Cold Therapy in Migraine Patients: Open-label, Non-controlled, Pilot Study

Some patients with headache report that they have frequently used physical therapies such as application of cold to relieve their headache. There are only a few reported studies related to cold therapies in patients with migraine. In this study, we investigated the effect of cold application on migraine patients. Twenty-eight migraine patients were included. Cold therapy was administered to them by gel cap. Patients used this cap during their two migraine attacks. Before and after the cold therapy, headache severity was recorded by using visual analogue scale (VAS). Patients used this cap for 25 min in each application. They recorded their VAS score just after the therapy and 25 min, 1 h, 2 h and 3 h later. Two patients could not use this therapy due to side effects (one due to cold intolerance and one due to vertigo) in both applications. Therefore, therapeutic efficacy was evaluated in 26 patients. Twenty-five minutes after treatment of the first attack, VAS score was decreased from 7.89 ± 1.93 to 5.54 ± 2.96 (P < 0.01). Twenty-five minutes after treatment of the second attack, VAS score was decreased from 7.7 ± 1.8 to 5.4 ± 3.55 (P < 0.01). Cold application alone may be effective in some patients suffering from migraine attacks. Its combination with conventional drugs should be investigated in future studies

Advance Access Publication 15

Some patients with headache report that they have frequently used physical therapies such as application of cold to relieve their headache. There are only a few reported studies related to cold therapies in patients with migraine. In this study, we investigated the effect of cold application on migraine patients. Twenty-eight migraine patients were included. Cold therapy was administered to them by gel cap. Patients used this cap during their two migraine attacks. Before and after the cold therapy, headache severity was recorded by using visual analogue scale (VAS). Patients used this cap for 25 min in each application. They recorded their VAS score just after the therapy and 25 min, 1 h, 2 h and 3 h later. Two patients could not use this therapy due to side effects (one due to cold intolerance and one due to vertigo) in both applications. Therefore, therapeutic efficacy was evaluated in 26 patients. Twenty-five minutes after treatment of the first attack, VAS score was decreased from 7.89 ± 1.93 to 5.54 ± 2.96 (P &lt; 0.01). Twenty-five minutes after treatment of the second attack, VAS score was decreased from 7.7 ± 1.8 to 5.4 ± 3.55 (P &lt; 0.01). Cold application alone may be effective in some patients suffering from migraine attacks. Its combination with conventional drugs should be investigated in future studies. Keywords: cold application -cryotherapy -headache -migraine Introduction Migraine headache is generally treated by anti-migraine agents, analgesics and anti-emetic agents. Various nonpharmacological methods including massage, trigger point therapy, reflexology, spinal manipulation, therapeutic heat or cold and exercise therapy have also been investigated in the past for migraine patients (1-3). There are some reports which support the efficacy of acupuncture in the treatment of pediatric pain, including migraine (4). Ancient Greek and Egyptian writings show that physicians of that time were concerned about this disease and bloodletting and craniotomy was used in some patients with headache (2,5). The first cold treatment was done for headache patients in 1849. James Arnott wrote a manuscript on cold therapy in which he used a mixture of salt and ice in patients to treat headache (6). In another study, the efficacy of extra-cranial pressure in combination with cold to treat headaches was supported. They showed that simultaneous pressure of heat and cold reduced the headache&apos;s duration (7). Today, some patients report that they treat their headache using physical therapies, including cold application (5,8-10). Selfadministered pain relief manoeuvres have been investigated in primary headache patients. They reported that application of cold was the most-used manoeuvre in migraine without aura (8). In a small study, Friedman et al. (11) reported the efficacy of a non-invasive technique, intra-oral chilling, for acute migraine headache pain when compared with oral sumatriptan or