United Kingdom. We compared subjects with previous SARS-CoV2 vaccine exposure with a local cohort of persons with acute-onset polyradiculoneuropathy admitted between 2005 and 2019 and compared admission numbers for the studied time frame with that of the previous 3 years.Results: Of 24 persons with acute-onset polyradiculoneuropathy, 16 (66.7%) presented within 4 weeks after first SARS-CoV2 vaccine. Fourteen had received the AstraZeneca vaccine and one each, the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. The final diagnosis was Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) in 12 and acute-onset chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy in 4. Among AstraZeneca vaccine recipients, facial weakness in nine persons (64.3%), bulbar weakness in seven (50%), and the bifacial weakness and distal paresthesias GBS variant in three (21.4%), were more common than in historical controls (P = .01; P = .004, and P = .002, respectively). A 2.6-fold (95% confidence interval: 1.98-3.51) increase in admissions for acute-onset polyradiculoneuropathy was noted during the studied time frame, compared to the same period in the previous 3 years.Discussion: Despite a low risk, smaller than that of SARS-CoV2 infection and its complications, exposure to the first dose of AstraZeneca SARS-CoV2 vaccine may be a risk factor for acute-onset polyradiculoneuropathy, characterized by more common cranial nerve involvement.