Next Article in Journal
Are Cervical Length and Fibronectin Predictors of Preterm Birth after Fetal Spina Bifida Repair? A Single Center Cohort Study
Previous Article in Journal
Pregnancy Outcomes in Females with Stage 1 Hypertension and Elevated Blood Pressure Undergoing In Vitro Fertilization and Embryo Transfer
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
JCM
Volume 12
Issue 1
10.3390/jcm12010122
jcm-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Treatment of Primary Nummular Headache: A Series of 183 Patients from the NUMITOR Study

by
Cristina García-Iglesias
1,
Francesca Puledda
2,
Ana Echavarría-Íñiguez
1,*,
Yesica González-Osorio
1,
Álvaro Sierra-Mencía
1,
Andrea Recio-García
1,
Ana González-Celestino
1,
Gonzalo Valle-Peñacoba
1,
Pablo Irimia
3,
Ángel Luis Guerrero-Peral
1,4 and
David García-Azorín
1,4
1
Headache Unit, Neurology Department, Hospital Clínico Universitario, 47003 Valladolid, Spain
2
Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, NIHR-Wellcome Trust King’s Clinical Research Facility/SLaM Biomedical Research Centre, King’s College London, London SE5 8AF, UK
3
Neurology Department, Clínica Universitaria de Navarra, Universidad de Navarra, 31008 Pamplona, Spain
4
Department of Medicine, Universidad de Valladolid, 47003 Valladolid, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Clin. Med. 2023, 12(1), 122; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12010122
Submission received: 22 November 2022 / Revised: 12 December 2022 / Accepted: 20 December 2022 / Published: 23 December 2022
(This article belongs to the Section Pharmacology)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Nummular headache (NH) is a primary headache characterized by superficial coin-shaped pain. NUMITOR (NCT 05475769) is an observational study evaluating the responder rate of preventive drugs in NH patients. The treatment response was assessed between weeks 8 and 12 compared with the baseline. Patients were included between February 2002 and October 2022. Demographic and clinical variables were assessed; treatment response was estimated by 50%, 30%, and 75% responder rates and treatment discontinuation due to inadequate tolerability. A total of 183 out of 282 patients fulfilled eligibility criteria and completed the study. Patients were aged 49.5 (standard deviation (SD): 16.8) years, and 60.7% were female. NH phenotype was a parietal circular pain of four centimeters’ diameter, moderate intensity, and oppressive quality. At baseline, patients had 25 (interquartile range) pain days per month. Preventive treatment was used by 114 (62.3%) patients. The highest 50% and 75% responder rates corresponded to onabotulinumtoxinA (62.5%, 47.5%), followed by gabapentin (43.7%, 35.2%). Oral preventive drugs were not tolerated by 12.9–25%. The present study provides class IV evidence of the effectiveness of oral preventive drugs and onabotulinumtoxinA in the treatment of primary NH. OnabotulinumtoxinA was the most effective and best-tolerated drug, positioning it as first-line treatment of NH.

1. Introduction

In 2002, Pareja et al. reported the first series of 13 patients affected by a circumscribed coin-shaped cephalalgia that was named “nummular headache” (NH) [1]. In 2004, the disorder was included in the International Classification of Headache Disorders (ICHD) [2], being part of group 4—other primary headache disorders—in the third edition [3]. Although preventive treatment is required by 50–80% of patients with NH [4,5,6,7], evidence regarding this aspect is limited. As there are no existing randomized controlled trials, treatment recommendations are based on case reports, case series [5,6], or retrospective cohort studies [7], and propose gabapentin as first-line therapy and onabotulinumtoxinA for treatment-resistant patients. In addition, the definition of treatment response is heterogeneous, with studies accepting any degree of clinical benefit as positive response [4,5,6,7,8,9,10]. Further, no treatment recommendations regarding the design of studies evaluating the efficacy of preventive treatment of NH exist as they do for migraine [11]. In fact, for migraine trials, the three recommended efficacy endpoints are: (1) the reduction in the mean number of headache days per month, compared with the baseline; (2) the reduction in the mean number of migraine days per month, compared with the baseline, and (3) the 50% responder rate.
The main objective of the present study was to evaluate the 50% responder rate in patients with NH treated with preventive therapies between weeks 8 and 12 of treatment compared with baseline. The secondary endpoints included the evaluation of the 30% and 75% responder rates between weeks 8 and 12 and 20 and 24. The frequency and type of treatment-emergent adverse effects (TEAE) and treatment discontinuation due to adverse effects (AEs) were evaluated.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Design and Registry

