- Open Access
Focus on therapy: hemicrania continua and new daily persistent headache
© Springer-Verlag 2010
- Received: 3 December 2009
- Accepted: 25 January 2010
- Published: 26 February 2010
Hemicrania continua (HC) and new daily-persistent headache (NDPH) represent the only two forms of chronic daily headache in Chap. IV “Other Primary Headaches” of the second edition of the International Classification of Headache Disorders. HC and NDPH are rare and poorly defined from a pathophysiological point of view; as a consequence, their management is largely empirical. Indeed, there is a lack of prospective, controlled trials in this field, and treatment effectiveness is basically inferred from the results of sparse open-label trials, retrospective case series, clinical experience and expert opinions. In this narrative review we have summarised the information collected from an extensive analysis of the literature on the treatment of HC and NDPH in order to provide the best available and up-to-date evidence for the management of these two rare forms of primary headache. Indomethacin is the mainstay of HC management. The reported effective dose of indomethacin ranges from 50 to 300 mg/day. Gabapentin 600–3,600 mg tid, topiramate 100 mg bid, and celecoxib 200–400 mg represent the most interesting alternative choices in the patients who do not tolerate indomethacin or who have contraindications to its use. NDPH is very difficult to treat and it responds poorly only to first-line options used for migraine or tension-type headache.
- Hemicrania continua
- New daily persistent headache
- Chronic daily headache
Hemicrania continua (HC) and new daily-persistent headache (NDPH) represent the only two forms of chronic, daily headache in Chap. IV “Other Primary Headaches” of the second edition of the International Classification of Headache Disorders (ICHD-II) . The chronic temporal pattern differentiates these two forms from the other types included in Chap. IV, which are episodic and/or short-lasting headache and rarely require a prolonged treatment.
Hemicrania continua (HC) and NDPH are rare and poorly defined from a pathophysiological point of view. As a consequence, the management of HC and NDPH is largely empirical. Indeed, there is a lack of prospective, controlled trials in this field, and treatment effectiveness is basically inferred from the results of sparse open-label trials, retrospective case series, clinical experience and expert opinions. The only available guidelines for the therapy of HC and NDPH are not available in English and have been released soon after the publication of ICHD-II, thus including cases mainly diagnosed with other diagnostic criteria .
In this narrative review we have summarised the information collected from an extensive analysis of the literature on the treatment of HC and NDPH in order to provide the best available and up-to-date evidence for the management of these two rare forms of primary headache.
Clinical features, diagnostic criteria, epidemiology and pathophysiology
International Headache Society diagnostic criteria for hemicrania continua
Description: persistent strictly unilateral headache responsive to indomethacin
A. Headache for >3 months fulfilling criteria B–D
B. All of the following characteristics
1. Unilateral pain without side shift
2. Daily and continuous, without pain-free periods
3. Moderate intensity, but with exacerbations of severe pain
C. At least one of the following autonomic features occurs during exacerbations and ipsilateral to the side of pain
1. Conjunctival injection and/or lacrimation
2. Nasal congestion and/or rhinorrhoea
3. Ptosis and/or miosis
D. Complete response to therapeutic doses of indomethacin
E. Not attributed to another disorder
Different classification systems have been proposed for HC [6, 7]. Universally accepted operational diagnostic criteria for HC are contained in the ICHD-II and include, as an obligatory criterion, an absolute response to therapeutic doses of indomethacin. However, this criterion has been criticised because HC may also respond to other drugs, although less effectively, and also because it means that HC cannot be diagnosed in patients who have never been administered this drug . Very recently, Murmura et al. , in a retrospective study, reported that most patient with a clinical phenotype leading to a putative diagnosis of HC do not respond to indomethacin. The fact that HC is included in Chap. IV of ICHD-II, “Other primary headaches”, reflects its uncertain nosological status. Indeed, the clinical phenotype of HC overlaps that of trigeminal autonomic cephalalgias and migraine, possibly because it shares a pathophysiological mechanism with these two conditions [9, 10]. The inclusion of HC among the primary chronic headache disorders (CHDs) has been criticised on the grounds that aside from the chronicity, a highly unspecific quality, HC is a headache condition showing a sharply delineated unilaterality and clear therapeutic profile . From a practical point of view, it may indeed be helpful to consider HC as one of the possible causes of chronic daily headache (CDH). Early administration of the “indotest” (a diagnostic test to detect indomethacin-responsive headaches) to all cases of chronic unilateral headache may lead to the timely identification of cases of HC .
