The Incidence and Prevalence of Cluster Headache: A Meta-Analysis of Population-Based Studies

Fischera, Marthe; Marziniak, Martin; Gralow, I.; Evers, Stefan

doi:10.1111/j.1468-2982.2008.01592.x

Cited by 358 publications

(274 citation statements)

References 25 publications

(28 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

254

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The condition is now classified as a trigeminal autonomic cephalalgia,1 with the attacks resulting from vascular changes in cranial circulation driven by trigeminal autonomic reflex activation 2. A worldwide lifetime CH prevalence of 0.12% has been reported;3 most patients have episodic cluster headache (eCH), and 10% to 15% have chronic cluster headache (cCH) 1. The International Classification of Headache Disorders (ICHD) recognizes eCH and cCH as clinically distinct subtypes 1, 4.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Non–Invasive Vagus Nerve Stimulation for the ACute Treatment of Cluster Headache: Findings From the Randomized, Double‐Blind, Sham‐Controlled ACT1 Study

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveTo evaluate non‐invasive vagus nerve stimulation (nVNS) as an acute cluster headache (CH) treatment.BackgroundMany patients with CH experience excruciating attacks at a frequency that is not sufficiently addressed by current symptomatic treatments.MethodsOne hundred fifty subjects were enrolled and randomized (1:1) to receive nVNS or sham treatment for ≤1 month during a double‐blind phase; completers could enter a 3‐month nVNS open‐label phase. The primary end point was response rate, defined as the proportion of subjects who achieved pain relief (pain intensity of 0 or 1) at 15 minutes after treatment initiation for the first CH attack without rescue medication use through 60 minutes. Secondary end points included the sustained response rate (15‐60 minutes). Subanalyses of episodic cluster headache (eCH) and chronic cluster headache (cCH) cohorts were prespecified.ResultsThe intent‐to‐treat population comprised 133 subjects: 60 nVNS‐treated (eCH, n = 38; cCH, n = 22) and 73 sham‐treated (eCH, n = 47; cCH, n = 26). A response was achieved in 26.7% of nVNS‐treated subjects and 15.1% of sham‐treated subjects (P = .1). Response rates were significantly higher with nVNS than with sham for the eCH cohort (nVNS, 34.2%; sham, 10.6%; P = .008) but not the cCH cohort (nVNS, 13.6%; sham, 23.1%; P = .48). Sustained response rates were significantly higher with nVNS for the eCH cohort (P = .008) and total population (P = .04). Adverse device effects (ADEs) were reported by 35/150 (nVNS, 11; sham, 24) subjects in the double‐blind phase and 18/128 subjects in the open‐label phase. No serious ADEs occurred.ConclusionsIn one of the largest randomized sham‐controlled studies for acute CH treatment, the response rate was not significantly different (vs sham) for the total population; nVNS provided significant, clinically meaningful, rapid, and sustained benefits for eCH but not for cCH, which affected results in the total population. This safe and well‐tolerated treatment represents a novel and promising option for eCH. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01792817.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Non–Invasive Vagus Nerve Stimulation for the ACute Treatment of Cluster Headache: Findings From the Randomized, Double‐Blind, Sham‐Controlled ACT1 Study

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The prevalence of CH is estimated to be around 0.1% of the general population; that is, most likely physicians will be consulted by patients with CH during their clinical practice [1]. Compared with other primary headaches, CH shows clear-cut, stereotypic features, which should make it easily recognizable.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Errors in Recognition and Management are Still Frequent in Patients with Cluster Headache

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: To analyze the trajectory to diagnosis and information provided in a series of cluster headache (CH) patients from five headache clinics. Methods: CH patients were asked to fill in an ad hoc questionnaire. Results: Seventy-five patients (mean age 41.5 years, 67 males) completed the questionnaire. Patients had visited during an average of 4.9 years a mean of 4.6 physicians who had obtained 2.5 neuroimaging procedures per patient before getting a diagnosis of CH. Sixty-three (84%) had received no diagnosis (21 cases; 28%), while 43 (57%) had been given an average of 2.1 alternative diagnoses. Migraine, trigeminal neuralgia and sinusitis were the most frequent mistakes. After diagnosis, 55% had subjectively received poor/very poor information on CH. Ninety-five percent had poor or incorrect information about the nature of the disease, or acute (70%) and preventive (61%) treatments. Etiology (90%), management options (36%) and potential adverse events of medications (29%) were their main information demands. Conclusions: Although CH is an invalidating and clinically clear-cut disorder suffered by around 1/1,000 people, it is still frequently unrecognized and/or mistaken for other disorders, which calls for a better knowledge and education in the diagnosis of the main primary headaches.

show abstract

“…A recently published meta-analysis reports a lifetime prevalence of 124 per 100,000 persons and a 1-year prevalence of 53 per 100,000 persons [5]. Men are affected 4.3 times as often as women.…”

Section: Epidemiologymentioning

confidence: 98%

Genetics of Cluster Headache

Schürks

2010

Curr Pain Headache Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cluster headache (CH) is a rare, excruciating primary headache disorder. A genetic basis has been suggested by family and twin studies, but the mode of transmission seems to vary and the amount of heritability is unclear. The number of genetic association studies investigating variants implicated in the pathophysiology of CH is limited. The HCRTR2 1246G > A and the ADH4 925A > G polymorphisms have been associated with CH. The former has been confirmed and may affect the hypothalamic hypocretin system. However, it only appears to account for a part of the genetic susceptibility for CH, and additional genetic and environmental factors are likely implicated. Pharmacogenetic studies have suggested that the GNB3 825C > T polymorphism may modify treatment response to triptans among CH patients by altering the signal transduction cascade via G protein-coupled receptors. Genetic studies in CH are notoriously difficult due to the complex nature of the disorder and the low prevalence of CH.

show abstract

The Incidence and Prevalence of Cluster Headache: A Meta-Analysis of Population-Based Studies

Cited by 358 publications

References 25 publications

Non–Invasive Vagus Nerve Stimulation for the ACute Treatment of Cluster Headache: Findings From the Randomized, Double‐Blind, Sham‐Controlled ACT1 Study

Non–Invasive Vagus Nerve Stimulation for the ACute Treatment of Cluster Headache: Findings From the Randomized, Double‐Blind, Sham‐Controlled ACT1 Study

Errors in Recognition and Management are Still Frequent in Patients with Cluster Headache

Genetics of Cluster Headache

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About