The NUMITOR study (Nummular Headache Iberian Study on the Treatments and Outcomes in Real-World Setting) is an analytical observational study with an ambisective (retrospective and prospective) cohort design. Here, we report the data from the retrospective analysis of the study of prospectively collected patients from our registry. The study protocol and the statistical analysis plan (SAP) were published in ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT 05475769). The study was performed and reported in accordance with the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guidelines [12].

2.2. Study Location and Participants

The study was carried out in the Hospital Clínico Universitario de Valladolid, a third-level public university hospital located in Valladolid. The East Valladolid Ethics Review Board approved the study (PI-GR-21-2394), and all participants read and signed an informed consent form.

2.3. Study Subjects and Eligibility Criteria

The study population were patients with NH who, under the opinion of their responsible neurologists, required preventive treatment in any of its modalities, oral or injectable.
The inclusion criteria were: (1) NH diagnosis according to the ICHD-3 criteria [2], (2) minimum duration of NH of 3 months or more, (3) age over 18 years old, and (4) informed consent signature.
The exclusion criteria were: (1) the diagnosis was better accounted for by any other disorder included in ICHD-3 [2]; (2) had any serious systemic or psychiatric pathology that makes it difficult to assess the patient; (3) had a secondary cause of NH [13], including post-traumatic NH; (4) used preventive drugs for another indication other than NH (e.g., epilepsy, other painful conditions, aesthetic, sleep disorders); and (5) had multifocal NH.

2.4. Study Period

The study period covered from February 2002, the date of the NH description [1], to October 2022.

2.5. Variables

Data were collected by headache experts using a standardized questionnaire that was adapted from the Valladolid NH registry, whose results have been previously published [6,13,14,15]. The studied variables included:
(a)
Demographic variables: sex, age of onset (years), age at the time of consultation, months of evolution from the NH onset to the NH diagnosis. Prior history of patients included prior history of hypertension, dyslipidemia, diabetes, overweight, smoking habit, alcohol abuse, asthma, nephrolithiasis, chronic painful syndromes, cardiovascular diseases, peptic ulcer disease, affective disorders, and sleep disorders. Prior history of other headache disorders was specifically assessed, including the type, as per ICHD-3 criteria [2].
(b)
Clinical variables: location (frontal, temporal, parietal, occipital, vertex), laterality (right, left, or parasagittal), shape (ovoid or circular), size (centimeters), baseline intensity (verbal analog scale (VAS) 0–10), quality of the pain (oppressive, throbbing, stabbing, electric, or others), worsening of pain with physical activity, presence of associated symptoms (photophobia, phonophobia, osmophobia, nausea, vomiting, cranial autonomic symptoms), presence of allodynia, presence of dysesthesia, presence of trophic changes, presence of remissions, and presence of exacerbations.
(c)
Paraclinical variables: presence of alterations in acute phase reactants (C-reactive protein (CRP), and erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR)) and presence of alterations in neuroimaging.
(d)
Treatment-related variables: symptomatic and preventive treatment use and response to preventive treatment, measured according to the criteria of the International Headache Society [11] by estimating the 30%, 50%, and 75% responder rates. The proportion of patients that discontinued each treatment due to lack of tolerability was estimated. Treatment was selected as per responsible physician criteria and the local standard of care and national guidelines [16]. OnabotulinumtoxinA (AbbVie Inc., North Chicago, IL, USA) was injected in five points in the painful area, with 5 units per point.

2.6. Information Sources and Data Collection

Electronic or paper medical records were reviewed. In case of missing data, participants were asked to contact patients and retrieve these by a clinical interview, whenever feasible. In those patients who were diagnosed before the publication date of ICHD-3 [3], the NH diagnosis was reviewed based on the criteria of the latest edition to increase consistency and guarantee comparability. A headache diary was given to participants to register the frequency of headache and the treatment need and response.
The information was completed in an anonymized, centralized database using a data collection form in the REDCap software (Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA).

