Impact of the Neck and/or Shoulder Pain on Self-reported Headache Treatment Responses – Results From a Pharmacy-Based Patient Survey

Neck and/or shoulder pain (NSP) frequently occurs together with headache. Therefore, we explored how patients with and without concomitant NSP differ in their baseline characteristics and in perceived treatment responses to an analgesic. An anonymous survey was performed among 895 patients with headache (735 self-reported tension-type headache [TTH]) who used an analgesic fixed-dose combination containing 400 mg ibuprofen and 100 mg caffeine as a non-prescription treatment. NSP was abundant among patients in our survey (60%) and was associated with >1 additional day of headache per month. Patients with NSP reported predominantly sedentary work more frequently than those without (40 vs. 29%); they also reported physical tension/poor posture as a perceived trigger factor more frequently (70 vs. 16%). The reported pain reduction was comparable in those with and without concomitant NSP regardless of whether assessed as mean pain rating (from about 6 to 1.5 on a 10-point rating scale), patients experiencing a ≥50% in pain reduction (89.6 vs. 88.8%) or becoming pain-free within 2 h (57 vs. 64%). However, recurrence of pain and use of another dose within the same day were more frequent with than without NSP. We conclude that concomitant NSP is frequent in patients with headache but does not substantially alter responses to a non-prescription medication

Cluster headache attack remission with sphenopalatine ganglion stimulation:experiences in chronic cluster headache patients through 24 months

BACKGROUND: Cluster headache (CH) is a debilitating headache disorder with severe consequences for patient quality of life. On-demand neuromodulation targeting the sphenopalatine ganglion (SPG) is effective in treating the acute pain and a subgroup of patients experience a decreased frequency of CH attacks. METHODS: We monitored self-reported attack frequency, headache disability, and medication intake in 33 patients with medically refractory, chronic CH (CCH) in an open label follow-up study of the original Pathway CH-1 study. Patients were followed for at least 24 months (average 750 ± 34 days, range 699-847) after insertion of an SPG microstimulator. Remission periods (attack-free periods exceeding one month, per the ICHD 3 (beta) definition) occurring during the 24-month study period were characterized. Attack frequency, acute effectiveness, medication usage, and questionnaire data were collected at regular clinic visits. The time point “after remission” was defined as the first visit after the end of the remission period. RESULTS: Thirty percent (10/33) of enrolled patients experienced at least one period of complete attack remission. All remission periods followed the start of SPG stimulation, with the first period beginning 134 ± 86 (range 21-272) days after initiation of stimulation. On average, each patient’s longest remission period lasted 149 ± 97 (range 62-322) days. The ability to treat acute attacks before and after remission was similar (37 % ± 25 % before, 49 % ± 32 % after; p = 0.2188). Post-remission headache disability (HIT-6) was significantly improved versus baseline (67.7 ± 6.0 before, 55.2 ± 11.4 after; p = 0.0118). Six of the 10 remission patients experienced clinical improvements in their preventive medication use. At 24 months post insertion headache disability improvements remained and patient satisfaction measures were positive in 100 % (10/10). CONCLUSIONS: In this population of 33 refractory CCH patients, in addition to providing the ability to treat acute attacks, neuromodulation of the SPG induced periods of remission from cluster attacks in a subset of these. Some patients experiencing remission were also able to reduce or stop their preventive medication and remissions were accompanied by an improvement in headache disability

Attitudes towards complementary and alternative medicine in chronic pain syndromes: a questionnaire-based comparison between primary headache and low back pain

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) is widely used and popular among patients with primary headache or low back pain (LBP). Aim of the study was to analyze attitudes of headache and LBP patients towards the use of CAM.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Two questionnaire-based surveys were applied comparing 432 primary headache and 194 LBP patients.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>In total, 84.75% of all patients reported use of CAM; with significantly more LBP patients. The most frequently-used CAM therapies in headache were acupuncture (71.4%), massages (56.4%), and thermotherapy (29.2%), in LBP thermotherapy (77.4%), massages (62.7%), and acupuncture (51.4%). The most frequent attitudes towards CAM use in headache vs. LBP: "leave nothing undone" (62.5% vs. 52.1%; p = 0.006), "take action against the disease" (56.8% vs. 43.2%; p = 0.006). Nearly all patients with previous experience with CAM currently use CAM in both conditions (93.6% in headache; 100% in LBP). However, the majority of the patients had no previous experience.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Understanding motivations for CAM treatment is important, because attitudes derive from wishes for non-pharmacological treatment, to be more involved in treatment and avoid side effects. Despite higher age and more permanent pain in LBP, both groups show high use of CAM with only little specific difference in preferred methods and attitudes towards CAM use. This may reflect deficits and unfulfilled goals in conventional treatment. Maybe CAM can decrease the gap between patients' expectations about pain therapy and treatment reality, considering that both conditions are often chronic diseases, causing high burdens for daily life.</p

Team players against headache: multidisciplinary treatment of primary headaches and medication overuse headache

Multidisciplinary approaches are gaining acceptance in headache treatment. However, there is a lack of scientific data about the efficacy of various strategies and their combinations offered by physiotherapists, physicians, psychologists and headache nurses. Therefore, an international platform for more intense collaboration between these professions and between headache centers is needed. Our aims were to establish closer collaboration and an interchange of knowledge between headache care providers and different disciplines. A scientific session focusing on multidisciplinary headache management was organised at The European Headache and Migraine Trust International Congress (EHMTIC) 2010 in Nice. A summary of the contributions and the discussion is presented. It was concluded that effective multidisciplinary headache treatment can reduce headache frequency and burden of disease, as well as the risk for medication overuse headache. The significant value of physiotherapy, education in headache schools, and implementation of strategies of cognitive behavioural therapy was highlighted and the way paved for future studies and international collaboration

