-
Neurologia 2022Non-pharmacological treatment of patients with headache, such as dry needling (DN), is associated with less morbidity and mortality and lower costs than pharmacological... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Non-pharmacological treatment of patients with headache, such as dry needling (DN), is associated with less morbidity and mortality and lower costs than pharmacological treatment. Some of these techniques are useful in clinical practice. The aim of this study was to review the level of evidence for DN in patients with headache.
METHODS
We performed a systematic review of randomised clinical trials on headache and DN on the PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and PEDro databases. Methodological quality was evaluated with the Spanish version of the PEDro scale by 2 independent reviewers.
RESULTS
Of a total of 136 studies, we selected 8 randomised clinical trials published between 1994 and 2019, including a total of 577 patients. Two studies evaluated patients with cervicogenic headache, 2 evaluated patients with tension-type headache, one study assessed patients with migraine, and the remaining 3 evaluated patients with mixed-type headache (tension-type headache/migraine). Quality ratings ranged from low (3/10) to high (7/10). The effectiveness of DN was similar to that of the other interventions. DN was associated with significant improvements in functional and sensory outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS
Dry needling should be considered for the treatment of headache, and may be applied either alone or in combination with pharmacological treatments.
Topics: Humans; Tension-Type Headache; Dry Needling; Headache; Post-Traumatic Headache; Migraine Disorders
PubMed: 35659858
DOI: 10.1016/j.nrleng.2019.09.010 -
The Journal of Headache and Pain May 2019Migraine aura (MA) is a common and disabling neurological condition, characterized by transient visual, and less frequently sensory and dysphasic aura disturbances. MA...
BACKGROUND
Migraine aura (MA) is a common and disabling neurological condition, characterized by transient visual, and less frequently sensory and dysphasic aura disturbances. MA is associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disorders and is often clinically difficult to distinguish from other serious neurological disorders such as transient ischemic attacks and epilepsy. Optimal clinical classification of MA symptoms is important for more accurate diagnosis and improved understanding of the pathophysiology of MA through clinical studies.
MAIN BODY
A systematic review of previous prospective and retrospective systematic recordings of visual aura symptoms (VASs) was performed to provide an overview of the different types of visual phenomena occurring during MA and their respective frequencies in patients. We found 11 retrospective studies and three prospective studies systematically describing VASs. The number of different types of VASs reported by patients in the studies ranged from two to 23. The most common were flashes of bright light, "foggy" vision, zigzag lines, scotoma, small bright dots and 'like looking through heat waves or water'.
CONCLUSIONS
We created a comprehensive list of VAS types reported by migraine patients based on all currently available data from clinical studies, which can be used for testing and validation in future studies. We propose that, based on this work, an official list of VAS types should be developed, preferably within the context of the International Classification of Headache Disorders of the International Headache Society.
Topics: Adult; Epilepsy; Female; Hallucinations; Humans; Ischemic Attack, Transient; Male; Migraine with Aura; Prospective Studies; Retrospective Studies; Vision, Ocular
PubMed: 31146673
DOI: 10.1186/s10194-019-1008-x -
Headache Apr 2018In this targeted systematic review, we aimed to identify up-to-date prevalence estimates of migraine and severe headache in adults from population-based US government...
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES
In this targeted systematic review, we aimed to identify up-to-date prevalence estimates of migraine and severe headache in adults from population-based US government surveys. Our goal was to assess the stability of prevalence estimates over time, and to identify additional information pertinent to the burden and treatment of migraine and other severe headache conditions.
METHODS
We searched for the most current publicly available summary statistics from the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS), the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NHAMCS), and the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS). We extracted and summarized data from each study over time and as a function of demographic variables.