2.7. Sample Size

Based on a preliminary analysis of data from our center [17], the 50% responder rate between weeks 8 and 12 of the main preventive treatments ranged between 50% and 77% for amitriptyline, lamotrigine, pregabalin, gabapentin, and onabotulinumtoxinA. With a 95% confidence level, for an estimated proportion of 66% and a precision of 10%, the sample size would be 84 patients, increasing to 98 with an expected proportion of patient losses of 15%.

2.8. Statistical Analysis

The SAP was published on 11 July 2022 at ClinicalTrials.gov. The ordinal qualitative and quantitative variables were presented as frequency and percentage, and quantitative variables as mean and standard deviation, or as median and interquartile range based on the type of distribution. The normality of the distribution was evaluated using the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test, and the homogeneity of variances by Levene’s test.
The statistical analysis was performed by intention to treat. To evaluate the responder rate, the percentage of patients who presented a reduction in the number of headache days per month of at least 30%, 50%, and 75% between weeks 8 and 12, compared with the month prior to the start of treatment, was calculated. The proportion of patients experiencing adverse effects and discontinuing treatment because of them was assessed. Missing data were addressed by conservative analyses by the baseline carried forward method. A statistical significance level of p < 0.05 was considered. For the adjustment for multiple comparisons, the false discovery rate according to the Benjamini–Hochberg method was used. Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) (version 26.0 for Mac) (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA) was used for the analysis.

3. Results

During the study period, n = 282 patients were screened. Of these, n = 269 fulfilled the inclusion criteria; a further n = 86 were excluded, with n = 183 fulfilling the eligibility criteria. Figure 1 shows the flow diagram of patients.

3.1. Demographic Variables and Prior Medical History

Regarding demographic variables, n = 111 (60.7%) patients were female, aged 49.5 (SD: 16.8) years at onset and 51.4 (SD: 16.9) years at consultation, with a median time of 7.5 (IQR: 3–14.2) months of evolution between NH onset and diagnosis. Concerning prior medical history, n = 164 patients had medical comorbidities (89.6%), including arterial hypertension in n = 62 (33.9%), dyslipidemia in n = 65 (35.5%), diabetes in n = 12 (6.6%), overweight in n = 48 (26.2%), smoking habit in n = 32 (17.4%), asthma in n = 2 (6.6%), chronic painful syndromes in n = 8 (4.4%), cardiovascular disorders in n = 55 (30.1%), peptic ulcer disease in n = 19 (10.4%), affective disorders in n = 49 (26.8%), and sleep disorders in n = 5 (2.7%). No patients had nephrolithiasis or alcohol abuse. Patients had prior history of headache disorders in n = 60 (32.8%) cases, including migraine in n = 28 (15.3%), epicrania fugax in n = 20 (10.9%), tension-type headache in 7 (3.8%), cranial autonomic cephalalgia in n = 2 (1.1%), primary headache associated with sexual activity in n = 1 (0.5%), primary stabbing headache in n = 1 (0.5%), and headache attributed to spontaneous intracranial hypotension in n = 1 (0.5%).

3.2. Clinical and Paraclinical Variables

Table 1 summarizes the clinical variables of the sample. The most frequent headache phenotype was parietal circular pain, with a median size of 4 centimeters, with moderate intensity, oppressive quality of pain, and rarely associated symptoms. Seven patients had increased ESR, and no patients had increased CRP upon diagnosis. Twenty-two patients had incidental findings in imaging studies that were deemed unrelated to NH by the responsible physician.