Early diagnosis of HC is mandatory because the condition can be highly disabling and treatment with indomethacin may help patients to achieve a pain-free state. The diagnostic indotest involves injection of indomethacin 50 mg i.m. and measurement of time for complete pain relief. In 12 HC patients, complete pain relief was achieved 2 h after this injection . The test is simple and may also be helpful in identifying atypical cases .
Indomethacin is the mainstay of HC management. The mechanism by which it exerts its effect on HC and other primary headaches is unclear. The reported effective dose of indomethacin for HC ranges from 50 to 300 mg a day [3, 14]. It is advisable to start with 25 mg tid. The response to indomethacin is prompt. Most patients report complete relief of headache within 24 h. After one week, if the patient is asymptomatic, the dose should be decreased to the minimum effective dose at which the patient remains pain-free. If, on the other hand, there is no satisfactory response, the dose should be increased to 50 mg tid. Occasional patients require higher doses. Gastroprotectors are required to control gastrointestinal side effects of indomethacin and to prevent gastroduodenal ulcers. Because remitting forms have been described, after 3–6 months all patients should try to decrease the daily dose of indomethacin by 25 mg each week until discontinuation, unless the symptoms reappear.
Hemicrania continua is often a lifelong condition, raising the issue of loss of therapeutic efficacy over time and potential long-term side effects. Indomethacin does not seem to show tachyphylaxis. On the contrary, Pareja et al.  showed that, over time, 42% of patients were able to decrease, by up to 60%, the dose of indomethacin required to maintain a pain-free state. As regards the long-term tolerability of indomethacin, of 12 HC patients followed up for varying periods of between 1 and 11 years, 23% experienced minor side effects, mostly gastrointestinal problems relieved with gastroprotectors . In the literature, more than 35% of patients receiving therapeutic dosages of indomethacin experience adverse effects and 20% have to discontinue the drug . Most adverse effects are dose-related, which underlines the importance of achieving the lowest effective dose. Gastrointestinal complications, such as anorexia, nausea, vomiting, dyspepsia, abdominal pain, mucosal ulceration and diarrhoea are the most frequent adverse effects but they are not often a cause for discontinuation. Indomethacin is contraindicated in conditions, such as renal failure, gastric ulcers and bleeding disorders. The risks associated with long-term indomethacin use include gastrointestinal ulcers and renal dysfunction, such as papillary necrosis. The first described HC patient was followed up for 19 years and developed bleeding gastric ulcer, treated with gastric surgery .
Patients who cannot tolerate indomethacin present a major challenge as regards the management of their headache, as no other drug has been shown to be consistently effective in HC. However, anecdotal observations suggest that drugs other than indomethacin may be helpful in HC. Sjaastad and Antonaci  reported a complete response to piroxicam beta-cyclodestrin 20 to 40 mg/day in 4 out of 6 patients (1 had a moderate response and 1 had no response). Selective COX-2 inhibitors, rofecoxib (50 mg/day) and celecoxib (200–400 mg bid), were found to be highly effective in 3 out of 9 patients and 3 out of 5 patients , respectively (1 patient receiving celecoxib and 5 of those receiving rofecoxib experienced a partial response). The COX-2 inhibitors have been proposed as an alternative to indomethacin in HC and other indomethacin-responsive syndromes [18, 19], but their long-term use has recently been associated with an increased risk of myocardial infarction and stroke, and rofecoxib has been withdrawn from the market worldwide . Indeed, an increased risk of cardiovascular events exists with non-steroideal anti-inflammatory drugs in general, indomethacin included, and patients with cardiovascular disease should be informed about this risk and considered for alternative therapeutic options . Rozen  described 3 patients responding to melatonin (9–15 mg/day), which has a similar chemical structure to indomethacin. In two cases melatonin alone was sufficient to achieve a pain-free state while in the third case it made it possible to reduce the total dose of indomethacin by 50%. Another case responding to melatonin 7 mg at bedtime was described by Spears , and there have recently been descriptions of five cases (two with atypical features) responding to topiramate (100 mg bid), and of a single patient with HC evolving from CH responding to valproic acid [24–27]. Very recently, Spears reported the efficacy of gabapentin in 9 HC patients who had difficulties in tolerating indomethacin . Seven patients reported a 50–80% reduction of pain with doses ranging from 900 to 3,600 mg/day (two of them used other medication for pain control). One patient reported a 50% reduction of pain and one reported no effect. Four patients were pain free on gabapentin (600–1,800 mg/day).