RESULTS
The prevalence and burden of self-reported migraine and severe headache in the US adult population is high, affecting roughly 1 out of every 6 American and 1 in 5 women over a 3-month period (15.3% overall [95% CI 14.75-15.85], 9.7% of males [95% CI 9.05-10.35] and 20.7% of females [95% CI 19.84-21.56]). The prevalence has been remarkably stable over a period of 19 years. The prevalence of migraine or severe headache in 2015 was highest in American Indian or Alaska Natives (18.4%) compared with whites, blacks, or Hispanics, with the lowest prevalence in Asians (11.3%). There is a higher burden of migraine in those aged 18-44 (17.9%), people who are unemployed (21.4%), those with family income less than $35,000 per year (19.9%), and the elderly and disabled (16.4%). Headache is consistently the fourth or fifth most common reason for visits to the emergency department, accounting for roughly 3% of all emergency department visits annually. In reproductive aged women, headache is the third leading cause of emergency department visits.
CONCLUSIONS
Severe headache and migraine remain important public health problems that are more common and burdensome for women, particularly women of childbearing age, and other historically disadvantaged segments of the population. These inequities could be exacerbated if new high-cost treatments are inaccessible to those who need them most.
Topics: Cost of Illness; Headache Disorders; Health Surveys; Humans; Migraine Disorders; Prevalence; United States
PubMed: 29527677
DOI: 10.1111/head.13281 -
Musculoskeletal Science & Practice Dec 2022The diagnosis of cervicogenic headache (CGH) remains a challenge for clinicians as the diagnostic value of detailed history and clinical findings remains unclear. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The diagnosis of cervicogenic headache (CGH) remains a challenge for clinicians as the diagnostic value of detailed history and clinical findings remains unclear.
OBJECTIVES
To update and evaluate available evidence of the prevalence and the diagnostic accuracy of the detailed history and clinical findings for CGH in adults with headache.
DESIGN
Systematic review with meta-analysis.
METHODS
CINAHL, Cochrane Central, Embase, PEDro and PubMed were searched for studies before March 2022 that reported detailed history and/or clinical findings related to the diagnosis of cervicogenic headache. Study selection, risk of bias assessment (QUADAS-2 and PROBAST), and data extraction were performed. Meta-analyses for the cervical flexion-rotation test (CFRT) was performed. Certainty of the evidence was assessed with the GRADE approach.
RESULTS
Eleven studies were included. Moderate certainty evidence indicated that the CFRT differentiated CGH from lower cervical facet-induced headache, migraine, concomitant headaches or asymptomatic subjects (Se 83.0% [95%CI:70.0%-92.0%]; Sp 83.0% [95%CI:71.0%-91.0%]; positive LR 5.0 [95%CI:2.6-9.5]; negative LR 0.2 [95%CI:0.1-0.4]; n = 4 studies; n = 182 participants). Several diagnostic classifications and test clusters based on headache history and clinical findings can be useful, despite uncertain accuracy, in formulating the diagnosis of CGH.
CONCLUSION
Evidence support to undertake an evaluation of headache history and signs and symptoms and a physical examination of the patient neck to diagnose CGH. During the physical examination, a positive or negative CFRT probably has a small to moderate effect on the probability of a patient having a CGH. The diagnostic value of the other findings remains unclear.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
#CRD42020201772.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Post-Traumatic Headache; Headache; Migraine Disorders; Physical Examination; Range of Motion, Articular
PubMed: 36088782
DOI: 10.1016/j.msksp.2022.102640 -
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders Sep 2021Migraine and cervicogenic headache (CGH) are common headache disorders, although the large overlap of symptoms between them makes differential diagnosis challenging. To... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Migraine and cervicogenic headache (CGH) are common headache disorders, although the large overlap of symptoms between them makes differential diagnosis challenging. To strengthen differential diagnosis, physical testing has been used to examine for the presence of musculoskeletal impairments in both conditions. This review aimed to systematically evaluate differences in physical examination findings between people with migraine, CGH and asymptomatic individuals.
METHODS
The databases MEDLINE, PubMed, CINAHL, Web of Science, Scopus, EMBASE were searched from inception until January 2020. Risk of bias was assessed with the Downs and Black Scale for non-randomized controlled trials, and with the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool for diagnostic accuracy studies. When possible, meta-analyses with random effect models was performed.
RESULTS
From 19,682 articles, 62 studies were included in this review and 41 were included in the meta-analyses. The results revealed: a) decreased range of motion [°] (ROM) on the flexion-rotation test (FRT) (17.67, 95%CI:13.69,21.65) and reduced neck flexion strength [N] (23.81, 95%CI:8.78,38.85) in CGH compared to migraine; b) compared to controls, migraineurs exhibit reduced flexion ROM [°] (- 2.85, 95%CI:-5.12,-0.58), lateral flexion ROM [°] (- 2.17, 95% CI:-3.75,-0.59) and FRT [°] (- 8.96, 95%CI:-13.22,-4.69), reduced cervical lordosis angle [°] (- 0.89, 95%CI:-1.72,-0.07), reduced pressure pain thresholds over the cranio-cervical region [kg/cm], reduced neck extension strength [N] (- 11.13, 95%CI:-16.66,-5.6) and increased activity [%] of the trapezius (6.18, 95%CI:2.65,9.71) and anterior scalene muscles (2.87, 95%CI:0.81,4.94) during performance of the cranio-cervical flexion test; c) compared to controls, CGH patients exhibit decreased neck flexion (- 33.70, 95%CI:-47.23,-20.16) and extension (- 55.78, 95%CI:-77.56,-34.00) strength [N].
CONCLUSION
The FRT and neck flexion strength could support the differential diagnosis of CGH from migraine. Several physical tests were found to differentiate both headache types from asymptomatic individuals. Nevertheless, additional high-quality studies are required to corroborate these findings.
STUDY REGISTRATION
Following indications of Prisma-P guidelines, this protocol was registered in PROSPERO on 21/05/2019 with the number CRD42019135269 . All amendments performed during the review were registered in PROSPERO, indicating the date and what and why was changed.
Topics: Humans; Migraine Disorders; Neck Muscles; Physical Examination; Post-Traumatic Headache; Range of Motion, Articular
PubMed: 34479514
DOI: 10.1186/s12891-021-04595-w -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2016Acupuncture is often used for migraine prevention but its effectiveness is still controversial. We present an update of our Cochrane review from 2009. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Acupuncture is often used for migraine prevention but its effectiveness is still controversial. We present an update of our Cochrane review from 2009.
OBJECTIVES
To investigate whether acupuncture is a) more effective than no prophylactic treatment/routine care only; b) more effective than sham (placebo) acupuncture; and c) as effective as prophylactic treatment with drugs in reducing headache frequency in adults with episodic migraine.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL: 2016, issue 1); MEDLINE (via Ovid, 2008 to January 2016); Ovid EMBASE (2008 to January 2016); and Ovid AMED (1985 to January 2016). We checked PubMed for recent publications to April 2016. We searched the World Health Organization (WHO) Clinical Trials Registry Platform to February 2016 for ongoing and unpublished trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized trials at least eight weeks in duration that compared an acupuncture intervention with a no-acupuncture control (no prophylactic treatment or routine care only), a sham-acupuncture intervention, or prophylactic drug in participants with episodic migraine.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two reviewers checked eligibility; extracted information on participants, interventions, methods and results, and assessed risk of bias and quality of the acupuncture intervention. The primary outcome was migraine frequency (preferably migraine days, attacks or headache days if migraine days not measured/reported) after treatment and at follow-up. The secondary outcome was response (at least 50% frequency reduction). Safety outcomes were number of participants dropping out due to adverse effects and number of participants reporting at least one adverse effect. We calculated pooled effect size estimates using a fixed-effect model. We assessed the evidence using GRADE and created 'Summary of findings' tables.
MAIN RESULTS
Twenty-two trials including 4985 participants in total (median 71, range 30 to 1715) met our updated selection criteria. We excluded five previously included trials from this update because they included people who had had migraine for less than 12 months, and included five new trials. Five trials had a no-acupuncture control group (either treatment of attacks only or non-regulated routine care), 15 a sham-acupuncture control group, and five a comparator group receiving prophylactic drug treatment. In comparisons with no-acupuncture control groups and groups receiving prophylactic drug treatment, there was risk of performance and detection bias as blinding was not possible. Overall the quality of the evidence was moderate. Comparison with no acupunctureAcupuncture was associated with a moderate reduction of headache frequency over no acupuncture after treatment (four trials, 2199 participants; standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.56; 95% CI -0.65 to -0.48); findings were statistically heterogeneous (I² = 57%; moderate quality evidence). After treatment headache frequency at least halved in 41% of participants receiving acupuncture and 17% receiving no acupuncture (pooled risk ratio (RR) 2.40; 95% CI 2.08 to 2.76; 4 studies, 2519 participants) with a corresponding number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) of 4 (95% CI 3 to 6); there was no indication of statistical heterogeneity (I² = 7%; moderate quality evidence). The only trial with post-treatment follow-up found a small but significant benefit 12 months after randomisation (RR 2.16; 95% CI 1.35 to 3.45; NNT 7; 95% 4 to 25; 377 participants, low quality evidence). Comparison with sham acupunctureBoth after treatment (12 trials, 1646 participants) and at follow-up (10 trials, 1534 participants), acupuncture was associated with a small but statistically significant frequency reduction over sham (moderate quality evidence). The SMD was -0.18 (95% CI -0.28 to -0.08; I² = 47%) after treatment and -0.19 (95% CI -0.30 to -0.09; I² = 59%) at follow-up. After treatment headache frequency at least halved in 50% of participants receiving true acupuncture and 41% receiving sham acupuncture (pooled RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.36; I² = 48%; 14 trials, 1825 participants) and at follow-up in 53% and 42%, respectively (pooled RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.39; I² = 61%; 11 trials, 1683 participants; moderate quality evidence). The corresponding NNTBs are 11 (95% CI 7.00 to 20.00) and 10 (95% CI 6.00 to 18.00), respectively. The number of participants dropping out due to adverse effects (odds ratio (OR) 2.84; 95% CI 0.43 to 18.71; 7 trials, 931 participants; low quality evidence) and the number of participants reporting adverse effects (OR 1.15; 95% CI 0.85 to 1.56; 4 trials, 1414 participants; moderate quality evidence) did not differ significantly between acupuncture and sham groups. Comparison with prophylactic drug treatmentAcupuncture reduced migraine frequency significantly more than drug prophylaxis after treatment ( SMD -0.25; 95% CI -0.39 to -0.10; 3 trials, 739 participants), but the significance was not maintained at follow-up (SMD -0.13; 95% CI -0.28 to 0.01; 3 trials, 744 participants; moderate quality evidence). After three months headache frequency at least halved in 57% of participants receiving acupuncture and 46% receiving prophylactic drugs (pooled RR 1.24; 95% CI 1.08 to 1.44) and after six months in 59% and 54%, respectively (pooled RR 1.11; 95% CI 0.97 to 1.26; moderate quality evidence). Findings were consistent among trials with I² being 0% in all analyses. Trial participants receiving acupuncture were less likely to drop out due to adverse effects (OR 0.27; 95% CI 0.08 to 0.86; 4 trials, 451 participants) and to report adverse effects (OR 0.25; 95% CI 0.10 to 0.62; 5 trials 931 participants) than participants receiving prophylactic drugs (moderate quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The available evidence suggests that adding acupuncture to symptomatic treatment of attacks reduces the frequency of headaches. Contrary to the previous findings, the updated evidence also suggests that there is an effect over sham, but this effect is small. The available trials also suggest that acupuncture may be at least similarly effective as treatment with prophylactic drugs. Acupuncture can be considered a treatment option for patients willing to undergo this treatment. As for other migraine treatments, long-term studies, more than one year in duration, are lacking.
Topics: Acupuncture Therapy; Female; Humans; Male; Migraine Disorders; Migraine with Aura; Migraine without Aura; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 27351677
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001218.pub3 -
Headache Jan 2021Accurate, up-to-date estimates of the burden of migraine and severe headache are important for evidence-based decision-making about workforce needs and the distribution...
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES
Accurate, up-to-date estimates of the burden of migraine and severe headache are important for evidence-based decision-making about workforce needs and the distribution of health resources. We used data from US government health surveys to report the prevalence, trends, and impact of this condition by age, sex, and poverty status.
METHODS
We identified the most recent, publicly available summary statistics from the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey, the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey, and the National Health Interview Survey. We extracted and compiled relevant information from each study, with an emphasis on sex, age, and economic-related statistics.
RESULTS
The age-adjusted prevalence of migraine and severe headache in the United States has remained stable over many years. In 2018, the age-adjusted prevalence was 15.9% across all adults. The sex ratio also remains stable, with 21% of women and 10.7% of men affected. Migraine continues to be an important public health problem, accounting for roughly 4 million emergency department (ED) visits in 2016, when headache was the fifth most common reason for an ED visit overall and the third most common reason for ED visits in females 15-64. Migraine also accounted for over 4.3 million office visits. Many adults with migraine or severe headaches are disadvantaged. In 2018, for example, roughly 40% of US adults with migraine were unemployed, and a similar proportion were classified as poor or "near poor." Roughly one in five had no health insurance and about a third had a high school education or less.
CONCLUSIONS
Migraine and severe headaches are a serious public health issue in the United States, with the highest impact in women of childbearing age and those of lower socioeconomic status. Socioeconomic disadvantages also are highly prevalent among those with headaches. The economic consequences of the current coronavirus pandemic are likely to exacerbate all of these inequities. Increased attention to this high impact chronic pain condition, and improved funding for treatment provision and research, are warranted to reduce the future burden of disease.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; COVID-19; Child; Cost of Illness; Female; Headache; Health Care Surveys; Health Status Disparities; Health Surveys; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Migraine Disorders; Prevalence; SARS-CoV-2; United States; Young Adult
PubMed: 33349955
DOI: 10.1111/head.14024 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2018Migraine occurs in around 15% of adults and is ranked as the seventh most disabling disease amongst all diseases globally. Despite the available treatments many people... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Migraine occurs in around 15% of adults and is ranked as the seventh most disabling disease amongst all diseases globally. Despite the available treatments many people suffer prolonged and frequent attacks which have a major impact on their quality of life. Chronic migraine is defined as 15 or more days of headache per month, at least eight of those days being migraine. People with episodic migraine have fewer than 15 headache days per month. Botulinum toxin type A has been licensed in some countries for chronic migraine treatment, due to the results of just two trials.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of botulinum toxins versus placebo or active treatment for the prevention or reduction in frequency of chronic or episodic migraine in adults.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE & MEDLINE in Process, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry (to December 2017). We examined reference lists and carried out citation searches on key publications. We sent correspondence to major manufacturers of botulinum toxin.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised, double-blind, controlled trials of botulinum toxin (any sero-type) injections into the head and neck for prophylaxis of chronic or episodic migraine in adults. Eligible comparators were placebo, alternative prophylactic agent or different dose of botulinum toxin.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently selected trials and extracted data. For continuous outcomes we used mean change data when available. For dichotomous data we calculated risk ratios (RRs). We used data from the 12-week post-treatment follow-up time point. We assessed the evidence using GRADE and created two 'Summary of findings' tables.
