Cervical musculoskeletal impairments in the 4 phases of the migraine cycle in episodic migraine patients

Alexithymia Increases Pericranial and Cervical Muscle Tenderness in Women with Migraine

Background/Objectives: Alexithymia is characterized by a deficit in identifying and communicating feelings. Emerging evidence suggests that alexithymia is highly prevalent in migraine, in a complex interplay with psychiatric comorbidity. Pericranial/cervical muscle tenderness is a remarkable clinical feature in a large proportion of migraine patients. This pilot study aimed at investigating the relationship between alexithymia and pericranial/cervical muscle tenderness in female migraineurs. Methods: A total of 42 female patients fulfilling the diagnostic criteria for migraine were enrolled into this pilot, observational, cross-sectional study after informed consent was obtained. Each patient underwent a psychological assessment to identify any alexithymia by means of TAS-20, anxiety/mood comorbidity (by means of STAI-Y1 STAI-Y2, BDI-II), and migraine-related disability (by means of HIT-6), and a physical cranial/cervical musculoskeletal examination. Palpation of pericranial and cervical muscles was carried out in the standardized manner. A Cumulative Muscle Tenderness (CUM) score (0-6) was calculated for each patient. A multivariate analysis was performed to investigate any association amongst the TAS-20 score, the CUM score, and the following covariates: BDI-II, STAI-Y1, STAI-Y2, and HIT-6 scores, age, disease duration, monthly migraine days, and average head pain intensity in the previous three months. Results: Overall, 35.6% of the sample had alexithymia. The multivariate analysis detected a linear and independent relationship between the TAS-20 and CUM scores, with a statistically significant (p = 0.017) association. Conclusions: This pilot study suggests that alexithymia plays a role in increasing pericranial/cervical muscle tenderness in migraine, independently from psychiatric comorbidity. A novel therapeutical approach, targeting alexithymia, may well reduce muscular tenderness in female migraineurs.

Cervical muscle parameters and allodynia in migraine and cervical pain-A controlled study

BACKGROUND

Neck pain is common among individuals with migraine, but there is a lack of information of how this comorbidity can be associated with cervical muscle function. This controlled cross-sectional study aimed to compare cervical muscle function, activity, and sensitization in women with migraine, neck pain, both, and neither.

METHODS

This study included women, between 18 and 55 years old, with either episodic migraine with or without aura, without any concomitant headache diagnosis; chronic neck pain, with at least moderate intensity and mild disability; or neither headache nor neck pain. Pain pressure threshold, allodynia, muscle strength, and endurance and cervical muscles activity were evaluated.

RESULTS

One hundred subjects, with mean age of 30.4 years old, were stratified by diagnosis (n = 25 per group) and by self-reported pain during tests. Lower endurance during flexion was observed for migraine and neck pain (34s) relative to neck pain alone (45s), migraine (40s), and controls (58s) (p = 0.04). For extensor endurance, means were 142s, 166s, 215s, and 270s, respectively (p < 0.001). Endurance times were impacted by the presence of test-induced pain decreasing about 40%-53% of the performance. Diagnostic groups did not differ significantly in strength (p > 0.05), but all pain groups presented significantly higher proportion of test-induced pain, lower muscle activity during the maximal isometric voluntary contractions, and lower pressure pain thresholds.

CONCLUSION

Patients with migraine, chronic neck pain, and the association of both present altered cervical muscle function and activity. Also, test-induced pain impacts significantly on neck muscles endurance.

SIGNIFICANCE

The diagnosis of migraine and chronic neck pain is associated with altered function and activity of the cervical muscles. However, the test-induced pain had an important contribution to worse cervical muscle endurance. This suggests that the therapeutic approach should focus on de-sensitization of the trigeminal-cervical complex when dealing with the comorbidity of migraine and cervical pain.

Profiling migraine patients according to clinical and psychophysical characteristics: clinical validity of distinct migraine clusters

AIMS

Investigate if different clinical and psychophysical bedside tools can differentiate between district migraine phenotypes in ictal/perictal (cohort 1) and interictal (cohort 2) phases.

METHOD

This observational study included two independent samples in which patients were subgrouped into distinct clusters using standardized bedside assessment tools (headache frequency, disability, cervical active range of motion, pressure pain threshold in different areas): (A) cohort 1-ictal/perictal migraine patients were subgrouped, based on previous studies, into two clusters, i.e., Cluster-1.1 No Psychophysical Impairments (NPI) and Cluster-1.2 Increased Pain Sensitivity and Cervical Musculoskeletal Dysfunction (IPS-CMD); (B) cohort 2-interictal migraine patients were subgrouped into three clusters, i.e., Cluster-2.1 NPI, Cluster-2.2 IPS, and Cluster-2.3 IPS-CMD. Clinical characteristics (multiple questionnaires), somatosensory function (comprehensive quantitative sensory testing (QST)), and cervical musculoskeletal impairments (cervical musculoskeletal assessment) were assessed and compared across headache clusters and a group of 56 healthy controls matched for sex and age.

