Review: Evidence for the effectiveness of prophylactic drugs for tension-type headache in adults is limited

2010 ◽  
Vol 153 (8) ◽  
pp. JC4
Author(s):  
Alexander W. Chessman
Author(s):  
W.J. Becker

Prophylactic drug therapy is a major component of overall migraine management. However, because we do not know how currently used prophylactic drugs exert their beneficial effects in migraine, their use is based primarily on clinical trials. In general, prophylactic drugs are indicated when patients have three or more attacks a month and symptomatic medication use alone is not satisfactory. The choice of drug must be individualized, and is influenced by contraindications, potential side effects, the need to treat associated symptoms like tension-type headache and insomnia, and drug cost. Whether an individual patient will respond to a given drug cannot be predicted, but there are varying degrees of scientific evidence supporting the use of each prophylactic drug in migraine. This evidence is best for metoprolol, divalproex, amitriptyline, atenolol, flunarizine and naproxen. Based on placebo-controlled crossover studies, it would appear that at least some prophylactic drugs exert the greater part of their prophylactic effects very quickly, and that these also disappear very quickly once the drug is stopped. This may not apply to all prophylactic drugs and more research is needed. More well designed clinical trials are needed to guide our use of migraine prophylactic drugs. Although clinical experience is useful, placebo responses and variations in the migraine tendency over time can make interpretation of this experience difficult. Major advances will likely only occur once the pathogenesis of migraine and the mode of action of the prophylactic drugs is better understood.


2009 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 151-165 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. P Verhagen ◽  
L. Damen ◽  
M. Y Berger ◽  
J. Passchier ◽  
B. W Koes

Author(s):  
Stefan Evers

Tension-type headache (TTH) is usually a dull, bilateral headache without accompanying symptoms. It is divided into three subtypes: infrequent episodic TTH (< 1 headache day per month), frequent episodic TTH (1–14 headache days per month), and chronic TTH (≥ 15 headache days per month). This division is highly relevant for three reasons. Firstly, impact on quality of life differs considerably between the three subtypes. Secondly, the pathophysiological mechanisms also differ. Peripheral mechanisms such as muscle tension are more important in episodic TTH, whereas central pain sensitization with reduced antinociceptive mechanisms are pivotal in chronic TTH. Thirdly, treatment differs between the subtypes, with symptomatic and prophylactic treatment being more appropriate for episodic and chronic TTH, respectively. Non-pharmacological management should always be part of the treatment. Patients with episodic TTH are treated with analgesics, while prophylactic drugs (in particular antidepressants) should be considered in patients with very frequent episodic or chronic TTH.


Author(s):  
Yu. O. Novikov ◽  
I. E. Salakhov

Introduction. According to the defi nition of the World Health Organization (WHO), tension-type headache (TTH) is the most common type of primary headache. Rehabilitation of patients with chronic tension-type headache continues to be an important socio-medical problem. Its main goal is the most complete restoration of the functions of the musculoskeletal system of the neck, the correction of vascular and psychoemotional problems, and the patient′s return to his everyday life and work. As a rule, the main emphasis in the treatment of such patients is placed primarily on drug therapy. At the same time, practitioners are faced with a number of problems — the low effectiveness of the treatment, the nonpersistency of the results, allergic reactions, polypharmacy and others. All this suggests that there is a need for differentiated rehabilitation treatment of patients with tension-type headache with the use of various non-pharaceutical methods. The goal of research — to evaluate the clinical effi cacy of complex non-drug therapy in patients with tension-type headache.Materials and methods. The prospective controlled randomized study, which was conducted from October 2017 to March 2019 at the Department of Medical Rehabilitation of the Bashkir State Medical University, included 110 patients with TTH from the age of 20 to 45 years. All patients, depending on the treatment methodology used, were randomly divided into two groups of 55 people. Patients of the main group received complex rehabilitation treatment with the use of non-drug methods: osteopathic correction, acupuncture and exercise therapy. Patients in the control group received treatment in accordance with the standard of medical care for TTH (analgesics, non-steroidal antiinfl ammatory drugs, antidepressants, vasoactive and nootropic drugs). The study of the clinical effectiveness of the therapy included: an assessment of the severity of pain with the use of a visual analogue scale and a tensoalgimeter, a goniometric study with an assessment of the volume of active movements in the cervical spine, transcranial ultrasound dopplerography with an assessment of quantitative indicators in the system of the middle cerebral artery.Results. The use of complex non-drug therapy in patients with TTH compared with standard drug therapy leads to a signifi cantly more important decrease in the severity of pain, an increase in pain threshold, an increase in the volume of active movements in the cervical spine. The effect of non-drug treatment methods on blood fl ow in the system of the middle cerebral artery is comparable in its effectiveness with the use of pharmaceutical drugs.Conclusion. The proposed complex rehabilitation treatment of patients with TTH with the use of non-drug methods has shown clinical effi cacy which is comparable, and in a number of indicators, superior to the effectiveness of conventional medical treatment. All this determines the necessity of wider implementation of multidisciplinary non-drug treatment of patients with this pathology.


2015 ◽  
Vol 17 (9) ◽  
pp. 79-81
Author(s):  
A.V. Amelin ◽  
◽  
L.E. Babayan ◽  
M.I. Myatleva ◽  
S.V. Tarasova ◽  
...  

2015 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 89-96
Author(s):  
Débora Wanderley ◽  
Andrea Lemos ◽  
Larissa de Andrade Carvalho ◽  
Daniella Araújo de Oliveira

Objective. This systematic review aimed to assess the efficacy of manual therapies for headache relief. Method. A systematic search in MEDLINE, LILACS, Cochrane, CINAHL, Scopus and Web of Sci­ence databases was conducted for randomized and quasi-randomized trials, with no restrictions for language or year of publication. The de­scriptors were ‘Headache’, ‘Headache disorders’ and ‘Musculoskeletal manipulations’, in addition to the keyword ‘Manual therapy’ and its equivalents in Portuguese. We included studies that compared mas­sage, chiropractic manipulation, osteopathic manipulation and other spinal manipulation to groups with no intervention, other physiother­apeutic modalities or to a sham group. Results. Seven of the 567 ar­ticles initially screened were selected, including patients with tension type headache, cervicogenic headache or migraine. It was not possible to assess the magnitude of the treatment effect on the findings of this review. The main limitations were the absence of randomization and adequate allocation concealment, the lack of blinded evaluators and intention-to-treat analysis and inadequate statistical analysis. Conclu­sions. We were unable to determine the size of the treatment effect due to the selective description of findings. Owing to the high risk of bias in the articles included, the available evidence regarding the ef­ficacy of manual therapies for headache relief is insufficient.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document