MAIN RESULTS
Description of trialsWe found 90 articles describing 28 trials (4190 participants), which were eligible for inclusion. The longest treatment duration was three rounds of injections with three months between treatments, so we could not analyse long-term effects. For the primary analyses, we pooled data from both chronic and episodic participant populations. Where possible, we also separated data into chronic migraine, episodic migraine and 'mixed group' classification subgroups. Most trials (21 out of 28) were small (fewer than 50 participants per trial arm). The risk of bias for included trials was low or unclear across most domains, with some trials reporting a high risk of bias for incomplete outcome data and selective outcome reporting.Botulinum toxin versus placeboTwenty-three trials compared botulinum toxin with placebo. Botulinum toxin may reduce the number of migraine days per month in the chronic migraine population by 3.1 days (95% confidence interval (CI) -4.7 to -1.4, 4 trials, 1497 participants, low-quality evidence). This was reduced to -2 days (95% CI -2.8 to -1.1, 2 trials, 1384 participants; moderate-quality evidence) when we removed small trials.A single trial of people with episodic migraine (N = 418) showed no difference between groups for this outcome measure (P = 0.49).In the chronic migraine population, botulinum toxin reduces the number of headache days per month by 1.9 days (95% CI -2.7 to -1.0, 2 trials, 1384 participants, high-quality evidence). We did not find evidence of a difference in the number of migraine attacks for both chronic and episodic migraine participants (6 trials, N = 2004, P = 0.30, low-quality evidence). For the population of both chronic and episodic migraine participants a reduction in severity of migraine rated during clinical visits, on a 10 cm visual analogue scale (VAS) of 3.3 cm (95% CI -4.2 to -2.5, very low-quality evidence) in favour of botulinum toxin treatment came from four small trials (N = 209); better reporting of this outcome measure from the additional eight trials that recorded it may have improved our confidence in the pooled estimate. Global assessment and quality-of-life measures were poorly reported and it was not possible to carry out statistical analysis of these outcome measures. Analysis of adverse events showed an increase in the risk ratio with treatment with botulinum toxin over placebo 30% (RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.47, moderate-quality evidence). For every 100 participants 60 experienced an adverse event in the botulinum toxin group compared with 47 in the placebo group.Botulinum toxin versus other prophylactic agentThree trials studied comparisons with alternative oral prophylactic medications. Meta-analyses were not possible for number of migraine days, number of headache days or number of migraine attacks due to insufficient data, but individually trials reported no differences between groups for a variety of efficacy measures in the population of both chronic and episodic migraine participants. The global impression of disease measured using Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) scores were reported from two trials that showed no difference between groups. Compared with oral treatments, botulinum toxin showed no between-group difference in the risk of adverse events (2 trials, N = 114, very low-quality evidence). The relative risk reduction (RRR) for withdrawing from botulinum toxin due to adverse events compared with the alternative prophylactic agent was 72% (P = 0.02, 2 trials, N = 119).Dosing trialsThere were insufficient data available for the comparison of different doses.Quality of the evidenceThe quality of the evidence assessed using GRADE methods was varied but mostly very low; the quality of the evidence for the placebo and active control comparisons was low and very low, respectively for the primary outcome measure. Small trial size, high risk of bias and unexplained heterogeneity were common reasons for downgrading the quality of the evidence.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
In chronic migraine, botulinum toxin type A may reduce the number of migraine days per month by 2 days compared with placebo treatment. Non-serious adverse events were probably experienced by 60/100 participants in the treated group compared with 47/100 in the placebo group. For people with episodic migraine, we remain uncertain whether or not this treatment is effective because the quality of this limited evidence is very low. Better reporting of outcome measures in published trials would provide a more complete evidence base on which to draw conclusions.
Topics: Adult; Botulinum Toxins, Type A; Chronic Disease; Female; Humans; Male; Migraine Disorders; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 29939406
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011616.pub2 -
Physical Therapy May 2021Dry needling is a treatment technique used by clinicians to relieve symptoms in patients with tension-type headache (TTH), cervicogenic headache (CGH), or migraine. This... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
Dry needling is a treatment technique used by clinicians to relieve symptoms in patients with tension-type headache (TTH), cervicogenic headache (CGH), or migraine. This systematic review's main objective was to assess the effectiveness of dry needling on headache pain intensity and related disability in patients with TTH, CGH, or migraine.
METHODS
Medline/PubMed, Scopus, Embase, PEDro, Web of Science, Ovid, Allied and Complementary Medicine Database/EBSCO, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Clinical Trials, Google Scholar, and trial registries were searched until April 1, 2020, along with reference lists of eligible studies and related reviews. Randomized clinical trials or observational studies that compared the effectiveness of dry needling with any other interventions were eligible for inclusion. Three reviewers independently selected studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed to produce pooled-effect estimates (Morris dppc2) and their respective CIs.
RESULTS
Of 2715 identified studies, 11 randomized clinical trials were eligible for qualitative synthesis and 9 for meta-analysis. Only 4 trials were of high quality. Very low-quality evidence suggested that dry needling is not statistically better than other interventions for improving headache pain intensity in the short term in patients with TTH (SMD -1.27, 95% CI = -3.56 to 1.03, n = 230), CGH (SMD -0.41, 95% CI = -4.69 to 3.87, n = 104), or mixed headache (TTH and migraine; SMD 0.03; 95% CI = -0.42 to 0.48, n = 90). Dry needling provided significantly greater improvement in related disability in the short term in patients with TTH (SMD -2.28, 95% CI = -2.66 to -1.91, n = 160) and CGH (SMD -0.72, 95% CI = -1.09 to -0.34, n = 144). The synthesis of results showed that dry needling could significantly improve headache frequency, health-related quality of life, trigger point tenderness, and cervical range of motion in TTH and CGH.
CONCLUSIONS
Dry needling produces similar effects to other interventions for short-term headache pain relief, whereas dry needling seems to be better than other therapies for improvement in related disability in the short term.
IMPACT
Although further high-methodological quality studies are warranted to provide a more robust conclusion, our systematic review suggested that for every 1 or 2 patients with TTH treated by dry needling, 1 patient will likely show decreased headache intensity (number needed to treat [NNT] = 2; large effect) and improved related disability (NNT = 1; very large effect). In CGH, for every 3 or 4 patients treated by dry needling, 1 patient will likely exhibit decreased headache intensity (NNT = 4; small effect) and improved related disability (NNT = 3; medium effect).
Topics: Dry Needling; Humans; Migraine Disorders; Pain Measurement; Post-Traumatic Headache; Tension-Type Headache
PubMed: 33609358
DOI: 10.1093/ptj/pzab068 -
Cells Dec 2022To perform a systematic review of real-world outcomes for anti-CGRP-mAbs. (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To perform a systematic review of real-world outcomes for anti-CGRP-mAbs.
METHODS
Following the PRISMA guidelines, we searched PubMed for real-world data of erenumab, galcanezumab, fremanezumab, or eptinezumab in patients with migraines.
RESULTS
We identified 134 publications (89 retrospective), comprising 10 pharmaco-epidemiologic and 83 clinic-based studies, 38 case reports, and 3 other articles. None of the clinic-based studies provided follow-up data over more than one year in more than 200 patients. Findings suggest that there are reductions in health insurance claims and days with sick-leave as well as better treatment adherence with anti-CGRP-mAbs. Effectiveness, reported in 77 clinic-based studies, was comparable to randomized controlled trials. A treatment pause was associated with an increase in migraine frequency, and switching to another antibody resulted in a better response in some of the patients. Adverse events and safety issues were addressed in 86 papers, including 24 single case reports.
CONCLUSION
Real-world data on anti-CGRP-mAbs are limited by retrospective data collection, small patient numbers, and short follow-up periods. The majority of papers seem to support good effectiveness and tolerability of anti-CGRP-mAbs in the real-world setting. There is an unmet need for large prospective real-world studies providing long-term follow-ups of patients treated with anti-CGRP-mAbs.
Topics: Humans; Calcitonin Gene-Related Peptide; Prospective Studies; Retrospective Studies; Antibodies, Monoclonal; Migraine Disorders
PubMed: 36611935
DOI: 10.3390/cells12010143