placebo. Lance (12) reported the results of a new device, which employs cold, pressure and heat around the head. Fifteen out of twenty migraine patients and six out of seven tension headache patients experienced some reduction in headache severity. In another study, 9% of migraine patients reported that a cold wrap was almost completely effective, 26.5% moderately effective and 29.0% mildly effective. However, they did not use an objective method to evaluate headache severity (6). As a result, cold therapy is still not used clinically for migraine patients as an alternative or additive modality. In this study, we investigated the utility of cold therapy for migraine attacks. Materials and Methods All patients in this study were admitted to the Ministry of Health, Ankara Training and Research Hospital Headache Center. Informed consent was obtained from all patients. We obtained an Ethic Committee approval to conduct the study for patients (between 14 and 60 years) who met the criteria outlined below. Inclusion Criteria We proposed that all consecutively admitted patients, who met the following criteria, participate in our study: (i) migraine with aura and migraine without aura; (ii) chronic migraine [migraine headache occurring for 15 or more days per month for more than 3 months in the absence of medication overuse and not attributed to another disorder (other type chronic headache patients excluded)]; and that (iii) diagnosis was made by International Headache Society (IHS) criteria (13). The IHS determined new criteria for headache in 2004 Exclusion Criteria We excluded patients who had more than one type of headache (menstrual migraine was also excluded), took prophylactic treatment and patients with analgesic or ergotamine overuse. We reasoned that menstrual migraine may have different clinical characteristics and it can be more resistant than non-menstrual migraine. Patients using prophylactic treatment were deemed to be the possible cause of confusion when evaluating the responses of migraine patients. Twenty-eight migraine patients were included in this study. All patients were evaluated by a neurologist. Cap Administration All patients kept a diary for two migraine attacks (before and after the treatment). The diary included the time patients used the gel cap, visual analogue scale (VAS) of patients (before the treatment and 25 min, 1 h, 2 h, 3 h post-treatment), associated symptoms (i.e. nausea and vomiting) and side effects. Cold therapy was administered to the patients by gel cap In this study, we did not evaluate the patients beyond 3 h. This is a pilot study to determine the short-term effect of the treatment. Response Evaluation An objective response was defined as a 50% or greater reduction in pretreatment headache severity as measured by VAS. Patients with VAS score (0) were evaluated as having a complete response. A clinical benefit was defined as a reduction in VAS by &gt;25% in pretreatment headache severity. We thought that a 25% decrease in VAS score is an important level of clinical benefit. Therefore, we mentioned a 25% reduction in VAS as a clinical benefit. A patient whose VAS showed increase, no change or &lt;25% decrease was defined as no response. Statistical Analysis Bonferroni corrected Mann-Whitney U-test and Paired Samples t-test were used for statistical analysis. P-values &lt;0.05 were accepted as significant. Results All patients were female and the median age was 29.25 ± 7.92 years (range: minimum 14; maximum 48). Twenty-six patients had migraine without aura and two patients had migraine with aura. The patients&apos; mean number of attacks per month was 3.11 ± 1.2 (minimum 1; maximum 5). Characteristics of patients are shown in 490 Cold therapy in migraine patients Half of the Patients Reported a Clinical Benefit In the first application, 13 patients (50%) reported a clinical benefit 25 min after the cold therapy. Objective response was observed in 10 (38.4%) patients including three (11.5%) patients who had a complete response. However, the other half did not respond and needed to use analgesics 25 min after cold therapy. Mean VAS scores of patients decreased from 7.89 ± 1.93 to 5.54 ± 2.96 in 25 min, 4.62 ± 3.16 in 1 h, 3.92 ± 3.32 in 2 h and 3.42 ± 3.55 in 3 h after cold therapy in first attack. VAS scores at the twenty-fifth minute, first hour, second hour and third hour of