4.4 Article

Habituation of the nociceptive blink reflex in episodic and chronic cluster headache

Journal

CEPHALALGIA
Volume 32, Issue 13, Pages 998-1004

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/0333102412453955

Keywords

Cluster headache; habituation; trigeminal nociception; nociceptive blink reflex

Funding

  1. Grunenthal
  2. Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Muskelkranke
  3. University of Halle-Wittenberg
  4. MSD
  5. Berlin Chemie
  6. Medtronic
  7. Bohringer Ingelheim
  8. Boston Scientific
  9. St. Jude Medical
  10. Medtronic Medical
  11. Linde AG
  12. Berlin-Chemie
  13. Allergan
  14. Almirall
  15. AstraZeneca
  16. Bayer
  17. Galaxo-Smith-Kline
  18. Janssen-Cilag
  19. Pfizer
  20. German Research Council (DFG)
  21. German Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF)
  22. European Union
  23. Biogen
  24. Merck
  25. German Federal Ministry of Education and Research BMBF [01EM 0513]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Analysis of habituation patterns in patients with primary headache disorders allows the detection of changes to the excitability level of the trigeminal nociceptive system. Previous studies demonstrated a habituation deficit to painful stimuli in migraine and it was suggested that similar observations could be made in cluster headache (CH). Methods: Habituation of the nociceptive'' blink reflex (nBR) (R2 response) was studied in 66 CH patients (18 episodic CH inside bout, 28 episodic CH outside bout, 20 chronic CH) as well as in 30 healthy controls in a case-control study design. Results: Habituation behaviour was similar in CH and healthy controls as well as in CH subtypes. No side-to-side differences of habituation between headache side and non-headache side were detected. Conclusion: Our results did not detect an altered habituation in CH patients. Despite clinical similarities, migraine and CH seem not to share the same pathophysiological mechanisms in this regard.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available