Search

Cluster headache (CH) is one of the worst primary headaches that remain underdiagnosed and inappropriately treated. There are recent advances in the understanding of this disease and available treatments. This paper aims to review CH's recent clinical and pathophysiological findings, diagnosis, and treatment. We performed a narrative literature review on the sociodemographics, clinical presentations, pathophysiological findings, and diagnosis and treatment of CH. CH affects 0.1% of the population with an incidence of 2.07-9.8/100,00 person-years-habitants, a mean prevalence of 53/100,000 inhabitants (3-150/100,000 inhabitants). The male-to-female ratio remains inconclusive, as the ratio of 4.3:1 has recently been modified to 1.3-2.6, possibly due to previous misdiagnosis in women. Episodic presentation is the most frequent (80%). It is a polygenetic and multifactorial entity that involves dysfunction of the trigeminovascular system, the trigeminal autonomic reflex, and the hypothalamic networks. An MRI of the brain is mandatory to exclude secondary etiologies. There are effective and safe pharmacological treatments oxygen, sphenopalatine, and great occipital nerve block, with the heterogeneity of clinical trial designs for patients with CH divided into acute, transitional, or bridge treatment (prednisone) and preventive interventions. In conclusion, CH remains underdiagnosed, mainly due to a lack of awareness within the medical community, frequently causing a long delay in reaching a final diagnosis. Recent advances in understanding the principal risk factors and underlying pathophysiology exist. There are new therapeutic possibilities that are effective for CH. Indeed, a better understanding of this challenging pathology will continue to be a subject of research, study, and discoveries in its diagnostic and therapeutic approach. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: In response to Coronovirus Disease (COVID-19) health care restrictions, the pain management programme delivered group treatment digitally (OPMP). We aimed to: 1) evaluate pain related outcomes of the OPMP, 2) evaluate patient satisfaction and qualitive feedback of the OPMP and 3) compare OPMP outcomes with the pre-pandemic face to face (F2F) PMP outcomes. Methods: Age, gender, pain duration, occupational status, referral information and patient satisfaction data were collected. Pre- and post-treatment pain related outcomes were compared by calculating mean difference, benchmarking with effect size (Cohen's d) and determining clinically significant change (CSC) for OPMP and F2F PMP. Results: Two-hundred and thirty-seven patients provided outcome data, with 60 completing the OPMP and 177 completing the F2F PMP. OPMP patients were 10 years younger than the F2F PMP (44.8 vs 53.3), more were female (6.5:1 vs 2.8:1), more were working (45% vs 27%) and fewer were retired (3% vs 17%). The OPMP showed improvements comparable to the F2F PMP. Large effect size was reported across all outcome domains including objective physical outcomes. Eighty-one percent of OPMP patients were 'extremely likely' to recommend the programme but just over 50% of patients felt F2F would provide greater clinical benefits. Conclusion: The results support that OPMP is effective for carefully selected patients following a multidisciplinary team assessment however more complex cases still require F2F PMP. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]