Isolated case reports have described ibuprofen, naproxen, aspirin, paracetamol with caffeine and verapamil as effective [29, 30], but most of these drugs have been found to be ineffective in other HC cases.
Other classes of drug have not been successful in controlling HC. Antonaci et al.  reported a lack of efficacy of sumatriptan in 7 patients. Because HC is widely misdiagnosed, patients are prescribed many classes of drugs, often ones effective in migraine (such as analgesics, calcium-antagonists, beta-blockers, amitriptyline and other antidepressants, antiepileptics, ergot derivatives, pizotifen, methysergide) as well as others that are reported to be of no benefit in migraine .
Anaesthetic blockades of pericranial nerves have been found to be ineffective .
To review the problems linked to the misdiagnosis and mismanagement of HC patients we recently interviewed 25 consecutive HC subjects attending the Headache Clinic INI Grottaferrata . Patients were asked about their use of pharmacological treatments, surgical treatments and non-pharmacological treatments for headache and to rate the effectiveness of each treatment on a four-point scale (very effective, i.e. complete and long-lasting relief; effective, i.e. partial and/or short-lasting relief; ineffective; headache worsened). The patients had tried a mean of 3.63 ± 2.1 different classes of drug (67% prescribed, 33% unprescribed). NSAIDs had been tried by 92%. Nimesulide (a non-steroideal anti-inflammatory drug not available on the market in US and in the majority of EU countries) had been tried by 7 patients and been judged very effective by one and effective by six. Aspirin and ibuprofen had each been tried by 9 patients and were rated as effective by five and three of them, respectively. Antidepressants had been used by 8 patients (6 amitriptyline, 2 fluoxetine) but showed no effectiveness. Triptans had been used by 8 patients (5 sumatriptan s.c., 1 zolmitriptan and 2 rizatriptan) and been judged ineffective by all of them. Two patients had used rofecoxib and considered it very effective. Taken together, these HC patients had used a cumulative total of 80 different drug treatments, judging 73.7% of these medications ineffective, 22.5% partially effective (all NSAIDs) and 3.75% (rofecoxib and nimesulide) effective.
As much as 36% of the patients had undergone ineffective and unnecessary surgery (dental extraction, sinus/deviated septum surgery, temporomandibular joint surgery and cervical spine surgery) for their HC. Four patients had tried acupuncture (two considering it effective) and four had tried homeopathy (deemed ineffective by all of them).
These data suggest that HC is largely mismanaged as a consequence of its misdiagnosis. Indeed, apart from NSAIDs which, as a rule, were not prescribed, patients were mainly prescribed, by physicians, medications shown to be effective in the treatment of migraine or cluster headache but ineffective for HC.
Hemicrania continua may be complicated by overuse of symptomatic drugs [8, 37] and (in this situation) differential diagnosis of HC versus transformed or chronic migraine may be difficult. An exhaustive disease history could be helpful, as it may show a pre-existing unilateral primary headache. However, the overused medication should always be withdrawn and, if the headache persists, the indomethacin response should be tested.
Clinical features, diagnostic criteria, epidemiology and pathophysiology
International Headache Society diagnostic criteria for NDPH
Headache that is daily and unremitting from very soon after onset (within 3 days at most). The pain is typically bilateral, pressing or tightening in quality and of mild to moderate intensity. There may be photophobia, phonophobia or mild nausea
A. Headache that, within 3 days of onset, fulfils criteria B-D
B. Headache is present daily, and is unremitting, for >3 months
C. At least two of the following pain characteristics
1. Bilateral location
2. Pressing/tightening (non-pulsating) quality
3. Mild or moderate intensity
4. Not aggravated by routine physical activity such as walking or climbing stairs
D. Both of the following
1. No more than one of photophobia, phonophobia or mild nausea
2. Neither moderate or severe nausea nor vomiting
E. Not attributed to another disorder
In a recent clinic-based study conducted in a paediatric population, using a modified version of the ICHD-II criteria, NDPH was more common than CTTH and most of the subjects with NDPH did not overuse medication and commonly presented migrainous features .
