Onabotulinum toxin A treatment of cervicogenic headache: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover study

Effect of Botulinum Toxin on Masticatory Muscle Pain in Patients with Temporomandibular Disorders: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Pilot Study

This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of botulinum toxin type A (BoNT/A) in patients with temporomandibular disorders (TMDs) associated with masticatory muscle pain (MMP) and headaches. This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled pilot study is the first clinical trial to evaluate both disorders simultaneously. Twenty-one patients with myogenous TMD were randomly assigned to two groups. The experimental and control groups received injections of either BoNT/A or saline into the sites showing tenderness after palpation of a total of 16 muscle areas, including each masseter, a temporalis, splenius capitis, sternocleidomastoid, and trapezius muscle. During each visit, the clinical effects, based on the intensity of orofacial pain (OVAS), headache (HVAS), number of tender points (TPs), maximum mouth opening (MMO), and headache frequency (HF), were evaluated at four time points, namely, pre-injection and 4, 8, and 12 weeks after the injection, in both groups. Friedman and Mann-Whitney tests were used for the analyses. In the experimental group, the reductions in OVAS, TP, HVAS, and HF showed significant differences over time, excluding MMO, whereas there was no significant difference in any of the variables in the control group. In addition, the decline in TPs was significantly different between the experimental and control groups at all time points, especially after 4 and 12 weeks, compared to that during pre-injection. In conclusion, treatment with BoNT/A was relatively effective for masticatory muscle pain caused by TMDs and headache compared to the saline placebo.

The Use of Botulinum Toxin A as an Adjunctive Therapy in the Management of Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis

Several studies have investigated the effect of botulinum toxin A (BoNT-A) for managing chronic musculoskeletal pain, bringing contrasting results to the forefront. Thus far, however, there has been no synthesis of evidence on the effect of BoNT-A as an adjunctive treatment within a multimodal approach. Hence, Medline via PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library-CENTRAL were searched until November 2020 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that investigated the use of BoNT-A as an adjunctive therapy for chronic musculoskeletal pain. The risk of bias (RoB) and the overall quality of the studies were assessed through RoB 2.0 and the GRADE approach, respectively. Meta-analysis was conducted to analyse the pooled results of the six included RCTs. Four were at a low RoB, while two were at a high RoB. The meta-analysis showed that BoNT-A as an adjunctive therapy did not significantly decrease pain compared to the sole use of traditional treatment (SDM -0.89; 95% CI -1.91; 0.12; p = 0.08). Caution should be used when interpreting such results, since the studies displayed very high heterogeneity (I = 94%, p < 0.001). The overall certainty of the evidence was very low. The data retrieved from this systematic review do not support the use of BoNT-A as an adjunctive therapy in treating chronic musculoskeletal pain.

The efficacy of botulinum toxin A treatment for tension-type or cervicogenic headache: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized, placebo-controlled trials

OBJECTIVES

The pathogeneses of chronic tension-type headache (CTTH) and cervicogenic headache (CEH) are not well established. Peripheral activation or sensitization of myofascial nociceptors is suggested as a potential mechanism and injections of botulinum toxin (BONTA) have thus been used in the treatment for both headache conditions. BONTA inhibits the release of acetylcholine at the neuromuscular junction and inhibits contraction of skeletal muscles. If the pain is precipitated by increased tone in cervical muscles, local injections of BONTA could represent a prophylactic measure. However, the treatment is still controversial, and a thorough assessment of the current evidence is required. This review aims to assess the evidence of BONTA injection as a prophylactic treatment for CTTH and CEH by reviewing and examining the quality of placebo-controlled, randomized trials.

METHODS

Data sources: we searched in the following databases: PubMed (including Medline), Embase, Cochrane Central register of Controlled Trials, Cinahl, Amed, SCOPUS and Google Scholar including other repository sources. Both MeSH and free keywords were used in conducting the systematic search in the databases. The search covered publications from the root of the databases to November 2020.

STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

The review included RCTs, comparing single treatment of BONTA with placebo on patients with CTTH or CEH above 18 years of age, by measuring pain severity/relief or headache frequency.

DATA EXTRACTION

The following data were extracted: year of publication, country, setting, trial design, number of participants, injection procedure, BONTA dosages, and clinical outcome measures.

STUDY APPRAISAL

To assess validity and quality, and risk of bias, the Oxford Pain Validity Scale, Modified Jadad Scale, last version of Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias (RoB 2), and the CONSORT 2010 Checklist were used. The trials were assessed, and quality scored independently by two of the reviewers. A quantitative synthesis and meta-analyses of headache frequency and intensity were performed.

RESULTS

We extracted 16 trials, 12 on prophylactic BONTA treatment for CTTH and four on CEH. Of these 12 trials (8 on CTTH and 4 on CEH) were included in the quantitative synthesis. A majority of the trials found no significant difference on the primary outcome measure when BONTA treatment was compared with placebo. Three "positive" trials, reporting significant difference in favor of BONTA treatment, but two of these were hampered by low validity and quality scores and high risk of bias.

CONCLUSIONS

There is no clear clinical evidence supporting prophylactic treatment with BONTA for CTTH or CEH.

Botulinum Toxin in the Treatment of Headache

Botulinum toxin type A has been used in the treatment of chronic migraine for over a decade and has become established as a well-tolerated option for the preventive therapy of chronic migraine. Ongoing research is gradually shedding light on its mechanism of action in migraine prevention. Given that its mechanism of action is quite different from that of the new monoclonal antibodies directed against calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) or its receptor, it is unlikely to be displaced to any major extent by them. Both will likely remain as important tools for patients with chronic migraine and the clinicians assisting them. New types of botulinum toxin selective for sensory pain neurons may well be discovered or produced by recombinant DNA techniques in the coming decade, and this may greatly enhance its therapeutic usefulness. This review summarizes the evolution of botulinum toxin use in headache management over the past several decades and its role in the preventive treatment of chronic migraine and other headache disorders.

The Role of Onabotulinum Toxin Type A in the Management of Chronic Non-migraine Headaches

Objectives: FDA has approved Onabotulinum toxin type A (BoNTA) for prophylactic treatment of chronic migraines. Recent studies have explored its potential new indications, like treating post-traumatic headaches.

Patients and Methods: This is a retrospective chart review of 717 patients, who had failed at least two prophylactic treatments and received BoNTA injections at University of Missouri Hospital from July 2014 to June 2017. Patient demographics, headache type, associated symptoms, prophylaxes tried were reported. Patient's pain severity (numeric pain scale) and frequency (number of headache days/month) pretreatment, at 6 months, and at 12 months were collected.

Results: For a single headache type, post-traumatic headaches showed reduction in headache pain severity at 6 months (2.9 ± 0.7) compared to pre-treatment (7 ± 0.7). Headache frequency for post-traumatic headaches was also reduced at 6 months (10.6 ± 2.3) and 12 months (5.1 ± 1.2) compared to pre-treatment (25 ± 1.8). For pseudotumor cerebri headaches, pain severity at pretreatment was 6.4 ± 0.6 compared to 2 ± 0.8 at 6 months, and headache days reduced at 6 months (9.8 ± 2.5) and 12 months (6 ± 4) compared to pretreatment (26 ± 2.9). Opioid use reduced by 67 ± 55.4 at 6 months and 133.3 ± 106.6 at 12 months in morphine equivalent units.

Conclusions: Onabotulinum toxin type A is effective in treating multiple types of chronic non-migraine headaches.

Occipital Neuralgia and Cervicogenic Headache: Diagnosis and Management

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Occipital neuralgia (ON) and cervicogenic headache (CGH) are secondary headache disorders with occipital pain as a key feature. Due to significant phenotypic overlap, differentiating ON and CGH from primary headache disorders such as migraine or tension-type headache, or other secondary headache disorders, can be clinically challenging. This article reviews the anatomy, clinical features, unique diagnostic considerations, and management approaches relating to ON and CGH.

RECENT FINDINGS

Conservative therapeutic approaches are considered first-line. Anesthetic nerve blocks may have a dual role in both supporting diagnosis and providing pain relief. Newer minimally invasive procedures, such as pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) and occipital nerve stimulation (ONS), represent an exciting therapeutic avenue for severe/refractory cases. Surgical interventions should be reserved for select patient populations who have failed all other conservative and minimally invasive options, to be weighed against potential risk. ON and CGH represent an ongoing diagnostic challenge. Further studies are required to consolidate efficacy regarding the comprehensive management of ON and CGH.

Systematic Review of Radiofrequency Ablation and Pulsed Radiofrequency for Management of Cervicogenic Headaches

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Cervicogenic headache (CHA) is a secondary headache which has a source in the upper cervical spine. Many traditional analgesic choices lack good efficacy in managing the associated pain. As a result, in management of CHA, radiofrequency ablation (RFA) or pulse radiofrequency (PRF) has been tried with success. Our study investigated the use of RFA and PRF for the management of CHA.

RECENT FINDINGS

In the present investigation, a review of the literature was conducted using PubMed (1966 to February 2017). The quality assessment was determined using The Cochrane Risk of Bias. After initial search and consultation with experts, 34 articles were identified for initial review and 10 articles met inclusion for review. Criteria for inclusion were primarily based on identification of articles discussing cervicogenic headaches which were previously treatment resistant and occurred without any other pathology of the craniofacial region or inciting event such as trauma. This systematic review demonstrated that RFA and PRFA provide very limited benefit in the management of CHA. At present, there is no high-quality RCT and/or strong non-RCTs to support the use of these techniques, despite numerous case reports which have demonstrated benefit. This review is one of the first to provide a comprehensive overview of the use of RFA and PRF in the management of CHA.

Concussion

Concussion has been recognized as a clinical entity for more than 1000 years. Throughout the 20th century it was studied extensively in boxers, but it did not pique the interest of the general population because it is the accepted goal of the boxer to inflict such an injury on their opponent. In 2002, however, the possibility that repetitive concussions could result in chronic brain damage and a progressive neurologic disorder was raised by a postmortem evaluation of a retired player in the most popular sports institution in the United States, the National Football League. Since that time concussion has been a frequent topic of conversation in homes, schools, and on television and has become a major focus of sports programs in communities and schools at all levels. Now all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the National Collegiate Athletic Association have enacted laws and rules to protect the athlete.

Botulinum neurotoxin type-A when utilized in animals with trigeminal sensitization induced a antinociceptive effect

METHOD

Neuropathic pain was induced by surgical constriction of the infraorbital nerve in rats. A control group underwent a sham procedure consisting of surgical exposure of the nerve. Subgroups of each group received either BoNT/A or isotonic saline solution. The clinical response was assessed with the -20°C test. Animals that underwent nerve constriction developed sensitization; the sham group did not.

RESULTS

The sensitization was reversed by BoNT/A treatment evident 24 hours following application. Pronociceptive effect was observed in the sham group following BoNT/A.

CONCLUSION

BoNT/A has an antinociceptive effect in sensitized animals and a pronociceptive effect in non-sensitized animals.

[Botulinum toxin type A in headache treatment : Established and experimental indications]

In recent years botulinum toxin type A has been used increasingly more in the treatment of specific headache disorders. Especially regarding chronic migraine with and without combined medication overuse, convincing randomized studies have proven the efficacy of this treatment option and have led to approval for this indication. Regarding other headache entities, such as episodic migraine, tension-type headache, trigeminal autonomic cephalalgia (TAC), neuralgic, neuropathic and myofascial pain, currently available scientific data on the efficacy of botulinum toxin type A are scarce and often ambiguous. The exact underlying mechanisms of the influence of botulinum toxin type A on the pathophysiology of headache are not completely clear but an influence on the release of calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) seems to play a crucial role. This article summarizes the most important studies as well as experiences of treatment with botulinum toxin type A regarding different headache entities.

Treatment of Cervicogenic Headache: New Insights on the Treatment of Pain in the Neck

This manuscript served as a companion piece for the original article “Pregabalin for the Management of Cervicogenic Headache; A Double Blind Study” by Guy P. Boudreau and Luc Marchand, which was published in the September 2014 issue ofThe Canadian Journal of Neurological Sciences.1

Posttraumatic headaches in civilians, soldiers, and athletes

Posttraumatic headaches are one of the most common and controversial secondary headache types. After mild head injury, more than 50% of people develop a postconcussion syndrome which has been controversial for more than 150 years. Headache is estimated as present in 30% to 90% of patients after mild head injury. Most headaches are of the tension type, although migraines can increase in frequency or occur acutely or chronically de novo. A review is provided of headaches in civilians, soldiers after blast trauma, athletes, and post-craniotomy including pathogenesis. The treatments are the same as for the primary phenotypes.

Therapeutic options for cervicogenic headache

The term cervicogenic headache (CeH) describes a syndrome originating from the cervical spine. There are a variety of therapeutic approaches used for the management of CeH, but scientific evidence of their effectiveness is scarce. No medication drug has proven to be effective. The evidence for greater occipital nerve blocks, cervical nerve blockades, facet joint injections and surgical procedures is limited. Several physical therapy interventions are proposed for CeH, with spinal manipulation and soft tissue interventions being the most commonly used. However, the lack of solid evidence of positive effects and risks of serious complications for spinal manipulation should be considered in favor of other physical therapy interventions associated with less risk. The inconsistent results in the literature can be related to the fact that maybe not all therapeutic interventions are appropriate for all patients with CeH or maybe not all patients with CeH will benefit from particular interventions.

Posttraumatic headache

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Posttraumatic headache (PTH) is a commonly occurring and potentially disabling consequence of concussion and mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI). This brief review highlights recent advances in the epidemiology, evaluation, and management of concussion, mTBI, and PTH.

RECENT FINDINGS

Current epidemiological studies suggest that previous estimates of concussion and mTBI incidence are grossly underestimated and have also helped to identify specific activities and demographic groups that might be more susceptible. Concussion results in profound metabolic derangements during which the brain is potentially vulnerable to repeat injury and permanent damage. Imaging studies such as magnetic resonance (MR) spectroscopy and diffusion tensor imaging have proven to be effective at identifying these abnormalities both acutely and also weeks after symptoms resolution. To date, there have been no randomized, placebo-controlled studies supporting the efficacy of any treatment for PTH and current therapeutic decisions are guided only by expert opinion and current evidence-based guidelines for the treatment of specific primary headache phenotypes, the most commonly occurring of which is migraine.

SUMMARY

Despite numerous advances in the awareness, pathophysiology, and diagnostic workup of concussion, mTBI, and PTH, there is a paucity of evidence-based guidance regarding treatment.

Botulinum toxin treatment of secondary headaches and cranial neuralgias: a review of evidence

BACKGROUND

Recent scientific data support an effect of botulinum neurotoxin (BoNT) on pain and headache.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to conduct a systematic review of BoNT in the secondary headaches and cranial neuralgias.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, ClinicalTrials.gov and reference lists were searched up to December 2010 to identify all relevant publications.

RESULTS

Only two papers were rated as highest evidence (Level 1). The absolute majority (30/38, 79%) of identified publications yield only low evidence (Level 4).

DISCUSSION

No treatment recommendations of Grade A or Grade B can be made based on available research. Grade C treatment recommendations in support of BoNT can be made for chronic headache attributed to whiplash injury, cephalalgic alopecia areata, headache and facial pain in blepharospasm, trigeminal neuralgia, occipital neuralgia and nummular headache. As a result of studies being troublingly inconsistent or inconclusive, only the weakest rank of recommendations (Grade D) can be made for using BoNT in medication overuse headache, cervicogenic headache, headache attributed to craniocervical dystonia, pain in masticatory hyperactivity and headache or facial pain attributed to temporomandibular disorder.

CONCLUSION

At present, BoNT cannot be firmly recommended as an evidence-based treatment in secondary headaches or cranial neuralgias.