RESULTS

Cohort 1: A total of 156 subjects were included. Cluster-1.2 (IPS-CMD) had higher headache intensity (p = 0.048), worse headache-related (p = 0.003) and neck-related disability (p = 0.005), worse quality of life (p = 0.003), and higher symptoms related to sensitization (p = 0.001) and psychological burden (p = 0.005) vs. Cluster-1.1(NPI). Furthermore, Cluster-1.2 (IPS-CMD) had (1) reduced cervical active and passive range of motion (p < 0.023), reduced functionality of deep cervical flexors (p < 0.001), and reduced values in all QST(p < 0.001) vs. controls, and (2) reduced active mobility in flexion, left/right lateral flexion (p < 0.045), and reduced values in QST (p < 0.001) vs. Cluster-1.1 (NPI). Cohort 2: A total of 154 subjects were included. Cluster-2.3 (IPS-CMD) had (1) longer disease duration (p = 0.006), higher headache frequency (p = 0.006), disability (p < 0.001), and psychological burden (p = 0.027) vs. Cluster-2.2 (IPS) and (2) higher headache-related disability (p = 0.010), neck-related disability (p = 0.009), and higher symptoms of sensitization (p = 0.018) vs. Cluster-2.1 (NPI). Cluster-2.3(IPS-CMD) had reduced cervical active and passive range of motion (p < 0.034), and reduced functionality of deep cervical flexors (p < 0.001), vs. controls, Custer-2.1 (NPI), and Cluster-2.2 (IPS). Cluster-2.2 (IPS) and 2.3 (IPS-CMD) had reduced QST values vs. controls (p < 0.001) and Cluster-2.1 (p < 0.039).

CONCLUSION

A battery of patient-related outcome measures (PROMs) and quantitative bedside tools can separate migraine clusters with different clinical characteristics, somatosensory functions, and cervical musculoskeletal impairments. This confirms the existence of distinct migraine phenotypes and emphasizes the importance of migraine phases of which the characteristics are assessed. This may have implications for responders and non-responders to anti-migraine medications.

The Effect of OnabotulinumtoxinA on Headache Intensity and Number of Monthly Headache Days in Individuals with Chronic Migraine with Different Levels of Neck Disability

One of the treatment methods used in chronic migraine is OnabotulinumtoxinA. The effects of OnabotulinumtoxinA on headache intensity (HI) and number of monthly headache days (NMHD) in chronic migraine (CM) patients classified according to neck disability levels are unknown. Our aim was to investigate the effect of OnabotulinumtoxinA on the HI and the NMHD in individuals with CM with different levels of neck disability. One hundred sixteen patients were enrolled in the study. The OnabotulinumtoxinA protocol was administered as per Follow-the-Pain PREEMPT. The Neck Disability Index was used to evaluate neck disability. Primary outcome measures were headache intensity, assessed with the Visual Analogue Scale, and the number of monthly headache days recorded from patients' diaries. Secondary outcome measures were migraine disability, assessed with the Migraine Disability Assessment Test, and quality-of-life, assessed with the Headache Impact Test-6. All assessments were made at baseline and end of the treatment. The OnabotulinumtoxinA treatment showed a greater improvement effect in the number of monthly headache days (p = 0.000) and migraine disability (p = 0.000) parameters in the severe and complete disability groups. CM patients with complete and severe neck disability received the most benefit in reducing the NMHD at 3 months after OnabotulinumtoxinA treatment, but the HI decreased at a similar level in all neck disability groups.

Trigeminocervical pain sensitivity during the migraine cycle depends on headache frequency

OBJECTIVE

This experimental study aimed to assess pain sensitivity in low-frequency episodic migraine (LFEM), high-frequency episodic migraine (HFEM), and chronic migraine (CM) patients across the different phases of the migraine cycle.

METHOD

In this observational, experimental study, clinical characteristics (diary and time from the last/next headache attack), and quantitative sensory testing (QST) (wind-up pain ratio (WUR) and pressure pain threshold (PPT) from the trigeminal area and PPT from the cervical spine) was performed. LFEM, HFEM, and CM were assessed in each of the 4 migraine phases (HFEM and LFEM: interictal, preictal, ictal, and postictal; CM: interictal and ictal) and compared vs. each other's (matched for the phase) and controls.

