Atormac
briv
Neurology India
menu-bar5 Open access journal indexed with Index Medicus
  Users online: 6495  
 Home | Login 
About Editorial board Articlesmenu-bullet NSI Publicationsmenu-bullet Search Instructions Online Submission Subscribe Videos Etcetera Contact
  Navigate Here 
 Search
 
  
 Resource Links
  »  Similar in PUBMED
 »  Search Pubmed for
 »  Search in Google Scholar for
 »Related articles
  »  Article in PDF (1,183 KB)
  »  Citation Manager
  »  Access Statistics
  »  Reader Comments
  »  Email Alert *
  »  Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 
  In this Article
 »  Abstract
 » Migraine
 »  Chronic Migraine...
 »  Tension-Type Hea...
 »  Cluster Headache...
 »  Paroxysmal Hemic...
 » SUNCT/SUNA
 » Hemicrania Continua
 » Conclusion
 »  References
 »  Article Figures
 »  Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed1120    
    Printed16    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded43    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal

 


 
Table of Contents    
REVIEW ARTICLE
Year : 2021  |  Volume : 69  |  Issue : 7  |  Page : 10-16

Role of Functional Neuroimaging in Primary Headache Disorders


1 Department of Neurology, Martin Luther University Halle- Wittenberg and University Hospital Halle, Halle (Saale), Germany
2 Department of Neurology, Klinikum Weser-Egge, Höxter, Germany

Date of Submission29-Dec-2020
Date of Decision16-Jan-2021
Date of Acceptance29-Jan-2021
Date of Web Publication14-May-2021

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Steffen Naegel
Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, University Hospital Halle, Ernst-Grube-Str. 40, 06120 Halle (Saale)
Germany
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0028-3886.315987

Rights and Permissions

 » Abstract 


Background: Key structures for the pathophysiology of primary headache disorders such as migraine, cluster headache, and other trigeminal autonomic cephalalgias were identified by imaging in the past years.
Objective: Available data on functional imaging in primary headache disorders are summarized in this review.
Material and Methods: We performed a MEDLINE search on December 27th, 2020 using the search terms “primary headache” AND “imaging” that returned 453 results in English, out of which 137 were labeled reviews. All articles were evaluated for content and relevance for this narrative review.
Results: The structure depicted most consistently using functional imaging in different states of primary headaches (without and with pain) was the posterior hypothalamus. Whole-brain imaging techniques such as resting-state functional resonance imaging showed a wide-ranging association of cortical and subcortical areas with human nociceptive processing in the pathophysiological mechanisms underlying the different TACs. Similarities of distinct groups of primary headache disorders, as well as their differences in brain activation across these disorders, were highlighted.
Conclusion: The importance of neuroimaging research from clinical practice point of view remains the reliable and objective distinction of each individual pain syndrome from one another. This will help to make the correct clinical diagnosis and pave the way for better and effective treatment in the future. More research will be necessary to fulfill this unmet need.


Keywords: Cluster headache, functional imaging, magnetic resonance imaging, migraine, paroxysmal hemicrania, SUNA, SUNCT, trigeminal autonomic cephalalgias
Key Messages: Functional neuroimaging has offered some insight into the pathophysiology of primary headache disorders, but clinical usage for securing the diagnosis or improving treatment for the individual patient remains limited.


How to cite this article:
Naegel S, Obermann M. Role of Functional Neuroimaging in Primary Headache Disorders. Neurol India 2021;69, Suppl S1:10-6

How to cite this URL:
Naegel S, Obermann M. Role of Functional Neuroimaging in Primary Headache Disorders. Neurol India [serial online] 2021 [cited 2021 Jun 17];69, Suppl S1:10-6. Available from: https://www.neurologyindia.com/text.asp?2021/69/7/10/315987




Neuroimaging in primary headache disorders aims to identify unique pathophysiological correlates of each disorder with potential clinical implications for easier diagnosis and specific treatment options. Recent advancements in functional imaging significantly improved our understanding of the pathophysiology of migraine and trigeminal autonomic cephalalgias.

The first chapter of the international classification of headache disorders (ICHD3) represents the primary headache disorders, consisting of migraine, tension-type headache (TTH), trigeminal autonomic cephalalgias (TACs), and “other primary headache disorders”, which is a mixed bag of mostly rare and not well-studied diseases.[1] In the absence of high-quality data regarding the rare headaches from group four and tension-type headache, this review will mainly focus on migraine and the TACs. The TACs have been registered in different diagnostic groups of the ICHD3, but have common clinical and pathophysiological background.