treatment were found to be significantly lower compared to VAS scores before treatment (P &lt; 0.01) Benefit Increased with Second Application In the second application, 15 (57.6%) patients reported a clinical benefit 25 min after the cold therapy. Objective response was observed in 9 (34.6%) patients including 2 (7.7%) patients who had a complete response, but 11 (42.4%) did not respond and used analgesics. Mean VAS scores decreased from 7.74 ± 1.81 to 5.40 ± 3.10 in 25 min, 4.76 ± 3.88 in 1 h, 4.60 ± 3.75 in 2 h and 4.04 ± 3.54 in 3 h. VAS scores at the twenty-fifth minute, first hour, second hour and third hour of treatment were found to be significantly lower compared to VAS scores before the treatment (P &lt; 0.01) Median Analgesic Intake Time Increased with the Second Application Median analgesic intake time after onset of cold therapy was 45.0 ± 35.7 min (range: 25-120 min) in the first application and 81.36 ± 118.4 (range: 25-420 min) min in the second. Discussion Migraine is a chronic disease characterized by frequent attacks, high levels of pain and disability during attacks, causing reduced quality of life between attacks (15-18). It is a widespread disorder in the world, affecting $10-15$50% of the patients by cold therapy alone, with significantly decreased VAS scores after the therapy. In addition, we found that the benefit of cold therapy continued progressively over time. VAS scores gradually decreased after the therapy. This shows that the benefits of cold therapy continued after the onset of therapy. Moreover, there was consistency in the cold applications. Seventy-six percent of patients who had a response in their first attack benefited from the cold therapy in the second attack. Similarly, 60% of the patients who did not respond in the first attack had no response in the second attack, either. This study is not a randomized study and there is no control group comparing usual therapeutic approaches such as anti-migraine agents and anti-emetics. Therefore, we cannot conclude that cold therapy is definitely effective in migraine attack and we cannot suggest an evidence-based use of cold therapy in migraine patients. We can say, however, that cold therapy alone warrants investigation in future randomized control studies. In pharmacological trials on migraine drugs, rescue medications are usually allowed after 2 h. In our study, we allowed our patients to take analgesics 25 min after the therapy onset. However, median analgesics intake time after onset of cold therapy was 45.0 min in the first and 81.36 min in the second attack of patients who did not respond to gel cap therapy. In the present study, 13 patients in first application and 11 in second application used analgesic drugs due to inefficacy of cold therapy alone. As seen in The placebo effect in the pharmacological treatment of migraine attacks may influence evaluation of the studies. In a meta-analysis of 31 trials involving acute migraine patients, it has been reported that the mean proportion of subjects who experienced a treatment response to placebo was 28% (24). In our study, the response rate was 50% in the first attack and 57% in the second attack. Moreover, placebo effect may vary in each patient and each attack. Therefore, our results cannot be completely attributed to placebo effect of gel therapy. However, we cannot ignore its possible effect on our results. If we accept the cold treatment as an effective modality in migraine patients, there is still one more question to be resolved: How does cold affect the migraine headache? Local anesthesia is important in the use of cryotherapy. Lowering pain stimuli may be caused by a decrease in contraction. The gate theory suggests that the cold sensations overwhelm and block transmission of the pain stimuli into the cerebral cortex. Ice reduces the release of some substances including histamines, vasoactive substances and enzymes that stimulate nerve endings (6). However, the exact mechanism of cryotherapy is still unclear. In Vijayan&apos;s (1) study, two patients could not apply adequate pressure in cold therapy because of tenderness. In our study three patients showed side effects in both applications. Two patients had cold intolerance and one had vertigo. Two of them discontinued the therapy. The use of gel packs is a safe method of applying cold in adjunct treatment of acute headache

