Myofascial trigger points in migraine and tension-type headache

Abstract Background A myofascial trigger point is defined as a hyperirritable spot in skeletal muscle that is associated with a hypersensitive palpable nodule in a taut band. It has been suggested that myofascial trigger points take part in chronic pain conditions including primary headache disorders. The aim of this narrative review is to present an overview of the current imaging modalities used for the detection of myofascial trigger points and to review studies of myofascial trigger points in migraine and tension-type headache. Findings Different modalities have been used to assess myofascial trigger points including ultrasound, microdialysis, electromyography, infrared thermography, and magnetic resonance imaging. Ultrasound is the most promising of these modalities and may be used to identify MTrPs if specific methods are used, but there is no precise description of a gold standard using these techniques, and they have yet to be evaluated in headache patients. Active myofascial trigger points are prevalent in migraine patients. Manual palpation can trigger migraine attacks. All intervention studies aiming at trigger points are positive, but this needs to be further verified in placebo-controlled environments. These findings may imply a causal bottom-up association, but studies of migraine patients with comorbid fibromyalgia syndrome suggest otherwise. Whether myofascial trigger points contribute to an increased migraine burden in terms of frequency and intensity is unclear. Active myofascial trigger points are prevalent in tension-type headache coherent with the hypothesis that peripheral mechanisms are involved in the pathophysiology of this headache disorder. Active myofascial trigger points in pericranial muscles in tension-type headache patients are correlated with generalized lower pain pressure thresholds indicating they may contribute to a central sensitization. However, the number of active myofascial trigger points is higher in adults compared with adolescents regardless of no significant association with headache parameters. This suggests myofascial trigger points are accumulated over time as a consequence of TTH rather than contributing to the pathophysiology. Conclusions Myofascial trigger points are prevalent in both migraine and tension-type headache, but the role they play in the pathophysiology of each disorder and to which degree is unclarified. In the future, ultrasound elastography may be an acceptable diagnostic test

Low adherence to the guideline for the acute treatment of migraine

The real-world use of triptans in the treatment of migraine is disappointing. Only 12% of the Danish migraine population purchased a triptan between 2014 and 2019, and only 43% repurchased a triptan after first prescription. The aim of the present study was to assess whether physicians and patients adhere to the therapeutic guideline on acute migraine treatment. We interviewed 299 triptan experienced participants with migraine and 101 triptan naïve participants with migraine from the Danish Migraine Population Cohort, using a semi-structured questionnaire. Descriptive statistical analyses were used to study the association with triptan use and the assessed factors. Among triptan naïve participants with migraine, 64% had consulted their general practitioner about their migraine, of whom only 23% received information about the possibility of triptan treatment. Among triptan experienced participants, 77% had only tried one type of triptan. Only 12% could recall they had been informed by their general practitioner to try each triptan three times before giving up. Twenty percent were informed to try three different triptans in total, if the first did not work. In disagreement with the guideline, participants who reported a low pain reduction by a triptan had only tried one type of triptan. Our study shows a low adherence to therapeutic guideline for the attack treatment of migraine. There is a need for better education of general practitioners regarding treatment of migraine. Future campaigns should aim to inform both the public and the general practitioner about antimigraine treatments

Cutaneous nociception and neurogenic inflammation evoked by PACAP38 and VIP

Pituitary adenylate cyclase-activating peptide-38 (PACAP38) and vasoactive intestinal peptide (VIP) belong to the same secretin–glucagon superfamily and are present in nerve fibers in dura and skin. Using a model of acute cutaneous pain we explored differences in pain perception and vasomotor responses between PACAP38 and VIP in 16 healthy volunteers in a double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study. All participants received intradermal injections of 200 pmol PACAP38, 200 pmol VIP and placebo into the volar forearm. Measurements included pain intensity on a visual analog scale (VAS), blood flow by laser Doppler flowmetry, visual flare and wheal. Pain intensities after PACAP38 and VIP were mild and limited to a short time of about 100 s after injection. The area under the VAS-time curve was larger following PACAP38 (P = 0.004) and VIP (P = 0.01) compared to placebo. We found no statistical difference in pain perception between PACAP38 and VIP. Skin blood flow increase, flare and wheal were larger after both PACAP38 (P = 0.011) and VIP (P = 0.001) compared to placebo. VIP induced a considerably larger increase in skin blood flow, flare and wheal than PACAP38 (P = 0.002). In conclusion, we found that peripheral nociceptive cutaneous responses elicited by PACAP38 and VIP are similar in healthy volunteers. This suggests that acute pain and vasomotor responses following intradermal injections of PACAP38 and VIP are primarily mediated by VPAC receptors

Evaluating Headache and Facial Pain in a Headache Diagnostic Laboratory: Experiences from the Danish Headache Center

Background: Diagnostic tests are not routinely used for the diagnosis of primary headaches. It is possible that laboratory tests could be developed and implemented at tertiary headache centers to be an integrated part of the diagnosis and management of headache patients, and laboratory tests that can be used on-site at headache centers could help in evaluating patients with secondary headache disorders. Methods: In this narrative review, we present some of the studies that have been made so far at the Headache Diagnostic Laboratory at the Danish Headache Center that aim to investigate and phenotype primary headaches and investigate secondary headaches as well as improve management. Results: Semi-structured interviews and deep phenotyping, quantitative sensory testing, and provocation studies have been shown to be valuable in categorizing primary and secondary headache subtypes, possible pathophysiology, and defining needs for further research. In patients suspected of increased intracranial pressure, transorbital ultrasound with measurement of the optic sheath diameter may be useful in monitoring patients. The management of headache patients needs to be critically evaluated to optimize treatment continuously. Conclusion: A Headache Diagnostic Laboratory is very useful and should be an integrated part of headache care and management at tertiary headache centers