RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The trigeminal autonomic cephalalgias (TACs) are highly disabling primary headache disorders. There are several issues that remain unresolved in the understanding of the pathophysiology of the TACs, although activation of the trigeminal-autonomic reflex and ipsilateral hypothalamic activation both play a central role. The discovery of the central role of the hypothalamus led to its use as a therapeutic target. After the good results obtained with hypothalamic stimulation, other peripheral neuromodulation targets were tried in the management of refractory cluster headache (CH) and other TACs. METHODS: This review is a summary both of CH pathophysiology and of efficacy of the different neuromodulation techniques. RESULTS: In chronic cluster headache (CCH) patients, hypothalamic deep brain stimulation (DBS) produced a decrease in attack frequency of more than 50% in 60% of patients. Occipital nerve stimulation (ONS) also elicited favorable outcomes with a reduction of more than 50% of attacks in around 70% of patients with medically intractable CCH. Stimulation of the sphenopalatine ganglion (SPG) with a miniaturized implanted stimulator produced a clinically significant improvement in 68% of patients (acute, preventive, or both). Vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) with a portable device used in conjunction with standard of care in CH patients resulted in a reduction in the number of attacks. DBS and ONS have been used successfully in some cases of other TACs, including hemicrania continua (HC) and short-lasting unilateral headache attacks (SUNHA). CONCLUSIONS: DBS has good results, but it is a more invasive technique and can generate serious adverse events. ONS has good results, but frequent and not serious adverse events. SPG stimulation (SPGS) is also efficacious in the acute and prophylactic treatment of refractory cluster headache. At this moment, ONS and SPG stimulation techniques are recommended as first line therapy in refractory cluster patients. New recent non-invasive approaches such as the non-invasive vagal nerve stimulator (nVNS) have shown efficacy in a few trials and could be an interesting alternative in the management of CH, but require more testing and positive randomized controlled trials.
Asunto(s)
Cefalalgia Histamínica/fisiopatología , Cefalalgia Histamínica/terapia , Terapia por Estimulación Eléctrica/métodos , HumanosRESUMEN
Status epilepticus (SE) and acute repetitive seizures (ARSs) frequently result in emergency visits. Wide variations in response are seen with standard antiepileptic drugs (AEDs). Oral and intravenous (IV) formulations of lacosamide are approved as adjunctive therapy in the treatment of partial-onset seizures in adults and adolescents. The aim of the retrospective multicenter observational study (LACO-IV) was to analyze data from a large cohort of patients with SE or ARSs of varying severity and etiology, who received IV lacosamide in the emergency setting. Patient clinical data were entered into a database; lacosamide use and efficacy and tolerability variables were analyzed. In SE, IV lacosamide tended to be used mainly in nonconvulsive status epilepticus as second- or third-line treatment. The proportion of patients with no seizures when IV lacosamide was the last drug administered was 76.5% (70.9% SE and 83.7% ARSs). The rate of seizure cessation ≤ 24 h after IV lacosamide administration was 57.1% (49.1% SE and 67.4% ARSs). Of the factors analyzed, a shorter latency from seizure onset to IV lacosamide infusion influenced treatment response significantly. A nonsignificant tendency towards a higher response was seen with lacosamide dose >200mg versus ≤ 200 mg. Analysis of response according to mechanism of action showed no significant differences in response to IV lacosamide in patients receiving prior sodium channel blocker (SCB) or non-SCB AEDs in the overall or SE population; however, in ARSs, a tendency towards a higher response was observed in those receiving non-SCB AEDs. The frequency and nature of adverse events observed were in line with those reported in other studies (somnolence being the most frequent). In the absence of randomized prospective controlled studies of IV lacosamide, our observations suggest that IV lacosamide may be a potential alternative for treatment of SE/ARSs when seizures fail to improve with standard AEDs or when AEDs are contraindicated or not recommended.