International Consensus Based Review and Recommendations for Minimum Reporting Standards in Research on Transcutaneous Vagus Nerve Stimulation (Version 2020)

Given its non-invasive nature, there is increasing interest in the use of transcutaneous vagus nerve stimulation (tVNS) across basic, translational and clinical research. Contemporaneously, tVNS can be achieved by stimulating either the auricular branch or the cervical bundle of the vagus nerve, referred to as transcutaneous auricular vagus nerve stimulation(VNS) and transcutaneous cervical VNS, respectively. In order to advance the field in a systematic manner, studies using these technologies need to adequately report sufficient methodological detail to enable comparison of results between studies, replication of studies, as well as enhancing study participant safety. We systematically reviewed the existing tVNS literature to evaluate current reporting practices. Based on this review, and consensus among participating authors, we propose a set of minimal reporting items to guide future tVNS studies. The suggested items address specific technical aspects of the device and stimulation parameters. We also cover general recommendations including inclusion and exclusion criteria for participants, outcome parameters and the detailed reporting of side effects. Furthermore, we review strategies used to identify the optimal stimulation parameters for a given research setting and summarize ongoing developments in animal research with potential implications for the application of tVNS in humans. Finally, we discuss the potential of tVNS in future research as well as the associated challenges across several disciplines in research and clinical practice

Evaluating integrated headache care: a one-year follow-up observational study in patients treated at the Essen headache centre

Abstract Background Outpatient integrated headache care was established in 2005 at the Essen Headache Centre in Germany. This paper reports outcome data for this approach. Methods Patients were seen by a neurologist for headache diagnosis and recommendation for drug treatment. Depending on clinical needs, patients were seen by a psychologist and/or physical therapist. A 5-day headache-specific multidisciplinary treatment programme (MTP) was provided for patients with frequent or chronic migraine, tension type headache (TTH) and medication overuse headache (MOH). Subsequent outpatient treatment was provided by neurologists in private practice. Results Follow-up data on headache frequency and burden of disease were prospectively obtained in 841 patients (mean age 41.5 years) after 3, 6 and 12 months. At baseline mean headache frequency was 18.1 (SD = 1.6) days per month, compared to measurement at 1 year follow-up a mean reduction of 5.8 (SD = 11.9) headache days per month was observed in 486 patients (57.8%) after one year (TTH patients mean: -8.5 days per month; migraine mean: -3.2 days per month, patients with migraine and TTH mean: -5.9 days per month). A reduction in headache days ≥ 50% was observed in 306 patients (36.4%) independent of diagnosis, while headache frequency remains unchanged in 20.9% and increase in 21.3% of the patient. Conclusion Multidisciplinary outpatient headache centres offer an effective way to establish a three-tier treatment offer for difficult headache patients depending on clinical needs.</p

Aerobic endurance training versus relaxation training in patients with migraine (ARMIG): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Migraine is one of the most frequent headache diseases and impairs patients’ quality of life. Up to now, many randomized studies reported efficacy of prophylactic therapy with medications such as beta-blockers or anti-epileptic drugs. Non-medical treatment, like aerobic endurance training, is considered to be an encouraging alternative in migraine prophylaxis. However, there is still a lack of prospective, high-quality randomized trials. We therefore designed a randomized controlled trial to evaluate the efficacy of aerobic endurance training versus relaxation training in patients with migraine (ARMIG).</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>This is a single-center, open-label, prospective, randomized trial. Sixty participants with migraine are randomly allocated to either endurance training or a relaxation group. After baseline headache diary documentation over at least 4 weeks, participants in the exercise group will start moderate aerobic endurance training under a sport therapist’s supervision at least 3 times a week over a 12-week period. The second group will perform Jacobson’s progressive muscle relaxation training guided by a trained relaxation therapist, also at least 3 times a week over a 12-week period. Both study arms will train in groups of up to 10 participants. More frequent individual training is possible. The follow-up period will be 12 weeks after the training period. The general state of health, possible state of anxiety or depression, impairments due to the headache disorder, pain-related disabilities, the headache-specific locus of control, and the motor fitness status are measured with standardized questionnaires.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>The study design is adequate to generate meaningful results. The trial will be helpful in gaining important data on exercise training for non-medical migraine prophylaxis.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01407861.</p

Status of clinical research in neurology in Germany-A national survey

Background and purpose To provide an overview on the status of clinical research in neurology in Germany. Methods German university hospitals, nonuniversity hospitals, and neurological medical practices were surveyed regarding their clinical research activities during the period 2013 to 2017. Results Fifty percent of university hospitals, 10.6% of nonuniversity hospitals, and 5.2% of medical practices in Germany responded to our questionnaire. More than 80% of the clinical studies conducted have been phase III/IV and noninterventional trials (NISs), whereas <1% have been phase I and 3.5% investigator-initiated trials (IITs). University hospitals have conducted most of the phase II-IV trials. NISs have been predominantly performed by medical practices. Fifty-six percent of the university hospitals and less of the nonuniversity institutions confirmed the implementation of standard operating procedures (SOPs). In university hospitals, on average, 11 physicians had acquired a good clinical practice certificate. Overall, 43% of all trials have been performed in neuroimmunology. Conclusions The status of clinical research in neurology in Germany is predominated by NISs and late-phase trials, potentially due to a general lack of easily accessible funding, which leads to a highly competitive environment and fewer opportunities to perform early-phase clinical trials as well as IITs. Our results indicate that there is substantial need for structured support for creating and implementing SOPs to maintain quality standards and guarantee uniformity of performance. This survey assessed many aspects of clinical research and serves as guidance for providing ideas for structured improvement of clinical research in neurology in Germany