3.3. Treatment of NH

Patients required acute treatment in n = 141 (77.7%) cases and preventive treatment in n = 114 (62.3%) cases. The most frequently used preventives were gabapentin in n = 71 (38.8%) cases, onabotulinumtoxinA in n = 39 (21.3%), amitriptyline in n = 31 (16.9%), lamotrigine in n = 23 (12.6%), pregabalin in 9 (4.9%), anesthetic blockades in 9 (4.9%), beta-blockers in 8 (4.4%), flunarizine in 7 (3.8%), topiramate in 6 (3.3%), carbamazepine in 4 (2.2%), and mirtazapine in 1 (0.5%). Information about treatment response missed in cases of patients treated with amitriptyline (n = 2), onabotulinumtoxinA (n = 1), and gabapentin (n = 2), which were imputed by baseline carried forward. Table 2 lists the response to preventive drugs.
The drug with the highest 30%, 50%, and 75% response rate was onabotulinumtoxinA. Figure 2 shows the 30%, 50%, and 75% responder rate for the most frequently used drugs.

4. Discussion

The present study represents the largest published series of real-world evidence regarding preventive treatment of primary NH. IHS-recommended endpoints of efficacy were employed in order to ensure the highest possible quality of evidence and in order to allow the comparability and combination of our results in future studies and meta-analyses. The main results of our study were in line with the existing literature on NH, with onabotulinumtoxinA and gabapentin found to be the most effective treatments. With regard to tolerability, oral preventive drugs were not tolerated by 12–25% of patients, leading to treatment discontinuation. In this regard, onabotulinumtoxinA was also better tolerated.
The demographic profile of patients with NH differs from that of those with migraine, with an older age and higher frequency of comorbidities [18]. In our study, we specifically assessed the frequency of specific comorbidities that would contraindicate the use of oral preventive drugs, such as asthma, nephrolithiasis, or cardiovascular disorders.
In the literature, five studies have described the benefit of onabotulinumtoxinA in NH, finding it effective in 42/64 of treated patients [10,19,20,21,22]. This drug was first used in the treatment of NH in 2008 in a series of 4 patients who showed benefit with the treatment [19]. A series of 5 NH patients who were resistant to other oral preventive drugs and anesthetic blockades was published subsequently; of these, 3 improved with onabotulinumtoxinA treatment [20]. Further case reports [21,22] and case series expanded the topic, with the largest series (n = 53) being published by our group, where a 50% responder rate of 62% between weeks 8 and 12 of treatment, compared with the baseline, was observed in NH patients [10]. In this study, we were able to compare the efficacy and tolerability of onabotulinumtoxinA with other oral preventive drugs for the first time with onabotulinumtoxinA showing better results. This is particularly relevant in a population that is on average older than that of other primary headache disorders, and with more frequent comorbidities. For these reasons, we suggest guidelines proposing onabotulinumtoxinA as the first drug of choice in the treatment of NH [16].
Gabapentin is the oral preventive drug with most available evidence in the treatment of primary NH. Case reports and case series have shown pain disappearance in 27/43 (40%) [5,23,24,25,26,27,28] of NH patients treated with gabapentin. Improvement in the intensity of pain was found in 18/39 (46%) patients [5,25,29,30], while no response was reported in 5/6 (83%) patients [21,30,31] and lack of tolerability in 1 additional case [32]. These results could indeed be due to a publication bias, with positive studies more likely to report the clinical benefit; further, only two large series have been published in the literature so far [5,6]. In our study, 21% of NH patients treated with gabapentin discontinued the drug due to inadequate tolerability. The proportion of patients with migraine who discontinued gabapentin due to tolerability issues was even higher, at 25% (24/98) [33], with a higher proportion of adverse events observed in patients treated with higher gabapentin doses of up to 1200–3000 mg per day [34].
Evidence supporting the use of amitriptyline is even more limited, with only 4/6 (67%) patients describing pain disappearance [7]. Pain benefit in previous reports was shown in 2/6 (33%) patients [7], partial benefit after a combination of drugs including amitriptyline in three additional patients [5], and no response in 6/15 (40%) patients [5,35]. There was no evidence supporting the use of lamotrigine in NH [6], this report being the first series that show positive benefit in some cases. This drug could indeed represent an alternative in patients with resistance or contraindication to other preventive drugs. The effect of other therapies, such as magnesium or vitamin D, has not been explored yet in NH, but could potentially have a role [36].
The main limitations of this study lie within its retrospective nature. There was also the possibility of selection bias, as we tended to include patients with more severe NH, while patients with mild or inactive NH were less likely to be represented. To minimize detection bias and increase the validity of the study, a standardized questionnaire was used to minimize interobserver variability. To avoid attrition bias and minimize the impact of missing data, conservative analyses and assumptions were made. Future studies should expand the treatment response beyond 12 weeks of treatment. The NUMITOR study will provide further evidence from multiple centers with a prospective cohort design.