RESULTS

A total of 56 controls, 105 LFEM, 74 HFEM, and 32 CM were included. No differences in QST parameters were observed between LFEM, HFEM, and CM in any of the phases. During the interictal phase and when comparing with controls the following were found: 1) LFEM had lower trigeminal PPT (p = 0.001) and 2) lower cervical PPT (p = 0.001). No differences were observed between HFEM or CM and healthy controls. During the ictal phase and when comparing with controls the following were found: HFEM and CM had 1) lower trigeminal PPTs (HFEM p = 0.001; CM = p < 0.001), 2) lower cervical PPT s (HFEM p = 0.007; CM p < 0.001), and 3) higher trigeminal WUR (HFEM p = 0.001, CM p = 0.006). No differences were observed between LFEM and healthy controls. During the preictal phase and when comparing with controls the following were found: 1) LFEM had lower cervical PPT (p = 0.007), 2) HFEM had lower trigeminal (p = 0.013) and 3) HFEM had lower cervical (p = .006) PPTs. During the postictal phase and when comparing with controls the following were found: 1) LFEM had lower cervical PPT (p = 0.003), 2) HFEM had lower trigeminal PPT (p = 0.005), and 3) and HFEM had lower cervical (p = 0.007) PPTs.

CONCLUSION

This study suggested that HFEM patients have a sensory profile matching CM better than LFEM. When assessing pain sensitivity in migraine populations, the phase with respects to headache attacks is of utmost importance and can explain the inconsistency in pain sensitivity data reported in the literature.

Profiling migraine patients according to clinical and psychophysical characteristics: a cluster analysis approach

AIM

This study aims to profile migraine patients according clinical and psychophysical characteristics.

METHOD

In this observational study, two cohorts of migraine patients(episodic/chronic) were included. Cohort-1: ictal/perictal phase; Cohort-2: interictal phase.The following variables were assessed: headache frequency; disability; cervical active range of motion(AROM) in flexion, extension, right/left lateral flexion, right/left rotation; pressure-pain threshold(PPT) over: temporalis, two cervical areas(C1/C4 vertebral segments), and two distal pain-free areas(hand/leg). Cluster analysis was performed using the K-means algorithm. Differences across clusters were investigated.

RESULTS

Cohort-1: 100 patients were included, and two clusters were identified. Cluster-1.1 (19%), Cluster-1.2 (81%). Cluster 1.1 had a higher percentage of men (P = .037) and higher disability (P = .003) compared to Clusters 1.2. Cluster 1.2 had reduced AROM in flexion, extension, and left/right lateral flexion (P < .037), and lower PPT value in all areas (P < .001) compared to Cluster 1.1. Cohort-2: 98 patients were included and three clusters were identified. Cluster-2.1(18%), Cluster-2.2(45%), and Cluster-2.3(37%). Cluster-2.1 had a higher percentage of men compared to clusters-2.2 and 2.3 (P = .009). Cluster-2.3 had higher headache frequency, and disability compared to Cluster-2.2 (P < .006), and higher disability compared to Cluster-2.1 (P = .010). Cluster-2.3 had reduced AROM in all directions compared to Clusters-2.1 and 2.2 (P < .029). Clusters-2.2 and 2.3 have lower PPT values in all areas compared to Cluster-1.1 (P < .001).

CONCLUSION

In the Ictal/perictal phase, two clusters were identified according to clinical and psychophysical characteristics, with one group showing no psychophysical impairment and one with increased pain-sensitivity and cervical musculoskeletal-dysfunctions.In the interictal phase, three clusters could be identified, with one group showing no psychophysical impairment, one increased pain-sensitivity, and one increased pain sensitivity and cervical musculoskeletal-dysfunctions.

The cervical spine in tension type headache

INTRODUCTION

The concept that headaches may originate in the cervical spine has been discussed over decades and is still a matter of debate. The cervical spine has been traditionally linked to cervicogenic headache; however, current evidence supports the presence of cervical musculoskeletal dysfunctions also in tension-type headache.

PURPOSE

This position paper discusses the most updated clinical and evidence-based data about the cervical spine in tension-type headache.

IMPLICATIONS

Subjects with tension-type headache exhibit concomitant neck pain, cervical spine sensitivity, forward head posture, limited cervical range of motion, positive flexion-rotation test and also cervical motor control disturbances. In addition, the referred pain elicited by manual examination of the upper cervical joints and muscle trigger points reproduces the pain pattern in tension-type headache. Current data supports that the cervical spine can be also involved in tension-type headache, and not just in cervicogenic headache. Several physical therapies including upper cervical spine mobilization or manipulation, soft tissue interventions (including dry needling) and exercises targeting the cervical spine are proposed for managing tension-type headache; however, the effectiveness of these interventions depends on a proper clinical reasoning since not all will be equally effective for all individuals with tension-type headache. Based on current evidence, we propose to use the terms cervical "component" and cervical "source" when discussing about headache. In such a scenario, in cervicogenic headache the neck can be the cause (source) of the headache whereas in tension-type headache the neck will have a component on the pain pattern, but it will be not the cause since it is a primary headache.

Cervical musculoskeletal impairments and pain sensitivity in migraine patients

INTRODUCTION

Currently, examination of migraine patients relies on a clinical interview investigating symptoms characteristics. Despite this, to help identify distinct migraine subtypes and allow a personalized treatment approach, biomarkers to profile distinct migraine subtypes should be utilized in clinical and research settings. Therefore, there is a need to include physical and psychophysical examinations aimed at assessing migraine features quantitatively.

PURPOSE

This paper aimed to discuss if increased pressure pain sensitivity and impaired cervical musculoskeletal function could be considered 1) as quantitative features of migraine and 2) if they could be used as biomarkers to profile migraine patients in distinct subtypes.

IMPLICATION

Increased pain sensitivity and cervical musculoskeletal impairments have been suggested as quantitative biomarkers to phenotype and subgroup migraine patients in clinical and research settings. This could provide the first step for a mechanistically-driven and personalized treatment approach according to migraine phenotypes.

Migraine patients with and without neck pain: Differences in clinical characteristics, sensitization, musculoskeletal impairments, and psychological burden

AIMS

This study aims to assess differences in clinical characteristics across healthy controls and migraine patients with (MNP) and without (MwoNP) neck pain.

METHOD

This study assessed: headache frequency; headache disability index (HDI); central sensitization inventory (CSI); Hospital Anxiety (HADS-A) and Depression (HADS-D) scale; active range of motion (AROM); flexion rotation test (FRT); activation pressure score (APS); number of active/latent myofascial trigger points (MTrPs) in head/neck muscles; number of positive cervical vertebral segments (C1/C2) who reproduce migraine pain; wind-up ratio (WUR); mechanical pain threshold (MPT) and static pressure pain threshold (sPPT) over the trigeminal area; sPPT and dynamic PPT (dPPT) over the cervical area; sPPTs and MPT over the hand.

RESULTS

Compared to controls, MNP had: worse CSI, HADS-A, and HADS-D (all, p < 0.002); reduced AROM (flexion, extension, left lateral-flexion, and right-rotation), FRT, APS, and a higher number of MTrPs and positive cervical vertebral segments (all, p < 0.020); reduced trigeminal MPT and sPPT, cervical sPPT and dPPT, hand MPT and sPPT (all, p < 0.006). Compared to controls, MwoNP had: worse CSI, and HADS-A (all, p < 0.002); reduced AROM (flexion, and left lateral-flexion), FRT, APS, and a higher number of MTrPs and positive cervical vertebral segments (all, p < 0.017); reduced trigeminal MPT and cervical dPPT (all, p < 0.007). Compared to MwoNP, MNP had higher headache frequency, worse HDI and CSI (all, p < 0.006); reduced AROM (flexion, and right rotation) (all, p < 0.037); reduced cervical dPPT (all, p < 0.002).

CONCLUSION

MNP had worse headache characteristics, more pronounced cervical musculoskeletal impairments, enhanced signs and symptoms related to sensitization, and worse psychological burden compared to MwoNP.

Headache and orofacial pain: A traffic-light prognosis-based management approach for the musculoskeletal practice

Introduction

Headache (HA) is one of the most prevalent disabling conditions worldwide and is classified as either primary or secondary. Orofacial pain (OFP) is a frequent pain perceived in the face and/or the oral cavity and is generally distinct from a headache, according to anatomical definitions. Based on the up-to-date classification of the International Headache Society, out of more than 300 specific types of HA only two are directly attributed to the musculoskeletal system: The cervicogenic HA and HA attributed to temporomandibular disorders. Because patients with HA and/or OFP frequently seek help in the musculoskeletal practice, a clear and tailored prognosis-based classification system is required to achieve better clinical outcomes.

Purpose

The aim of perspective article is to suggest a practical traffic-light prognosis-based classification system to improve the management of patients with HA and/or OFP in the musculoskeletal practice. This classification system is based on the best available scientific knowledge based on the unique set-up and clinical reasoning process of musculoskeletal practitioners.

Implications

Implementation of this traffic-light classification system will improve clinical outcomes by helping practitioners invest their time in treating patients with significant involvement of the musculoskeletal system in their clinical presentation and avoid treating patients that are not likely to respond to a musculoskeletal based intervention. Furthermore, this framework incorporates medical screening for dangerous medical conditions, and profiling the psychosocial aspects of each patient; thus follows the biopsychosocial rehabilitation paradigm.