Except for hemicrania continua, which is by definition, a chronic headache disorder, all other headaches discussed in this review may present with episodic or chronic courses. Periodic worsening and circadian rhythm are characteristic for TACs but similar periodicity is also frequently seen in migraine.[2],[3]

Furthermore, migraine and TACs share many other clinical features, but differ in others, and even overlapping headache syndromes are well described.[4],[5] All this suggests a common pathway. However, in each of these disorders and for every single patient these symptoms are expressed to a different extent and the overlap may lead to difficulties in distinguishing the different disorders purely on clinical grounds. In order to close this gap, functional imaging has not only been used to unravel the underlying pathophysiology of headache disorders but also, to develop it as a diagnostic tool that could reliably and objectively allow the differentiation of the different headache disorders from each other.[6] From a pathophysiological point of view , neuroimaging was able to identify the hypothalamus, the brainstem and eventually their communicating network as potential key brain regions.[6],[7],[8],[9],[10] This article gives an overview on the current status of functional imaging in primary headache disorders.


 » Migraine Top


Clinical features of migraine may vary, and even from a genetic point of view migraine is a heterogeneous disorder.[11] This may cause variable responses to different treatments even of newer specific treatment approaches targeting CGRP.[12] Respecting that clinical presentation, genetics, and treatment response variations must be accounted for by the proposed pathophysiology of the disorder , meaning that different mechanisms may lead to the same endpoint - a migraine attack. Even more so as not every attack equals the previous. Early pathophysiological ideas were very blurry and mainly resulted from animal models and clinical observations. Once the vasogenic theory was dismissed, the assumption of altered neural function in peripheral and central structures processing nociception was put forward. Functional brain imaging in migraine may solve some of these difficulties, as it is the only method measuring changes in neural function in vivo and may thereby enrich the insights to pathophysiology in general and possibly even in an individual patient, where different aspects may be present to a different extent.

Positron emission tomography in migraine

An early PET-study[8] identified dorsal parts of the brainstem to be, what was then long called “the migraine generator”. Cortical areas also showed activation during the spontaneous attacks, but only brainstem activation was persistent after the termination of the migraine attack using sumatriptan SC. This led to the conclusion that activation of the brainstem is rather the cause than the consequence of the migraine attack, whereas activation of cortical structures rather reflect the perception of pain.

Later studies supported and further substantiated these findings. Barah et al. identified the brainstem region as the dorsal pons using H215O-PET in a glyceryl-trinitrate (GTN) triggered migraine attack.[13] In the following years additional studies reproduced the findings both in GTN- triggered and spontaneous migraine attacks.[14],[15],[16] Further studies not only demonstrated brainstem activations but also activations in the midbrain and hypothalamus, which persisted even after the headache relief with sumatriptan, thus pointing towards migraine generating capabilities of these structures.[17]

The important role of subcortical structures was underscored in another water-PET study addressing the premonitory phase of migraine.[16] To interpret these results correctly, however, one has to take into account that a) these attacks were provoked using GTN and b) not only the brainstem activation was shown, but also other subcortical (including hypothalamus) and even other cortical structures were activated during the early premonitory phase.

Functional magnetic resonance imaging in migraine

More recent functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) was applied to further study the interrelationship of different activated brain areas in patients with primary headache disorders. Functional MRI is superior to PET for most purposes, as it has better resolution in time and space and no radioactive tracers are needed. Although skepticism arose that the dorsal pons is the one and only migraine generating structure, it was undisputed that the brainstem is of high importance for migraine pathophysiology. Stankewitz and May started to not only study the migraine attack but to focus on the migraine cycle and cycling behavior of the trigeminal nucleus.[18] They also provided fMRI gathered evidence for a stronger functional coupling between brainstem structures to the hypothalamus following trigeminal nociception.[19] This opened the view for a more network-based understanding for migraine generation, which had already been proposed for cluster headache (CH) at that time.[20] And indeed, in a longitudinal study one single migraineur was investigated every day for one month and hypothalamic activity following trigeminal nociceptive stimulation was already found to be increased prior to the occurrence of migraine attacks. The previously seen alterations in functional coupling of the brainstem-hypothalamus network were shown to be relevant in migraine generation, as this was found to already be altered at the preictal day and during the pain phase of the migraine attacks.[21] Very recently the same authors studied nine patients (seven included in the analysis) with the same protocol. Activation of the hypothalamus was detectable up to 48 hours before headache onset, which was interpreted as a potential marker for the premonitory phase.[22] [Figure 1] and [Figure 2] show exemplary network-wide fMRI activations in patients with migraine at both supratentorial [Figure 1] and brainstem [Figure 2] level.
Figure 1: Supratentorial fMRI activation in migraine. Exemplary presentation of task related functional MRI in a group of 11 migraine patients receiving trigeminal nociceptive stimulation of the left supraorbital nerve, @ P < 0.0005, superimposed in SPMs single subject template. a - glass brain b - bilateral somatosensory cortex (crosshair right), c – insular and operculum, d- right amygdala and e - scale for T-statistic