Effectiveness of Greater Occipital Nerve Blocks in Migraine Prophylaxis.

Peripheral nerve blocks have been used in primary headache treatment since a long time. In this study, we aimed to examine the efficiency of greater occipital nerve (GON) block in migraine prophylaxis

Is there a role for nitric oxide activity in cervicogenic headache?

Cervicogenic headache (CEH) is a unilateral headache that can be provoked by neck movement, awkward head positions or pressure on tender points in the neck. The mechanisms underlying the stimulation of pain in CEH are not clearly known. In this study, we measured serum nitrate and nitrite levels as an index of nitric oxide (NO) activity in 15 patients with CEH during headache and headache-free periods and in 15 healthy controls. Total nitrate+nitrite levels were found to be higher in CEH patients during headache periods than in healthy controls (20.7±3.8 µmol/l vs 14.4±3.6 µmol/l, p0.05). In the patients with CEH, serum total nitrate+nitrite levels were found to be higher during headache periods than during headache-free periods (p=0.001). It can thus be hypothesized that the changes observed are a cause of the attack rather than a consequence of the disease process

Effectiveness of Greater Occipital Nerve Blocks in Migraine Prophylaxis

Introduction: Peripheral nerve blocks have been used in primary headache treatment since a long time. In this study, we aimed to examine the efficiency of greater occipital nerve (GON) block in migraine prophylaxis. Methods: Data from migraine without aura patients who had GON block were collected and divided into two groups: Group PGON (n=25), which included patients who were under medical prophylaxis and had GON block, and Group GON (n=53), which included patients who had only GON blocks. Migraine was diagnosed using International Headache Society (IHS) classification. Data of 78 patients were analyzed. Headache attack frequency, headache duration, and severity were compared between and within groups in a 3-month follow-up period. Results: The decrease in headache parameters after GON block in both groups was significantly similar. Headache attack frequency decreased from 15.73 +/- 7.21 (pretreatment) to 4.52 +/- 3.61 (3rd month) in Group GON and from 13.76 +/- 8.07 to 3.28 +/- 2.15 in Group PGON (p<0.05). Headache duration decreased from 18.51 +/- 9.43 to 8.02 +/- 5.58 at 3rd month in Group GON and from 15.20 +/- 9.16 to 7.20 +/- 4.16 in Group PGON (p<0.05). Headache severity decreased from 8.26 +/- 1.32 to 5.16 +/- 2.64 in Group GON and from 8.08 +/- 0.90 to 5.96 +/- 1.20 in Group PGON (p<0.05). There was no statistically significant difference between the groups in 3rd month after treatment (p>0.05). Conclusion: This study showed significant decreases in headache parameters in both groups. As GON blocks were performed in patients unresponsive to medical prophylaxis, a decrease in the headache parameters in Group PGON similar to that in Group GON can be attributed to GON blocks. Consequently, these results show that repeated GON blocks with local anesthetic can be an effective alternative treatment in migraine patients who are unresponsive to medical prophylaxis or who do not prefer to use medical prophylaxis

Original Article - T2-weighted MRI in Parkinson’s disease; Substantia nigra pars compacta hypointensity correlates with the clinical scores

Background: Iron accumulation in substantia nigra pars compacta (SNpc) and related intensity and volumetric changes in patients with idiopathic Parkinson’s disease (PD) has been reported previously. There are only a few studies evaluating the relation between neuroradiological findings and clinical scores, with contradictory results. Aims: In this study we aimed to measure the iron-rich brain areas of PD patients and healthy subjects with T2-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and to evaluate the relation between the clinical scores of PD patients and these imaging results. Methods and Materials: T2-weighted MRI findings were studied in 20 patients with PD and 16 healthy controls. The width of SNpc, putamen volume, and the intensity of the basal ganglia were measured. Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) was used for evaluating the clinical status. Statistical Analyses: Mann Whitney U test for group comparisons, Wilcoxon sign rank test for comparisons within the patient group, and Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient for analyses of correlations were used. Results: Mean SNpc and dentate nucleus intensities were lower in PD patients than healthy subjects. Mean SNpc width and putamen volumes were lower in patients. Decrease in the intensity of mean SNpc correlated with high UPDRS and rigidity scores. Conclusion: The results of our study reflect the increase in iron accumulation and oxidative stress in the SNpc in Parkinson’s disease. The decrease in the intensity of SNpc correlates with poor clinical scores