New daily-persistent headache (NDPH) is probably a heterogeneous disorder and should therefore be regarded as a syndrome. A viral infection or other organic cause may precede the headache in more than one-third of patients , possibly leading to a CNS inflammation and sensitisation of nociceptive pathways . In some patients, cervical spine joint hypermobility may be a factor predisposing to the development of NDPH . NDPH has a wide range of secondary forms that have to be excluded after thorough diagnostic work-up . In these cases the causes (e.g. spontaneous intracranial hypotension, neoplasms, pseudotumour cerebri, cervical artery dissections, cerebral venous thrombosis, Chiari I malformation and temporal arteritis) can be treated and should be carefully excluded before a headache management plan is worked out . The prognosis of NDPH is highly variable, ranging from self-limiting cases that typically resolve without therapy within several months to refractory cases resistant to aggressive treatment programmes.
Further pathophysiological and clinical characterisation of this syndrome is necessary so that the management of NDPH can be based on a clear rationale and on specific treatment options and general recommendation can be given. Empirical evidence on NDPH therapy is poor and based on the application of treatments that have proved to be effective in migraine or TTH. No prospective, placebo-controlled trial has been conducted in this field and the effectiveness of treatment can only be inferred, from the results of a few open-label trials, retrospective case reviews, anecdotal observations, expert opinions and generalisations from the literature on episodic migraine and TTH.
The largest uncontrolled study investigating the effectiveness of drug therapy and the prognosis of NDPH diagnosed according to the ICHD-II criteria was conducted in Japan by Takase et al. . In 30 NDPH patients (17 males) the authors first administered muscle relaxants. If no effect was observed, tricyclic antidepressants (23 patients), valproic acid (9 patients), SSRIs (12 patients) and beta-blockers (2 patients) were subsequently administered. Drug treatment was rated as very effective by 27% of patients, moderately effective by 3%, mildly effective by 20% and ineffective by 50%. The authors concluded that NDPH has a poor prognosis and is highly resistant to currently available treatments.
Meineri et al.  retrospectively evaluated the effectiveness of drug therapy in 18 NDPH patients (the authors used both ICHD-II and Silberstein-Lipton’s criteria). Sixteen patients tried amitriptyline, seven tried fluoxetine and seven tried valproic acid. The authors reported that no drug was effective.
In a small American case series of NDPH patients diagnosed according to the Silberstein and Lipton criteria, the following drugs were reported to be effective: gabapentin (1 case, 2,700 mg/day), topiramate (1 case, 150 mg/day), venlafaxine (1 case, 75 mg/day) and nortriptyline (1 case, 100 mg/day) . In these cases the therapeutic effectiveness was achieved after the patients had tried many first-line drugs for migraine and CTTH. Marmura et al.  recently reported 3 patients with NDPH (two of which were overusing symptomatic drugs) who experienced significant improvement with mexiletine (1,050–1,200 mg) after having failed on multiple appropriate preventive treatments. All of these patients experienced side effects, such as nausea, fatigue, tremor and dizziness, which were reported to be dose-dependent. An isolated report has documented the effectiveness of botulinum toxin A .
Like other chronic daily headaches, NDPH may be complicated by medication overuse. Physicians are advised to ascertain a patient’s complete medication history before starting any therapy. If medication overuse is diagnosed, drug withdrawal is necessary before other therapeutic options can be tried even though no prospective study has specifically investigated the effect of medication overuse in the worsening and maintenance of NDPH or in the determining of a resistance to therapy.
In summary, NDPH seems to be difficult to treat and to respond only poorly to first-line options used for migraine or TTH. Well-designed, targeted clinical trials considering the heterogeneity of this clinical entity, are needed so that an evidence-based therapy can be developed for this poorly characterised clinical syndrome.
