Headache-related circuits and high frequencies evaluated by EEG, MRI, PET as potential biomarkers to differentiate chronic and episodic migraine: Evidence from a systematic review.
Javier Gomez-Pilar, Víctor Martínez-Cagigal, David García-Azorín, Carlos Gómez, Ángel Guerrero, Roberto Hornero
{"title":"Headache-related circuits and high frequencies evaluated by EEG, MRI, PET as potential biomarkers to differentiate chronic and episodic migraine: Evidence from a systematic review.","authors":"Javier Gomez-Pilar, Víctor Martínez-Cagigal, David García-Azorín, Carlos Gómez, Ángel Guerrero, Roberto Hornero","doi":"10.1186/s10194-022-01465-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The diagnosis of migraine is mainly clinical and self-reported, which makes additional examinations unnecessary in most cases. Migraine can be subtyped into chronic (CM) and episodic (EM). Despite the very high prevalence of migraine, there are no evidence-based guidelines for differentiating between these subtypes other than the number of days of migraine headache per month. Thus, we consider it timely to perform a systematic review to search for physiological evidence from functional activity (as opposed to anatomical structure) for the differentiation between CM and EM, as well as potential functional biomarkers. For this purpose, Web of Science (WoS), Scopus, and PubMed databases were screened.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>Among the 24 studies included in this review, most of them (22) reported statistically significant differences between the groups of CM and EM. This finding is consistent regardless of brain activity acquisition modality, ictal stage, and recording condition for a wide variety of analyses. That speaks for a supramodal and domain-general differences between CM and EM that goes beyond a differentiation based on the days of migraine per month. Together, the reviewed studies demonstrates that electro- and magneto-physiological brain activity (M/EEG), as well as neurovascular and metabolic recordings from functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and positron emission tomography (PET), show characteristic patterns that allow to differentiate between CM and EM groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Although a clear brain activity-based biomarker has not yet been identified to distinguish these subtypes of migraine, research is approaching headache specialists to a migraine diagnosis based not only on symptoms and signs reported by patients. Future studies based on M/EEG should pay special attention to the brain activity in medium and fast frequency bands, mainly the beta band. On the other hand, fMRI and PET studies should focus on neural circuits and regions related to pain and emotional processing.</p>","PeriodicalId":501630,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of Headache and Pain","volume":" ","pages":"95"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9354370/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Journal of Headache and Pain","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s10194-022-01465-1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: The diagnosis of migraine is mainly clinical and self-reported, which makes additional examinations unnecessary in most cases. Migraine can be subtyped into chronic (CM) and episodic (EM). Despite the very high prevalence of migraine, there are no evidence-based guidelines for differentiating between these subtypes other than the number of days of migraine headache per month. Thus, we consider it timely to perform a systematic review to search for physiological evidence from functional activity (as opposed to anatomical structure) for the differentiation between CM and EM, as well as potential functional biomarkers. For this purpose, Web of Science (WoS), Scopus, and PubMed databases were screened.
Findings: Among the 24 studies included in this review, most of them (22) reported statistically significant differences between the groups of CM and EM. This finding is consistent regardless of brain activity acquisition modality, ictal stage, and recording condition for a wide variety of analyses. That speaks for a supramodal and domain-general differences between CM and EM that goes beyond a differentiation based on the days of migraine per month. Together, the reviewed studies demonstrates that electro- and magneto-physiological brain activity (M/EEG), as well as neurovascular and metabolic recordings from functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and positron emission tomography (PET), show characteristic patterns that allow to differentiate between CM and EM groups.
Conclusions: Although a clear brain activity-based biomarker has not yet been identified to distinguish these subtypes of migraine, research is approaching headache specialists to a migraine diagnosis based not only on symptoms and signs reported by patients. Future studies based on M/EEG should pay special attention to the brain activity in medium and fast frequency bands, mainly the beta band. On the other hand, fMRI and PET studies should focus on neural circuits and regions related to pain and emotional processing.
背景:偏头痛的诊断主要是临床和自我报告,这使得在大多数情况下不需要额外的检查。偏头痛可分为慢性(CM)和发作性(EM)。尽管偏头痛的患病率非常高,但除了每月偏头痛的天数外,没有基于证据的指南来区分这些亚型。因此,我们认为及时进行系统回顾,从功能活动(而不是解剖结构)中寻找CM和EM之间区分的生理证据,以及潜在的功能生物标志物。为此,筛选了Web of Science (WoS)、Scopus和PubMed数据库。结果:在本综述纳入的24项研究中,大多数(22项)报告了CM组和EM组之间的统计学显著差异。这一发现是一致的,无论大脑活动获取方式、初始阶段和各种分析的记录条件如何。这说明CM和EM之间的超模态和域一般差异超出了基于每月偏头痛天数的区分。总之,回顾的研究表明,脑电和磁生理活动(M/EEG),以及功能磁共振成像(fMRI)和正电子发射断层扫描(PET)的神经血管和代谢记录显示出可以区分CM组和EM组的特征模式。结论:虽然还没有明确的基于大脑活动的生物标志物来区分这些偏头痛亚型,但研究正在接近头痛专家,不仅根据患者报告的症状和体征来诊断偏头痛。未来基于M/EEG的研究应特别关注中、快频段的大脑活动,主要是β频段。另一方面,fMRI和PET研究应该关注与疼痛和情绪处理相关的神经回路和区域。