5. Conclusions

The present study provides class IV evidence on the treatment of primary nummular headache. The 50% responder rate between weeks 8 and 12, compared with the baseline, ranged from 35–44% following oral preventive drugs to 62% after onabotulinumtoxinA use. OnabotulinumtoxinA also showed the highest 75% responder rate and tolerability rates, with no patients discontinuing treatment because of side effects, as opposed to oral preventive treatments, which were discontinued due to poor tolerability in 12–25% of patients. These findings support the use of onabotulinumtoxinA as first-line treatment of NH.
The study was funded by the Regional Health Administration (Gerencia Regional de Salud, SACYL, Castilla y León, GRS 2416/A/21).

Author Contributions

Investigation, C.G.-I., F.P., A.E.-Í., Á.S.-M., A.R.-G., A.G.-C., G.V.-P., Á.L.G.-P. and Y.G.-O.; data curation, D.G.-A.; writing—original draft, C.G.-I., F.P., A.E.-Í., Á.S.-M., A.R.-G., A.G.-C., G.V.-P., Á.L.G.-P. and D.G.-A.; writing—review & editing, C.G.-I., F.P., A.E.-Í., Á.S.-M., A.R.-G., A.G.-C., G.V.-P., P.I., Á.L.G.-P. and D.G.-A.; supervision, P.I. and D.G.-A.; project administration, D.G.-A. and Y.G.-O. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The study was funded by the Regional Health Administration (Gerencia Regional de Salud, SACYL, Castilla y León, grant number: GRS 2416/A/21).

Institutional Review Board Statement

The East Valladolid Ethics Review Board approved the study (PI-GR-21-2394).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data are available upon request from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Pareja, J.A.; Caminero, A.B.; Serra, J.; Barriga, F.J.; Barón, M.; Dobato, J.L.; Vela, L.; Sánchez del Río, M. Numular headache: A coin-shaped cephalgia. Neurology 2002, 58, 1678–1679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Headache Classification Subcommittee of the International Headache Society. The International Classification of Headache Disorders: 2nd edition. Cephalalgia 2004, 24 (Suppl. S1), 9–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Headache Classification Committee of the International Headache Society (IHS). The International Classification of Headache Disorders, 3rd edition. Cephalalgia 2018, 38, 1–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Cuadrado, M.L.; López-Ruiz, P.; Guerrero, Á.L. Nummular headache: An update and future prospects. Expert Rev. Neurother. 2018, 18, 9–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Clar-de-Alba, B.; Barriga, F.J.; Rodríguez-Caravaca, G. Descripción clínica y fisiopatológica de la cefalea numular: Serie de casos Clinical and pathophysiological description of nummular headaches: A case series. Rev. Neurol. 2020, 70, 171–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Trigo, J.; García-Azorín, D.; Martinez Pias, E.; Sierra, Á.; Chavarría, A.; Guerrero, A.L. Clinical characteristics of nummular headache and differentiation between spontaneous and posttraumatic variant: An observational study. J. Headache Pain. 2019, 20, 34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Pellesi, L.; Cevoli, S.; Favoni, V.; Lupi, C.; Mampreso, E.; Negro, A.; Russo, A.; Benemei, S.; Guerzoni, S. Nummular headache: A gender-oriented perspective on a case series from the RegistRare Network. Neurol. Sci. 2020, 41, 583–589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Barón, J.; Rodríguez, C.; Ruiz, M.; Pedraza, M.I.; Guerrero, Á.L.; Madeleine, P.; Cuadrado, M.L.; Fernández-de-Las-Peñas, C. Atypical nummular headache or circumscribed migraine: The utility of pressure algometry. Pain Res. Manag. 2015, 20, 60–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Patel, U.K.; Saleem, S.; Anwar, A.; Malik, P.; Chauhan, B.; Kapoor, A.; Arumaithurai, K.; Kavi, T. Characteristics and treatment effectiveness of the nummular headache: A systematic review and analysis of 110 cases. BMJ Neurol. Open. 2020, 2, e000049. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. García-Azorín, D.; Trigo-López, J.; Sierra, Á.; Blanco-García, L.; Martínez-Pías, E.; Martínez, B.; Talavera, B.; Guerrero, Á.L. Observational, open-label, non-randomized study on the efficacy of onabotulinumtoxinA in the treatment of nummular headache: The pre numabot study. Cephalalgia 2019, 39, 1818–1826. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Tassorelli, C.; Diener, H.C.; Dodick, D.W.; Silberstein, S.D.; Lipton, R.B.; Ashina, M.; Becker, W.J.; Ferrari, M.D.; Goadsby, P.J.; Pozo-Rosich, P.; et al. Guidelines of the International Headache Society for controlled trials of preventive treatment of chronic migraine in adults. Cephalalgia 2018, 38, 815–832. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Von Elm, E.; Altman, D.G.; Egger, M.; Pocock, S.J.; Gøtzsche, P.C.; Vandenbroucke, J.P.; STROBE Initiative. Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: Guidelines for reporting observational studies. BMJ 2007, 335, 806–808. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. García-Iglesias, C.; Martínez-Badillo, C.; García-Azorín, D.; Trigo-López, J.; Martínez-Pías, E.; Guerrero-Peral, Á.L. Secondary nummular headache: A new case series and review of the literture. Pain Med. 2021, 22, 2718–2727. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Cortijo, E.; Guerrero-Peral, A.L.; Herrero-Velazquez, S.; Penas-Martinez, M.L.; Rojo-Martinez, E.; Mulero, P.; Fernandez, R. Cefalea numular: Caracteristicas clínicas y experiencia terapéutica en una serie de 30 nuevos casos [Nummular headache: Clinical features and therapeutic experience in a series of 30 new cases]. Rev. Neurol. 2011, 52, 72–80. [Google Scholar]
  15. Guerrero, A.L.; Cortijo, E.; Herrero-Velázquez, S.; Mulero, P.; Miranda, S.; Peñas, M.L.; Pedraza, M.I.; Fernández, R. Nummular headache with and without exacerbations: Comparative characteristics in a series of 72 patients. Cephalalgia 2012, 32, 649–653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Molina Martínez, F.J.; Castrillo Sanz, A.; González García, N.; Mendoza Rodríguez, A.; Toribio Díaz, M.E.; Otras cefaleas primarias. En; Santos Lasaosa, S.; Pozo Rosich, P. Manual de Práctica Clínica Cefaleas: Recomendaciones Diagnóstico-Terapéuticas de la Sociedad Española de Neurología; Universidad de Cantabria: Santander, Spain, 2020; ISBN 978-84-18420-19-1. [Google Scholar]
  17. Marson, T. Abstracts of the 5th Congress of the European Academy of Neurology, Oslo, Norway, June 2019. Eur. J. Neurol. 2019, 26 (Suppl. S1), 1–1009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Ashina, M.; Terwindt, G.M.; Al-Karagholi, M.A.; de Boer, I.; Lee, M.J.; Hay, D.L.; Schulte, L.H.; Hadjikhani, N.; Sinclair, A.J.; Ashina, H.; et al. Migraine: Disease characterisation, biomarkers, and precision medicine. Lancet 2021, 397, 1496–1504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Mathew, N.T.; Kailasam, J.; Meadors, L. Botulinum toxin type A for the treatment of nummular headache: Four case studies. Headache 2008, 48, 442–447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Dusitanond, P.; Young, W. Botulinum toxin type A’s efficacy in nummular headache. Headache 2008, 48, 1379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Ruscheweyh, R.; Buchheister, A.; Gregor, N.; Jung, A.; Evers, S. Nummular headache: Six new cases and lancinating pain attacks as possible manifestation. Cephalalgia 2010, 30, 249–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Irimia, P.; Palma, J.A.; Idoate, M.A.; España, A.; Riverol, M.; Martinez-Vila, E. Cephalalgia alopecia or nummular headache with trophic changes? A new case with prolonged follow-up. Headache 2013, 53, 994–997. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Trucco, M.; Mainardi, F.; Perego, G.; Zanchin, G. Nummular headache: First Italian case and therapeutic proposal. Cephalalgia 2006, 26, 354–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Trucco, M. Nummular headache: Another case treated with gabapentin. J. Headache Pain 2007, 8, 137–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  25. Guerrero, A.L.; Cuadrado, M.L.; García-García, M.E.; Cortijo, E.; Herrero-Velázquez, S.; Rodríguez, O.; Mulero, P.; Porta-Etessam, J. Bifocal nummular headache: A series of 6 new cases. Headache 2011, 51, 1161–1166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Kurian, M.; Solomon, G.D. Can temporal course of pain determine patient response to specific medication in nummular headache? Headache 2014, 54, 1058–1061. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Rodríguez, C.; Herrero-Velázquez, S.; Ruiz, M.; Barón, J.; Carreres, A.; Rodríguez-Valencia, E.; Guerrero, A.L.; Madeleine, P.; Cuadrado, M.L.; Fernández-de-Las-Peñas, C. Pressure pain sensitivity map of multifocal nummular headache: A case report. J. Headache Pain 2015, 16, 523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Panda, P.K.; Moirangthem, V.; Sharawat, I.K. Nummular Headache: A Rare Headache Type in a Child Responding to Carbamazepine and Gabapentin. Ann. Indian Acad. Neurol. 2021, 24, 943–944. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Evans, R.W.; Pareja, J.A. Nummular headache. Headache 2005, 45, 164–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Álvaro, L.; Garcí, J.; Areitio, E. Nummular Headache: A Series with Symptomatic and Primary Cases. Cephalalgia 2009, 29, 379–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Liu, Y.; Wei, T. First three cases of scalp temperature change in symptomatic areas affected by nummular headache: A case report. BMC Neurol. 2018, 18, 223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Thomas, D.C.; Heir, G.M.; Patil, A.G.; Soni, P.K. Nummular Headache–a Case Report of a Rare Entity. Curr. Pain Headache Rep. 2020, 24, 71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Mathew, N.T.; Rapoport, A.; Saper, J.; Magnus, L.; Klapper, J.; Ramadan, N.; Stacey, B.; Tepper, S. Efficacy of gabapentin in migraine prophylaxis. Headache 2001, 41, 119–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Silberstein, S.; Goode-Sellers, S.; Twomey, C.; Saiers, J.; Ascher, J. Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase II trial of gabapentin enacarbil for migraine prophylaxis. Cephalalgia 2013, 33, 101–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Zhu, K.Y.; Huang, Y.; Zhong, S.S.; Bao, Z.Y.; Tian, X.L. Nummular headache: 21 new cases and therapeutic results. Zhonghua Yi Xue Za Zhi 2008, 88, 2935–2937. [Google Scholar]
  36. Dell’Isola, G.B.; Tulli, E.; Sica, R.; Vinti, V.; Mencaroni, E.; Di Cara, G.; Striano, P.; Verrotti, A. The Vitamin D Role in Preventing Primary Headache in Adult and Pediatric Population. J. Clin. Med. 2021, 10, 5983. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Jcm 12 00122 g001 550
Figure 1. Flow diagram of screened, included, excluded, and enrolled patients.
Figure 1. Flow diagram of screened, included, excluded, and enrolled patients.
Jcm 12 00122 g001
Jcm 12 00122 g002 550
Figure 2. Responder rates of 30%, 50%, and 75%.
Figure 2. Responder rates of 30%, 50%, and 75%.
Jcm 12 00122 g002
Table
Table 1. Clinical variables of patients with NH.
Table 1. Clinical variables of patients with NH.
VariableFrequency (%)
Location *
Frontal location45 (24.6%)
Temporal location27 (14.8%)
Parietal location 77 (42.1%)
Occipital location41 (22.4%)
Vertex location7 (3.8%)
Facial location0 (0%)
Laterality
Right sided86 (50.4%)
Left sided70 (38.3%)
Parasagittal27 (14.8%)
Ovoid shape26 (14.2%)
Circular shape157 (85.8%)
Size (cm)4 (IQR: 3–5)
Baseline intensity (0–10)5 (IQR: 4–6)
Headache days per month (days)25 (IQR: 10–30)
Quality of pain
Oppressive quality78/154 (50.6%)
Throbbing quality13/154 (8.4%)
Stabbing quality30/154 (19.5%)
Electric quality0 (0%)
Burning quality33/154 (21.4%)
Worsening by physical activity10 (5.5%)
Associated photophobia 10 (5.5%)
Associated phonophobia 8 (4.4%)
Associated osmophobia0 (0%)
Associated nausea8 (4.4%)
Associated vomiting6 (3.3%)
Cranial autonomic symptoms4 (2.2%)
Presence of allodynia65 (35.5%)
Presence of dysesthesia59 (32.2%)
Presence of trophic changes3 (1.6%)
Presence of remissions20 (10.9%)
Presence of exacerbations88 (48.1%)
* When NH was located in between two bones, both locations were selected (i.e., parieto-occipital). Differing denominator indicates missing data.
Table
Table 2. Treatment response to preventive drugs.
Table 2. Treatment response to preventive drugs.
DrugNot ToleratedNo Response (0–30%)Partial Response (31–50%)Adequate Response (51–75%)Optimal Response (>75%)
Amitriptyline (n = 31)4 (12.9%)11 (35.5%)4 (12.9%)6 (19.3%)6 (19.3%)
Beta-blockers (n = 8)1 (12.5%)4 (50%)1 (12.5%)2 (25%)0 (0%)
Anesthetic blockades (n = 9)0 (0%)1 (11.1%)2 (22.2%)1 (11.1%)5 (55.6%)
Carbamazepine (n = 4)1 (25%)1 (25%)0 (0%)0 (0%)2 (50%)
Flunarizine (n = 7)0 (0%)5 (71.4%)2 (15.5%)0 (0%)0 (0%)
Gabapentin (n = 71)15 (21.1%)14 (19.7%)11 (15.5%)6 (8.5%)25 (35.2%)
Lamotrigine (n = 23)3 (13.0%)9 (39.1%)3 (13.0%)3 (13.0%)5 (21.7%)
Mirtazapine (n = 1)0 (0%)1 (100%)0 (0%)0 (0%)0 (0%)
Pregabalin (n = 9)2 (22.2%)1 (11.1%)4 (44.4%)1 (11.1%)1 (11.1%)
Topiramate (n = 6)0 (0%)5 (83.3%)0 (0%)1 (16.7%)0 (0%)
OnabotulinumtoxinA (n = 40)0 (0%)6 (15.0%)9 (22.5%)6 (15.0%)19 (47.5%)
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

García-Iglesias, C.; Puledda, F.; Echavarría-Íñiguez, A.; González-Osorio, Y.; Sierra-Mencía, Á.; Recio-García, A.; González-Celestino, A.; Valle-Peñacoba, G.; Irimia, P.; Guerrero-Peral, Á.L.; et al. Treatment of Primary Nummular Headache: A Series of 183 Patients from the NUMITOR Study. J. Clin. Med. 2023, 12, 122. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12010122

AMA Style

García-Iglesias C, Puledda F, Echavarría-Íñiguez A, González-Osorio Y, Sierra-Mencía Á, Recio-García A, González-Celestino A, Valle-Peñacoba G, Irimia P, Guerrero-Peral ÁL, et al. Treatment of Primary Nummular Headache: A Series of 183 Patients from the NUMITOR Study. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2023; 12(1):122. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12010122

Chicago/Turabian Style

García-Iglesias, Cristina, Francesca Puledda, Ana Echavarría-Íñiguez, Yesica González-Osorio, Álvaro Sierra-Mencía, Andrea Recio-García, Ana González-Celestino, Gonzalo Valle-Peñacoba, Pablo Irimia, Ángel Luis Guerrero-Peral, and et al. 2023. "Treatment of Primary Nummular Headache: A Series of 183 Patients from the NUMITOR Study" Journal of Clinical Medicine 12, no. 1: 122. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12010122

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop