Safety and efficacy of occipital nerve stimulation for attack prevention in medically intractable chronic cluster headache (ICON): a randomised, double-blind, multicentre, phase 3, electrical dose-controlled trial
- PMID: 34146510
- DOI: 10.1016/S1474-4422(21)00101-0
Safety and efficacy of occipital nerve stimulation for attack prevention in medically intractable chronic cluster headache (ICON): a randomised, double-blind, multicentre, phase 3, electrical dose-controlled trial
Abstract
Background: Occipital nerve stimulation (ONS) has shown promising results in small uncontrolled trials in patients with medically intractable chronic cluster headache (MICCH). We aimed to establish whether ONS could serve as an effective treatment for patients with MICCH.
Methods: The ONS in MICCH (ICON) study is an investigator-initiated, international, multicentre, randomised, double-blind, phase 3, electrical dose-controlled clinical trial. The study took place at four hospitals in the Netherlands, one hospital in Belgium, one in Germany, and one in Hungary. After 12 weeks' baseline observation, patients with MICCH, at least four attacks per week, and history of being non-responsive to at least three standard preventive drugs, were randomly allocated (at a 1:1 ratio using a computer-generated permuted block) to 24 weeks of occipital nerve stimulation at either 100% or 30% of the individually determined range between paraesthesia threshold and near-discomfort (double-blind study phase). Because ONS causes paraesthesia, preventing masked comparison versus placebo, we compared high-intensity versus low-intensity ONS, which are hypothesised to cause similar paraesthesia, but with different efficacy. In weeks 25-48, participants received individually optimised open-label ONS. The primary outcome was the weekly mean attack frequency in weeks 21-24 compared with baseline across all patients and, if a decrease was shown, to show a group-wise difference. The trial is closed to recruitment (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01151631).
Findings: Patients were enrolled between Oct 12, 2010, and Dec 3, 2017. We enrolled 150 patients and randomly assigned 131 (87%) to treatment; 65 (50%) patients to 100% ONS and 66 (50%) to 30% ONS. One of the 66 patients assigned to 30% ONS was not implanted and was therefore excluded from the intention-to-treat analysis. Because the weekly mean attack frequencies at baseline were skewed (median 15·75; IQR 9·44 to 24·75) we used log transformation to analyse the data and medians to present the results. Median weekly mean attack frequencies in the total population decreased from baseline to 7·38 (2·50 to 18·50; p<0·0001) in weeks 21-24, a median change of -5·21 (-11·18 to -0·19; p<0·0001) attacks per week. In the 100% ONS stimulation group, mean attack frequency decreased from 17·58 (9·83 to 29·33) at baseline to 9·50 (3·00 to 21·25) at 21-24 weeks (median change from baseline -4·08, -11·92 to -0·25), and for the 30% ONS stimulation group, mean attack frequency decreased from 15·00 (9·25 to 22·33) to 6·75 (1·50 to 16·50; -6·50, -10·83 to -0·08). The difference in median weekly mean attack frequency between groups at the end of the masked phase in weeks 21-24 was -2·42 (95% CI -5·17 to 3·33). In the masked study phase, 129 adverse events occurred with 100% ONS and 95 occurred with 30% ONS. None of the adverse events was unexpected but 17 with 100% ONS and eight with 30% ONS were labelled as serious, given they required brief hospital admission for minor hardware-related issues. The most common adverse events were local pain, impaired wound healing, neck stiffness, and hardware damage.
Interpretation: In patients with MICCH, both 100% ONS intensity and 30% ONS intensity substantially reduced attack frequency and were safe and well tolerated. Future research should focus on optimising stimulation protocols and disentangling the underlying mechanism of action.
Funding: The Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research, the Dutch Ministry of Health, the NutsOhra Foundation from the Dutch Health Insurance Companies, and Medtronic.
Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Conflict of interest statement
Declaration of interests MDF reports grants and consultancy or industry support from Electrocore, Medtronic, Eli Lilly, Amgen, Novartis, and TEVA, and independent support from The Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research, The Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development, The Dutch Brain and Heart Foundations, The Dutch Ministry of Health, and The NutsOhra Foundation from the Dutch Insurance Companies. FJPMH reports grants and consultancy fees from Abbott, Saluda, and Pfizer, and independent support from The Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development. IFdC reports travel grants from Electrocore. All other authors report no competing interests.
Comment in
-
Occipital nerve stimulation for chronic cluster headache.Lancet Neurol. 2021 Jul;20(7):498-499. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(21)00163-0. Lancet Neurol. 2021. PMID: 34146497 No abstract available.
Similar articles
-
The HortONS study. Treatment of chronic cluster headache with transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation and occipital nerve stimulation: study protocol for a prospective, investigator-initiated, double-blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled trial.BMC Neurol. 2023 Oct 21;23(1):379. doi: 10.1186/s12883-023-03435-9. BMC Neurol. 2023. PMID: 37865755 Free PMC article.
-
A prospective open label 2-8 year extension of the randomised controlled ICON trial on the long-term efficacy and safety of occipital nerve stimulation in medically intractable chronic cluster headache.EBioMedicine. 2023 Dec;98:104895. doi: 10.1016/j.ebiom.2023.104895. Epub 2023 Nov 25. EBioMedicine. 2023. PMID: 38007947 Free PMC article. Clinical Trial.
-
Factors associated with efficacy of occipital nerve stimulation in medically intractable chronic cluster headache.Headache. 2025 Jun 11. doi: 10.1111/head.14985. Online ahead of print. Headache. 2025. PMID: 40497588
-
Cluster headache and other TACs: Pathophysiology and neurostimulation options.Headache. 2017 Feb;57(2):327-335. doi: 10.1111/head.12874. Epub 2016 Aug 4. Headache. 2017. PMID: 28128461 Review.
-
Occipital nerve stimulation for medically intractable headache.Curr Pain Headache Rep. 2008 Jan;12(1):62-6. doi: 10.1007/s11916-008-0012-7. Curr Pain Headache Rep. 2008. PMID: 18417026 Review.
Cited by
-
Cluster headache in adults.Aust Prescr. 2022 Feb;45(1):15-20. doi: 10.18773/austprescr.2022.004. Epub 2022 Feb 1. Aust Prescr. 2022. PMID: 35233134 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Neurostimulation Treatment in Chronic Cluster Headache-a Narrative Review.Curr Pain Headache Rep. 2021 Dec 11;25(12):81. doi: 10.1007/s11916-021-00989-6. Curr Pain Headache Rep. 2021. PMID: 34894300 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Neuromodulation for Chronic Daily Headache.Curr Pain Headache Rep. 2022 Mar;26(3):267-278. doi: 10.1007/s11916-022-01025-x. Epub 2022 Feb 7. Curr Pain Headache Rep. 2022. PMID: 35129825 Free PMC article. Review.
-
The HortONS study. Treatment of chronic cluster headache with transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation and occipital nerve stimulation: study protocol for a prospective, investigator-initiated, double-blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled trial.BMC Neurol. 2023 Oct 21;23(1):379. doi: 10.1186/s12883-023-03435-9. BMC Neurol. 2023. PMID: 37865755 Free PMC article.
-
The profile of refractory chronic cluster headache.Neurol Sci. 2025 Jan;46(1):295-302. doi: 10.1007/s10072-024-07708-0. Epub 2024 Jul 24. Neurol Sci. 2025. PMID: 39044103
Publication types
MeSH terms
Associated data
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
Research Materials