| Migraine is a cyclic disorder, in which functional and morphological brain changes fluctuate over time, culminating periodically in an attack. In the migrainous brain, temporal processing of external stimuli and sequential recruitment of neuronal networks are often dysfunctional. These changes reflect complex CNS dysfunction patterns. Assessment of multimodal evoked potentials and nociceptive reflex responses can reveal altered patterns of the brain's electrophysiological activity, thereby aiding our understanding of the pathophysiology of migraine. In this Review, we summarize the most important findings on temporal processing of evoked and reflex responses in migraine. Considering these data, we propose that thalamocortical dysrhythmia may be responsible for the altered synchronicity in migraine. To test this hypothesis in future research, electrophysiological recordings should be combined with neuroimaging studies so that the temporal patterns of sensory processing in patients with migraine can be correlated with the accompanying anatomical and functional changes.

BackgroundHuntington's disease (HD) is a fatal inherited neurodegenerative disease, caused by a

The habituation to sensory stimuli of different modalities is reduced in migraine patients. However, the habituation to pain has never been evaluated. Our aim was to assess the nociceptive pathway function and the habituation to experimental pain in patients with migraine. Scalp potentials were evoked by CO(2) laser stimulation (laser evoked potentials, LEPs) of the hand and facial skin in 24 patients with migraine without aura (MO), 19 patients with chronic tension-type headache (CTTH), and 28 control subjects (CS). The habituation was studied by measuring the changes of LEP amplitudes across three consecutive repetitions of 30 trials each (the repetitions lasted 5 min and were separated by 5-min intervals). The slope of the regression line between LEP amplitude and number of repetitions was taken as an index of habituation. The LEPs consisted of middle-latency, low-amplitude responses (N1, contralateral temporal region, and P1, frontal region) followed by a late, high-amplitude, negative-positive complex (N2/P2, vertex). The latency and amplitude of these responses were similar in both patients and controls. While CS and CTTH patients showed a significant habituation of the N2/P2 response, in MO patients this LEP component did not develop any habituation at all after face stimulation and showed a significantly lower habituation than in CS after hand stimulation. The habituation index of the vertex N2/P2 complex exceeded the normal limits in 13 out of the 24 MO patients and in none of the 19 CTTH patients (P<0.0001; Fisher's exact test). Moreover, while the N1-P1 amplitude showed a significant habituation in CS after hand stimulation, it did not change across repetitions in MO patients. In conclusion, no functional impairment of the nociceptive pathways, including the trigeminal pathways, was found in either MO or CTTH patients. But patients with migraine had a reduced habituation, which probably reflects an abnormal excitability of the cortical areas involved in pain processing.

ObjectiveTo evaluate the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of noninvasive vagus nerve stimulation (nVNS; gammaCore; electroCore, LLC, Basking Ridge, NJ) for the acute treatment of migraine in a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, sham-controlled trial.MethodsA total of 248 participants with episodic migraine with/without aura were randomized to receive nVNS or sham within 20 minutes from pain onset. Participants were to repeat treatment if pain had not improved in 15 minutes.ResultsnVNS (n = 120) was superior to sham (n = 123) for pain freedom at 30 minutes (12.7% vs 4.2%; p = 0.012) and 60 minutes (21.0% vs 10.0%; p = 0.023) but not at 120 minutes (30.4% vs 19.7%; p = 0.067; primary endpoint; logistic regression) after the first treated attack. A post hoc repeated-measures test provided further insight into the therapeutic benefit of nVNS through 30, 60, and 120 minutes (odds ratio 2.3; 95% confidence interval 1.2, 4.4; p = 0.012). nVNS demonstrated benefits across other endpoints including pain relief at 120 minutes and was safe and well-tolerated.ConclusionThis randomized sham-controlled trial supports the abortive efficacy of nVNS as early as 30 minutes and up to 60 minutes after an attack. Findings also suggest effective pain relief, tolerability, and practicality of nVNS for the acute treatment of episodic migraine.ClinicalTrials.gov identifierNCT02686034.Classification of evidenceThis study provides Class I evidence that for patients with an episodic migraine, nVNS significantly increases the probability of having mild pain or being pain-free 2 hours poststimulation (absolute difference 13.2%).

The medical treatment of patients with chronic primary headache syndromes (chronic migraine, chronic tension-type headache, chronic cluster headache, hemicrania continua) is challenging as serious side effects frequently complicate the course of medical treatment and some patients may be even medically intractable. When a definitive lack of responsiveness to conservative treatments is ascertained and medication overuse headache is excluded, neuromodulation options can be considered in selected cases.Here, the various invasive and non-invasive approaches, such as hypothalamic deep brain stimulation, occipital nerve stimulation, stimulation of sphenopalatine ganglion, cervical spinal cord stimulation, vagus nerve stimulation, transcranial direct current stimulation, repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation are extensively published although proper RCT-based evidence is limited. The European Headache Federation herewith provides a consensus statement on the clinical use of neuromodulation in headache, based on theoretical background, clinical data, and side effect of each method. This international consensus further gives recommendations for future studies on these new approaches.In spite of a growing field of stimulation devices in headaches treatment, further controlled studies to validate, strengthen and disseminate the use of neurostimulation are clearly warranted. Consequently, until these data are available any neurostimulation device should only be used in patients with medically intractable syndromes from tertiary headache centers either as part of a valid study or have shown to be effective in such controlled studies with an acceptable side effect profile.