Click here to view
Figure 2: Brainstem fMRI activation in migraine Exemplary illustration of task related functional MRI in a group of 11 migraine patients receiving trigeminal nociceptive stimulation of the left supraorbital nerve, @ P < 0.0005, superimposed in SPMs single subject template including scale for T-statistic

Click here to view


Resting-state fMRI in migraine

Low-frequency fluctuations can be evaluated using resting state fMRI (rs-fMRI). This technique allows the evaluation of functionally coupled brain areas (also known as resting-state networks), based on synchronized variations of the BOLD (blood-oxygen-level dependent).[23],[24],[25],[26] The method is highly flexible and allows different approaches, of which the independent component analysis (ICA) is the generally considered to be the least biased one by a priori hypothesis, whereas seed-based analyses only appear to be valid if strong hypotheses are available. Network-based approaches may investigate different amounts of networks, of which the three most relevant networks related to pain are (1) the default mode network (DMN), (2) the bilateral central executive network (CEN), and (3) the salience network (SN).

Several rs-fMRI studies were performed in migraine. Xue and colleagues studied 23 migraineurs and controls using dual-regression ICA to investigate the most relevant networks, and found an aberrant intrinsic connectivity within the CEN and SN, and stronger connectivity of the insula cortex in migraine patients. Authors interpreted these findings rather as a consequence of frequent migraine attacks than the particular pathophysiological correlate of migraine origin.[27]

In contrast, a different study published in the same year showed reduced executive resting-state network functional connectivity (FN).[28] This shows that the results of these studies are difficult to interpret and possibly prone to error.

A study investigated 34 subjects (17 vs. 17) compared FN between PAG and other brain areas relevant in nociceptive processing and found stronger connectivity in migraineurs versus controls. Migraine frequency was associated with stronger connectivity with some areas, whereas a significant decrease between the PAG and brain regions of pain modulation was seen.[29]

Other approaches try to measure the regional homogeneity (ReHo). One study found decreased in ReHo in several cortical structures in patients with migraine without aura.[30] Another study focused on the amplitude of fluctuations and found increased higher amplitudes in patients with aura compared to those without.[31]

Other studies investigated patients longitudinally outside and during a migraine attack. A study from Denmark assessed FN in four networks using a seed-based approach and found increased as well as decreased FN between the right thalamus and different contralateral brain regions, but not in the pontine or cerebellar networks.[32]

Recently, longitudinal rs-MRI was performed to explore migraine attack generation in seven episodic migraine patients using a ROI-to-ROI/-voxel approach. Comparing preictal and interictal phases, the nucleus accumbens was found to be highly functionally connected with the dorsal rostral pons, the amygdala, the hippocampus, and the gyrus parahippocampalis. Ictally, the dorsal pons had stronger connection to the hypothalamus than interictally. The authors suggested that changes in dopaminergic centers and within the pontine-hypothalamic network are relevant for attack generation and maintenance.[33]

A promising study used machine-learning to establish rs-fMRI as a biomarker (migraine versus control) and found correct machine-learning-classificationof patients diagnosed with migraine to be more reliable for longer disease durations.[34]

All resting state studies need to be interpreted with care, as the methods are highly flexible, results are not fully congruent and often difficult or not precise enough to interpret. Its role in headache disorders is not well specified yet.


 » Chronic Migraine (CM) Top


Although it is the most disabling migraine variant, studies of functional imaging in CM are rare. An rs-fMRI study evaluated the intrinsic resting FN of several networks in 29 women with CM compared to controls applying multivariate linear regression.

The three major brain networks showed reduced coherence in CM, but no difference attributed to MOH was found. Allodynia was associated with better coupling in SN, while frequency of migraine days was correlated with reduced coupling in SN and CEN.[35]

A second rs-fMRI study also investigated three selected networks in 20 CMs and 20 healthy controls. Authors found reduced connectivity between the DMN and CEN and between the dorsal attention system (DAS) with the CEN in CM, but stronger connectivity between DAS and DMN. The authors interpreted these findings as evidence for large-scale reorganization of functional cortical networks in CM.[36]

Another fMRI study compared episodic migraineurs (n = 18), CMs (n = 17), and HCs (n = 19) using a task related protocol and reported increased activation of the anterior right hypothalamus in CMs compared to controls, while the more posterior hypothalamic portion activated bilaterally during headaches. In conclusion, the anterior hypothalamus maybe involved in migraine chronification.


 » Tension-Type Headache Top


Although it is the most frequent primary headache, the data on tension-type headache is very limited. This accounts for pathophysiology in general, as for functional imaging data in particular. Some structural MRI studies have shown changes in the gray-matter, but results were inconsistent.[37],[38] A recent study from China examined regional homogeneity abnormalities in a small cohort (ten patients vs. ten controls) using resting-state fMRI.[39] TTH patients showed decreased regional homogeneity in several brain areas including the bilateral caudate nucleus. Till further studies are available to confirm these findings, these have to be interpreted with care.


 » Cluster Headache (CH) Top


CH is a rare headache disorder, but it is by far the most common of the TACs. It is impairing, as the strictly unilateral attacks are of highest intensity and accompanied by ipsilateral autonomic symptoms. Most functional imaging studies on TACs were performed in CH and aimed to confirm the hypothalamus as the driving force or generator of this disorder. This hypothesis is strongly supported by the circadian and circannual rhythmicity that is so characteristic for this primary headache disorder. Early findings involving the hypothalamus led to arguable clinical consequences extending as far as deep brain stimulation (DBS) for strongly affected patients.[9],[40],[41],[42]

Positron emission tomography and functional magnetic resonance imaging in CH

Several investigations using PET have been performed in CH. The first-ever study was done in 1996 in seven episodic CH (eCH) patients. PET was performed during GTN-induced CH-attacks, and altered regional cerebral blood flow (rCBF) was observed in multiple cortical areas (increase and decrease).[43] May et al. used H215O PET in GTN-triggered attacks and were able to show strong activation of the ipsilateral posterior hypothalamus in nine chronic CH (cCH) patients[10] and reconfirmed this finding in 17 patients in 2000.[44] Similar activation was observed in non triggered CH attacks in a single patient receiving DBS.[45] Comparable to migraine, a more recent study that used fMRI, was able to show hypothalamic activation in four patients suffering episodic CH (eCH).[46] As the spatial resolution is limited in fMRI, some authors discussed that the activation was located rather in the midbrain tegmentum, than in the hypothalamus itself.[47] However, multiple studies were able to re-confirm hypothalamic activation, but it turned out that this was not the only site of activation as other parts of human pain processing networks including the insula, cingulate, temporal, and frontal cortex are also activated quite frequently. [Table 1] summarizes the available attack related functional studies of CH.[68]
Table 1: Summary of attack.related functional imaging studies in Cluster Headache

Click here to view


Resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging in CH

Rocca et al. studied resting state activity in 13 patients with eCH outside bout compared with healthy controls. The authors observed altered FC within the network from the hypothalamus to the thalamus bilaterally and the sensorimotor cortex as well as the primary visual cortex.[48] Other studies showed an even wider network involved, including the hypothalamus but not restricted to it, in resting-state fMRI of episodic and chronic CH both on the headache and non headache side[49] Episodic-CH patients presented hypothalamic FC changes with the medial frontal gyrus, as well as the occipital cuneus in- and outside of bout. Hypothalamic FC was decreased in patients out-of-bout in the medial frontal gyrus, precuneus, and cerebellum. Interestingly, the bout frequency correlated with the hypothalamic connectivity to the cerebellum. The authors concluded that CH pathophysiology may extend beyond the traditional pain processing networks.[50]


 » Paroxysmal Hemicrania Top


Although it is the second most frequent TAC, paroxysmal hemicrania is rare. It affects 3%–6% of all TAC patients.[51] It has some overlap with cluster headache, as patients have unilateral, severe attacks associated with cranial autonomic features recurring multiple times per day, and usually last between two and 30 min.[52],[53] In contrast to CH, some (10%) attacks may be precipitated mechanically.[54] Alcohol is not a reliable trigger.[52] It is of high importance to distinguish paroxysmal hemicrania from CH, as therapeutic approaches are different. PH shows a reliable response to indomethacin, which is a diagnostic criterion in ICHD3. Again it was possible to transfer clinical observations to functional imaging, and in PET imaging, indomethacin was able to end the previously detected activation in several pain-processing structures.[55] Activation was found in the contralateral posterior hypothalamus, as well as activation in a widespread network (including the ipsilateral lentiform nucleus, anterior and posterior cingulate cortex, contralateral temporal cortex, postcentral gyrus, precuneus, cerebellum and ventral midbrain, bilateral insula, and frontal cortex) in seven patients.


 » SUNCT/SUNA Top


SUNCT (short-lasting unilateral neuralgiform headache attacks with conjunctival injection and tearing) exactly describes the clinical picture of the disease. Similar to trigeminal neuralgia (TN), which is the main differential diagnosis, the attacks are usually very short and occur plenty of times a day. As some patients may have other autonomic features but not conjunctival injection nor tearing the IHS classification also introduced SUNA ( short-lasting unilateral neuralgiform headache attacks with cranial autonomic features).[1] In contrast to TN, SUNCT/SUNA often affects the first branch of the trigeminal nerve and comes without a refractory period. As clinically both disesases have a lot in common , imaging studies also tried to find similarities between them, as well as to other TACs and migraine. As in CH and PH, SUNCT/SUNA patients have high comorbidity with migraine.[56],[57],[58] This may either reflect a (genetic) general predisposition for primary headache disorders or, alternatively express a pathophysiological connection between these disorders. In regard to pathophysiology, a shared final stretch of migraine and TACs was previously discussed.[59] It is well possible that one-sided headaches share a common ground for the development of pain and autonomic symptoms, including functional alterations in hypothalamic or brainstem circuits.[60] Interestingly pain intensity positively correlates with the development of autonomic features[61], as the trigeminovascular reflex is not only expressed in patients but also healthy persons[62] and migraine.[63]

Several fMRI studies have been performed during SUNCT-attacks and showed activation of the posterior hypothalamus.[9],[64],[65],[66] One of these was able to demonstrate additional activation in the cingulate cortex, the insula, temporal, and frontal cortex in a single patient that was classified probable SUNCT.[9] A different investigation detected brainstem activation during three typical SUNCT attacks, as well as activations in the right precentral, superior frontal, inferior frontal, as well as the middle frontal cortex, and bilateral supplementary motor area.[66] As in other headache disorders, the authors suggested a broader concept of network connections within pain processing structures.


 » Hemicrania Continua Top


The latest revision of the international headache classification (ICHD3) sorted hemicrania continua back to the TACs. As paroxysmal hemicrania, hemicrania continua is defined as being indomethacin-responsive, but it is characterized as a chronic headache with continuous, unilateral head pain that varies in intensity. The headache is frequently associated with autonomic features.[67] A PET study investigated seven patients with HC, both while suffering pain and being relieved after indomethacin administration, and compared these to seven matched control subjects. In pain, activation was found in the posterior hypothalamus, the ipsilateral ventrolateral midbrain, and the dorsal rostral pons. This activation completely resolved after intramuscular indomethacin. At that time the authors concluded that activations were different from migraine, but comparable to other TACs and consequently have to be classified as TAC and hence needs to be clearly distinguished from migraine.[55] Nevertheless, with the more recent studies on migraine, also showing activation of similar structures, this has to be discussed and interpreted more cautiously.


 » Conclusion Top


Functional neuroimaging has significantly influenced today's understanding of primary headaches especially in regard to pathophysiology. Results from modern studies clearly point toward a deficient complex neural network rather than a single structure of abnormality, even though it remains undisputed that the hypothalamus and the brainstem are key structures in the pathophysiology of these disorders. Imaging provided significant pathophysiological glimpses, but ultimately is not able to unravel this enigma on its own, as the exact mechanisms of neuronal crosstalk between the hypothalamus and other pain-processing brain regions remain unknown. More sophisticated research (particularly more longitudinal studies) is required to adequately address each aspect of these disorders. The similarities that most TACs share on functional neuroimaging justify their status as unique disease entities in a common subgroup of primary headache disorders, but gross overlap in imaging studies in migraine also demonstrate that probably several subtle differences are not understood yet. The distinction of each individual primary headache syndrome from one another will be the future challenge with most useful results in everyday clinical practice and potentially a way to support the clinical diagnosis using the MRI result as a biomarker.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.



 
 » References Top

1.
Headache Classification Committee of the International Headache Society (IHS) The International Classification of Headache Disorders, 3rd edition. Cephalalgia 2018;38:1-211.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Soriani S, Fiumana E, Manfredini R, Boari B, Battistella PA, Canetta E, et al. Circadian and seasonal variation of migraine attacks in children. Headache 2006;46:1571-4.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Fox AW, Davis RL. Migraine chronobiology. Headache 1998;38:436-41.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Applebee AM, Shapiro RE. Cluster-migraine: Does it exist? Curr Pain Headache Rep 2007;11:154-7.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Kaup AO, Mathew NT, Levyman C, Kailasam J, Meadors LA, Villarreal SS. “Side locked” migraine and trigeminal autonomic cephalgias: Evidence for clinical overlap. Cephalalgia 2003;23:43-9.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Iacovelli E, Coppola G, Tinelli E, Pierelli F, Bianco F. Neuroimaging in cluster headache and other trigeminal autonomic cephalalgias. J Headache Pain 2012;13:11-20.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Yang FC, Chou KH, Kuo CY, Lin YY, Lin CP, Wang SJ. The pathophysiology of episodic cluster headache: Insights from recent neuroimaging research. Cephalalgia 2018;38:970-83.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Weiller C, May A, Limmroth V, Jüptner M, Kaube H, Schayck RV, et al. Brain stem activation in spontaneous human migraine attacks. Nat Med 1995;1:658-60.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Sprenger T, Valet M, Hammes M, Erhard P, Berthele A, Conrad B, et al. Hypothalamic activation in trigeminal autonomic cephalgia: Functional imaging of an atypical case. Cephalalgia 2004;24:753-7.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
May A, Bahra A, Büchel C, Frackowiak RSJ, Goadsby PJ. Hypothalamic activation in cluster headache attacks. Lancet 1998;352:275-8.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Sutherland HG, Albury CL, Griffiths LR. Advances in genetics of migraine. J Headache Pain 2019;20:72.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Scheffler A, Messel O, Wurthmann S, Nsaka M, Kleinschnitz C, Glas M, et al. Erenumab in highly therapy-refractory migraine patients: First German real-world evidence. J Headache Pain 2020;21:84.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Bahra A, Matharu MS, Buchel C, Frackowiak RS, Goadsby PJ. Brainstem activation specific to migraine headache. Lancet 2001;357:1016-7.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Denuelle M, Fabre N, Payoux P, Chollet F, Geraud G. Hypothalamic activation in spontaneous migraine attacks. Headache 2007;47:1418-26.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Afridi SK, Giffin NJ, Kaube H, Friston KJ, Ward NS, Frackowiak RSJ, et al. A positron emission tomographic study in spontaneous migraine. Arch Neurol 2005;62:1270-5.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Maniyar FH, Sprenger T, Monteith T, Schankin C, Goadsby PJ. Brain activations in the premonitory phase of nitroglycerin-triggered migraine attacks. Brain 2014;137:232-41.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Denuelle M, Fabre N, Payoux P, Chollet F, Geraud G. Posterior cerebral hypoperfusion in migraine without aura. Cephalalgia 2008;28:856-62.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Stankewitz A, Aderjan D, Eippert F, May A. Trigeminal nociceptive transmission in migraineurs predicts migraine attacks. J Neurosci 2011;31:1937-43.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
Schulte LH, Sprenger C, May A. Physiological brainstem mechanisms of trigeminal nociception: An fMRI study at 3T. Neuroimage 2016;124:518-25.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
Naegel S, Holle D, Desmarattes N, Theysohn N, Diener H-C, Katsarava Z, et al. Cortical plasticity in episodic and chronic cluster headache. Neuroimage Clin 2014;6:415-23.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.
Schulte LH, May A. The migraine generator revisited: Continuous scanning of the migraine cycle over 30 days and three spontaneous attacks. Brain 2016;139:1987-93.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.
Schulte LH, Mehnert J, May A. Longitudinal neuroimaging over 30 days: Temporal characteristics of migraine. Ann Neurol 2020;87:646-51.  Back to cited text no. 22
    
23.
Fox MD, Raichle ME. Spontaneous fluctuations in brain activity observed with functional magnetic resonance imaging. Nat Rev Neurosci 2007;8:700-11.  Back to cited text no. 23
    
24.
Biswal B, Yetkin FZ, Haughton VM, Hyde JS. Functional connectivity in the motor cortex of resting human brain using echo-planar MRI. Magn Reson Med 1995;34:537-41.  Back to cited text no. 24
    
25.
Damoiseaux JS, Rombouts SARB, Barkhof F, Scheltens P, Stam CJ, Smith SM, et al. Consistent resting-state networks across healthy subjects. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2006;103:13848-53.  Back to cited text no. 25
    
26.
Raichle ME, MacLeod AM, Snyder AZ, Powers WJ, Gusnard DA, Shulman GL. A default mode of brain function. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2001;98:676-82.  Back to cited text no. 26
    
27.
Xue T, Yuan K, Zhao L, Yu D, Zhao L, Dong T, et al. Intrinsic brain network abnormalities in migraines without aura revealed in resting-state fMRI. PLoS One 2012;7:e52927.  Back to cited text no. 27
    
28.
Russo A, Tessitore A, Giordano A, Corbo D, Marcuccio L, De Stefano M, et al. Executive resting-state network connectivity in migraine without aura. Cephalalgia 2012;32:1041-8.  Back to cited text no. 28
    
29.
Mainero C, Boshyan J, Hadjikhani N. Altered functional magnetic resonance imaging resting-state connectivity in periaqueductal gray networks in migraine. Ann Neurol 2011;70:838-45.  Back to cited text no. 29
    
30.
Yu D, Yuan K, Zhao L, Zhao L, Dong M, Liu P, et al. Regional homogeneity abnormalities in patients with interictal migraine without aura: A resting-state study. NMR Biomed 2012;25:806-12.  Back to cited text no. 30
    
31.
Faragó P, Tuka B, Tóth E, Szabó N, Király A, Csete G, et al. Interictal brain activity differs in migraine with and without aura: Resting state fMRI study. J Headache Pain 2017;18:8.  Back to cited text no. 31
    
32.
Amin FM, Hougaard A, Magon S, Sprenger T, Wolfram F, Rostrup E, et al. Altered thalamic connectivity during spontaneous attacks of migraine without aura: A resting-state fMRI study. Cephalalgia 2018;38:1237-44.  Back to cited text no. 32
    
33.
Schulte LH, Menz MM, Haaker J, May A. The migraineur's brain networks: Continuous resting state fMRI over 30 days. Cephalalgia 2020;40:1614-21.  Back to cited text no. 33
    
34.
Chong CD, Gaw N, Fu Y, Li J, Wu T, Schwedt TJ. Migraine classification using magnetic resonance imaging resting-state functional connectivity data. Cephalalgia 2017;37:828-44.  Back to cited text no. 34
    
35.
Androulakis XM, Krebs K, Peterlin BL, Zhang T, Maleki N, Sen S, et al. Modulation of intrinsic resting-state fMRI networks in women with chronic migraine. Neurology 2017;89:163-9.  Back to cited text no. 35
    
36.
Coppola G, Di Renzo A, Petolicchio B, Tinelli E, Di Lorenzo C, Parisi V, et al. Aberrant interactions of cortical networks in chronic migraine: A resting-state fMRI study. Neurology 2019;92:e2550-8.  Back to cited text no. 36
    
37.
Chen WT, Chou KH, Lee PL, Hsiao FJ, Niddam DM, Lai KL, et al. Comparison of gray matter volume between migraine and “strict-criteria” tension-type headache. J Headache Pain 2018;19:4.  Back to cited text no. 37
    
38.
Schmidt-Wilcke T, Leinisch E, Straube A, Kämpfe N, Draganski B, Diener HC, et al. Gray matter decrease in patients with chronic tension type headache. Neurology 2005;65:1483-6.  Back to cited text no. 38
    
39.
Wang P, Du H, Chen N, Guo J, Gong Q, Zhang J, et al. Regional homogeneity abnormalities in patients with tensiontype headache: A resting-state fMRI study. Neurosci Bull 2014;30:949-55.  Back to cited text no. 39
    
40.
Lodi R, Pierangeli G, Tonon C, Cevoli S, Testa C, Bivona G, et al. Study of hypothalamic metabolism in cluster headache by proton MR spectroscopy. Neurology 2006;66:1264-6.  Back to cited text no. 40
    
41.
May A, Ashburner J, Büchel C, McGonigle DJ, Friston KJ, Frackowiak RSJ, et al. Correlation between structural and functional changes in brain in an idiopathic headache syndrome. Nat Med 1999;5:836-8.  Back to cited text no. 41
    
42.
Wang SJ, Lirng JF, Fuh JL, Chen JJ. Reduction in hypothalamic 1H-MRS metabolite ratios in patients with cluster headache. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2006;77:622-5.  Back to cited text no. 42
    
43.
Hsieh JC, Hannerz J, Ingvar M. Right-lateralised central processing for pain of nitroglycerin-induced cluster headache. Pain 1996;67:59-68.  Back to cited text no. 43
    
44.
May A, Bahra A, Büchel C, Frackowiak RSJ, Goadsby PJ. PET and MRA findings in cluster headache and MRA in experimental pain. Neurology 2000;55:1328-35.  Back to cited text no. 44
    
45.
Sprenger T, Boecker H, Tolle TR, Bussone G, May A, Leone M. Specific hypothalamic activation during a spontaneous cluster headache attack. Neurology 2004;62:516-7.  Back to cited text no. 45
    
46.
Morelli N, Pesaresi I, Cafforio G, Maluccio MR, Gori S, Di Salle F, et al. Functional magnetic resonance imaging in episodic cluster headache. J Headache Pain 2009;10:11-4.  Back to cited text no. 46
    
47.
Matharu MS, Zrinzo L. Deep brain stimulation in cluster headache: Hypothalamus or midbrain tegmentum? Curr Pain Headache Rep 2010;14:151-9.  Back to cited text no. 47
    
48.
Rocca MA, Valsasina P, Absinta M, Colombo B, Barcella V, Falini A, et al. Central nervous system dysregulation extends beyond the pain-matrix network in cluster headache. Cephalalgia 2010;30:1383-91.  Back to cited text no. 48
    
49.
Qiu E, Tian L, Wang Y, Ma L, Yu S. Abnormal coactivation of the hypothalamus and salience network in patients with cluster headache. Neurology 2015;84:1402-8.  Back to cited text no. 49
    
50.
Yang FC, Chou KH, Fuh JL, Lee PL, Lirng JF, Lin YY, et al. Altered hypothalamic functional connectivity in cluster headache: A longitudinal resting-state functional MRI study. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2015;86:437-45.  Back to cited text no. 50
    
51.
May A, Leone M, Áfra J, Linde M, Sándor PS, Evers S, et al. EFNS guidelines on the treatment of cluster headache and other trigeminal-autonomic cephalalgias. Eur J Neurol 2006;13:1066-77.  Back to cited text no. 51
    
52.
Antonaci F, Sjaastad O. Chronic paroxysmal hemicrania (CPH): A review of the clinical manifestations. Headache 1989;29:648-56.  Back to cited text no. 52
    
53.
Boes CJ, Dodick DW. Refining the clinical spectrum of chronic paroxysmal hemicrania: A review of 74 patients. Headache 2002;42:699-708.  Back to cited text no. 53
    
54.
Cohen AS, Matharu MS, Goadsby PJ. Trigeminal autonomic cephalalgias: Current and future treatments. Headache 2007;47:969-80.  Back to cited text no. 54
    
55.
Matharu MS, Cohen AS, McGonigle DJ, Ward N, Frackowiak RS, Goadsby PJ. Posterior hypothalamic and brainstem activation in hemicrania continua. Headache 2004;44:747-61.  Back to cited text no. 55
    
56.
Cohen AS, Matharu MS, Goadsby PJ. Short-lasting unilateral neuralgiform headache attacks with conjunctival injection and tearing (SUNCT) or cranial autonomic features (SUNA)--A prospective clinical study of SUNCT and SUNA. Brain 2006;129:2746-60.  Back to cited text no. 56
    
57.
Bahra A, May A, Goadsby PJ. Cluster headache: A prospective clinical study with diagnostic implications. Neurology 2002;58:354-61.  Back to cited text no. 57
    
58.
Cohen AS, Matharu MS, Goadsby PJ. SUNCT syndrome in the elderly. Cephalalgia 2004;24:508-9.  Back to cited text no. 58
    
59.
Obermann M, Yoon M-S, Dommes P, Kuznetsova J, Maschke M, Weimar C, et al. Prevalence of trigeminal autonomic symptoms in migraine: A population-based study. Cephalalgia 2007;27:504-9.  Back to cited text no. 59
    
60.
Dora B. Migraine with cranial autonomic features and strict unilaterality. Cephalalgia 2003;23:561-2.  Back to cited text no. 60
    
61.
Barbanti P, Fabbrini G, Pesare M, Vanacore N, Cerbo R. Unilateral cranial autonomic symptoms in migraine. Cephalalgia 2002;22:256-9.  Back to cited text no. 61
    
62.
Pascual J, Bussone G, Hernandez JF, Allen C, Vrijens F, Patel K, et al. Comparison of preference for rizatriptan 10-mg wafer versus sumatriptan 50-mg tablet in migraine. Eur Neurol 2001;45:275-83.  Back to cited text no. 62
    
63.
Goadsby PJ, Lipton RB, Ferrari MD. Migraine — Current understanding and treatment. N Engl J Med 2002;346:257-70.  Back to cited text no. 63
    
64.
Cohen AS, Matharu MS, Kalisch R, Friston K, Goadsby PJ. Functional MRI in SUNCT shows differential hypothalamic activation with increasing pain. Cephalalgia 2004;24:1098-9.  Back to cited text no. 64
    
65.
May A, Bahra A, Büchel C, Turner R, Goadsby PJ. Functional magnetic resonance imaging in spontaneous attacks of SUNCT: Short-lasting neuralgiform headache with conjunctival injection and tearing. Ann Neurol 1999;46:791-4.  Back to cited text no. 65
    
66.
Auer T, Janszky J, Schwarcz A, Dóczi T, Trauninger A, Alkonyi B, et al. Attack-related brainstem activation in a patient with SUNCT syndrome: An ictal fMRI study. Headache 2009;49:909-12.  Back to cited text no. 66
    
67.
Sjaastad O, Spierings ELH. “Hemicrania continua”: Another headache absolutely responsive to indomethacin. Cephalalgia 1984;4:65-70.  Back to cited text no. 67
    
68.
Obermann M, Holle D, Nagel S. Functional neuroimaging in trigeminal autonomic cephalalgias. Ann Indian Acad Neurol 2018;21(Suppl 1):S51-6.  Back to cited text no. 68
    


    Figures

  [Figure 1], [Figure 2]
 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1]



 

Top
Print this article  Email this article
   
Online since 20th March '04
Published by Wolters Kluwer - Medknow