Conflict of interest
- International Headache Society Classification Subcommittee (2004) International classification of headache disorders, 2nd edn. Cephalalgia 24 (Suppl 1):1–60Google Scholar
- Evers S, Frese A, May A, Sixt G, Straube A. Die therapie seltener idiopatischer Kopfschmerzerkrankungen – Empfehlungen der Deutschen Migrane und Kopfschmerzgesellschaft. http://www.dmkg.de/pdf/selt_idiop_ks.pdf. Accessed 12 Jan 2010
- Sjaastad O, Spierings EL (1984) “Hemicrania continua”: another headache absolutely responsive to indomethacin. Cephalalgia 4:65–70 10.1046/j.1468-2982.1984.0401065.x, 1:STN:280:DyaL2c7otVKktg%3D%3DPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Peres MF, Silberstein SD, Nahmias S, Schechter AL, Youssef I, Rozen TD, Young WB (2001) Hemicrania continua is not that rare. Neurology 57:948–951 1:STN:280:DC%2BD3MrjtFGhsA%3D%3DPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Sjaastad O, Bakketeig LS (2007) The rare, unilateral headaches. Vågå study of headache epidemiology. J Headache Pain 8:19–27 10.1007/s10194-006-0292-4PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Pareja JA, Vincent M, Antonaci F, Sjaastad O (2001) Hemicrania continua: diagnostic criteria and nosologic status. Cephalalgia 21:874–877 10.1046/j.1468-2982.2001.00276.x, 1:STN:280:DC%2BD387nvF2jtw%3D%3DPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Goadsby PJ, Lipton RB (1997) A review of paroxysmal hemicranias, SUNCT syndrome and other short-lasting headaches with autonomic features, including new cases. Brain 120:193–209 10.1093/brain/120.1.193PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Murmura MJ, Silberstein SD, Gupta M (2008) Hemicrania continua: who responds to indomethacin? Cephalalgia 29:300–307 10.1111/j.1468-2982.2008.01719.xView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Allena M, Tassorelli C, Sances G, Guaschino E, Sandrini G, Nappi G, Antonaci F (2008) Is hemicrania continua a single entity or the association of two headache forms? Considerations from a case report. Headache Oct 10 (Epub ahead of print)Google Scholar
- Matharu MS, Cohen AS, McGonigle DJ, Ward N, Frackowiak RS, Goadsby PJ (2004) Posterior hypothalamic and brainstem activation in hemicrania continua. Headache 44:747–761 10.1111/j.1526-4610.2004.04141.xPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Spierings EL, Sjaastad O (2002) Hemicrania continua is not that rare. Neurology 59:476–477PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Antonaci F, Pareja JA, Caminero AB, Sjaastad O (1998) Chronic paroxysmal hemicrania and hemicrania continua. Parenteral indomethacin: the “indotest”. Headache 38:122–128 10.1046/j.1526-4610.1998.3802122.x, 1:STN:280:DyaK1c7ptVKksQ%3D%3DPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Baldacci F, Nuti A, Cafforio G, Lucetti C, Logi C, Cipriani G, Orlandi G, Bonuccelli U (2008) ‘INDOTEST’ in atypical hemicrania continua. Cephalalgia 28:300–301 10.1111/j.1468-2982.2007.01525.x, 1:STN:280:DC%2BD1c%2Fpsl2nsA%3D%3DPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Pareja JA, Caminero AB, Franco E, Casado JL, Pascual J, Sánchez del Río M (2001) Dose, efficacy and tolerability of long-term indomethacin treatment of chronic paroxysmal hemicrania and hemicrania continua. Cephalalgia 21:906–910 10.1046/j.1468-2982.2001.00287.x, 1:STN:280:DC%2BD387nvF2jtQ%3D%3DPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Dodick D (2004) Indomethacin-responsive headache syndromes. Curr Pain Headache Rep 8:19–26 10.1007/s11916-004-0036-6PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Sjaastad O (2006) Chronic paroxysmal hemicrania, hemicrania continua and SUNCT: the fate of the three-first described cases. J Headache Pain 7:151–156 10.1007/s10194-006-0303-5PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Sjaastad O, Antonaci F (1995) A piroxicam derivative partly effective in chronic paroxysmal hemicrania and hemicrania continua. Headache 35:549–550 10.1111/j.1526-4610.1995.hed3509549.x, 1:STN:280:DyaK28%2FosVCrtA%3D%3DPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Peres MF, Silberstein SD (2002) Hemicrania continua responds to cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors. Headache 42:530–531 10.1046/j.1526-4610.2002.02131.xPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Peres MF, Zukerman E (2000) Hemicrania continua responsive to rofecoxib. Cephalalgia 20:130–131 10.1046/j.1468-2982.2000.00029.x, 1:STN:280:DC%2BD3M%2FlsFGmuw%3D%3DPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Lenzer J (2005) FDA advisers warn: COX 2 inhibitors increase risk of heart attack and stroke. BMJ 330:440 10.1136/bmj.330.7489.440PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Roumie CL, Choma NN, Kaltenbacch L, Mitchel EF Jr, Arbogast PG, Mr Griffin (2009) Non-aspirin NSAIDs, cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors and risk for cardiovascular events-stroke, acute yocardial infarction, and death from coronary hearth disease. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 18:1053–1063 10.1002/pds.1820, 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD1MXhs1SmtbfPPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Rozen TD (2006) Melatonin responsive hemicrania continua. Headache 46:1203–1204 10.1111/j.1526-4610.2006.00514_1.xPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Spears RC (2006) Hemicrania continua: a case in which a patient experienced complete relief on melatonin. Headache 46:524–527 10.1111/j.1526-4610.2006.00386_5.xPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Matharu MS, Bradbury P, Swash M (2006) Hemicrania continua: side alternation and response to topiramate. Cephalalgia 26:341–344 10.1111/j.1468-2982.2005.01034.x, 1:STN:280:DC%2BD28%2FosFKjuw%3D%3DPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Brighina F, Palermo A, Cosentino G, Fierro B (2007) Prophylaxis of hemicrania continua: two new cases effectively treated with topiramate. Headache 47:441–443 10.1111/j.1526-4610.2006.00628.xPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Camarda C, Camarda R, Monastero R (2008) Chronic paroxysmal hemicrania and hemicrania continua responding to topiramate: two case reports. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 110:88–91 10.1016/j.clineuro.2007.09.002PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Lambru G, Castellini P, Bini A, Evangelista A, Manzoni GC, Torelli P (2008) Hemicrania continua evolving from cluster headache responsive to valproic acid. Headache 48:1374–1376 10.1111/j.1526-4610.2008.01249.xPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Spears RC (2009) Is gabapentin an effective treatment choice for hemicrania continua? J Headache Pain 10:271–275 10.1007/s10194-009-0126-2, 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD1MXotF2jurw%3DPubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Matharu MS, Boes CJ, Goadsby PJ (2003) Management of trigeminal autonomic cephalalgias and hemicrania continua. Drugs 63:1637–1677 10.2165/00003495-200363160-00002, 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD3sXntlKisL4%3DPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Rajabally YA, Jacob S (2005) Hemicrania continua responsive to verapamil. Headache 45:1082–1083 10.1111/j.1526-4610.2005.05193_1.xPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Antonaci F, Pareja JA, Caminero AB, Sjaastad O (1998) Chronic paroxysmal hemicrania and hemicrania continua: lack of efficacy of sumatriptan. Headache 38:197–200 10.1046/j.1526-4610.1998.3803197.x, 1:STN:280:DyaK1c3isVeitg%3D%3DPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Bordini C, Antonaci F, Stovner LJ, Schrader H, Sjaastad O (1991) “Hemicrania continua”: a clinical review. Headache 31:20–26 10.1111/j.1526-4610.1991.hed3101020.x, 1:STN:280:DyaK3M3gtFSkug%3D%3DPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Antonaci F, Pareja JA, Caminero AB, Sjaastad O (1997) Chronic paroxysmal hemicrania and hemicrania continua: anaesthetic blockades of pericranial nerves. Funct Neurol 12:11–15 1:STN:280:DyaK2s3nt1CisQ%3D%3DPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Schwedt TJ, Dodick DW, Hentz J, Trentman TL, Zimmerman RS (2007) Occipital nerve stimulation for chronic headache–long term safety and efficacy. Cephalalgia 27:153–157 10.1111/j.1468-2982.2007.01272.x, 1:STN:280:DC%2BD2s%2FlsValtg%3D%3DPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Burns B, Watkins L, Goadsby PJ (2008) Treatment of hemicrania continua by occipital nerve stimulation with a bion device: long-term follow-up of a crossover study. Lancet Neurol 7:1001–1012 10.1016/S1474-4422(08)70217-5PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Rossi P, Faroni V, Tassorelli C, Nappi G (2009) Diagnostic delay and mismanagement in a referral population with hemicrania continua. Headache 49:227–234 10.1111/j.1526-4610.2008.01260.xPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Pareja JA, Antonaci F, Vincent M (2001) The hemicrania continua diagnosis. Cephalalgia 21:940–946 10.1046/j.1468-2982.2001.00290.x, 1:STN:280:DC%2BD387isVeltA%3D%3DPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Diaz-Mitoma F, Vanast WJ, Tyrrel DL (1987) Increased frequency of Epstein–Barr virus excretion in patients with new-daily persistent headaches. Lancet 1:411–415 10.1016/S0140-6736(87)90119-X, 1:STN:280:DyaL2s7hsVGltg%3D%3DPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Vanast WJ (1986) New daily persistent headache: definition of a benign syndrome. Headache 26:317Google Scholar
- Silberstein SD, Lipton RB, Solomon S, Mathew NT (1994) Classification of daily and near daily headache: proposed revision to the IHS-criteria. Headache 34:1–7 10.1111/j.1526-4610.1994.hed3401001.xView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Kung E, Tepper SJ, Rapoport AM, Sheftell FD, Bigal ME (2009) New daily persistent headache in the paediatric population. Cephalalgia 29:17–22 10.1111/j.1468-2982.2008.01647.x, 1:STN:280:DC%2BD1M%2FlsFKhsg%3D%3DPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Li D, Rozen TD (2002) The clinical characteristics of new daily persistent headache. Cephalalgia 22:66–69 10.1046/j.1468-2982.2002.00326.x, 1:STN:280:DC%2BD383ltlGrug%3D%3DPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Rozen T, Swidan SZ (2007) Elevation of CSF tumor necrosis factor alpha levels in new daily-persistent headache and treatment refractory chronic migraine. Headache 47:1050–1055 10.1111/j.1526-4610.2006.00722.xPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Rozen TD, Roth JM, Denenberg N (2006) Cervical spine joint hypermobility: a possible predisposing factor for new daily persistent headache. Cephalalgia 26:1182–1185 10.1111/j.1468-2982.2006.01187.x, 1:STN:280:DC%2BD28rjs12jtg%3D%3DPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Goadsby PJ, Boes C (2002) New daily persistent headache. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 72(Suppl 2):ii6–ii9PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Takase Y, Nakano M, Tatsumi C, Matsuyama T (2004) Clinical features, effectiveness of drug-based treatment, and prognosis of new daily persistent headache (NDPH): 30 cases in Japan. Cephalalgia 24:955–959 10.1111/j.1468-2982.2004.00771.x, 1:STN:280:DC%2BD2crht1Chsg%3D%3DPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Meineri P, Torre E, Rota E, Grasso E (2004) New daily persistent headache: clinical and serological characteristics in a retrospective study. Neurol Sci 25(Suppl 3):S281–S282 10.1007/s10072-004-0310-8PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Evans RW, Rozen TD (2001) Etiology and treatment of new daily persistent headache. Headache 41:830–832 10.1046/j.1526-4610.2001.01152.x, 1:STN:280:DC%2BD3MrjtVejsQ%3D%3DPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Marmura MJ, Passero FC Jr, Young WB (2008) Mexiletine for refractory chronic headache: a report of nine cases. Headache 48:1506–1510 10.1111/j.1526-4610.2008.01234.xPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Spears RC (2008) Efficacy of botulinum toxin type A in new daily persistent headache. J Headache Pain 9:405–406 10.1007/s10194-008-0078-yPubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar