OnabotulinumtoxinA injections in chronic migraine, targeted to sites of pericranial myofascial pain: an observational, open label, real-life cohort study

Trigeminal cervical complex: A neural network affecting the head and neck

OBJECTIVES

To introduce the trigeminal cervical complex (TCC) as a comprehensive framework for understanding the anatomical and functional scope of the afferences and efferences of the trigeminal nerve and explaining common otolaryngologic symptoms, including head and neck myofascial pain syndrome. Additionally, it explores how the bidirectional transmission of neurotransmitters contributes to the sensitization of the TCC and motor nuclei.

METHODS

The study was conducted as a narrative review. The authors performed a comprehensive search of multiple databases, including Medline/OVID, Embase, Scopus, and PubMed, covering publications from inception until August 2023. Both keywords and medical subject headings related to the TCC were utilized in the search. Information from 66 studies was extracted based on predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria.

RESULTS

This review discusses the multiple afferent connections from cranial nerves, specifically VII, IX, X, and XI, to the TCC, and their respective efferent pathways. These connections may explain various clinical manifestations in the head and neck that cannot be attributed to other medical conditions. Additionally, the review highlights the dual sensory and motor nature of cranial nerves, emphasizing the bidirectional transmission of neurotransmitters in head and neck areas, which leads to the sensitization of both the TCC and motor nuclei innervating the cervicofacial muscles.

CONCLUSION

The authors hypothesize that the central and peripheral sensitization and the intricate connections of the TCC can elucidate the pathophysiology of conditions such as otalgia, tinnitus, hearing loss, vertigo, headache, cervicogenic dizziness, bruxism, and other symptoms affecting the head and neck.

The Role of Manual Therapies in the Treatment of Headache Disorders

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

A comprehensive headache treatment plan typically requires both medication and non-medication treatment strategies. Manual therapies offer another therapeutic approach to headache treatment. This article reviews the evidence for manual therapies in the treatment of headache disorders.

RECENT FINDINGS

Current evidence shows potential benefit from myofascial trigger point injections, myofascial release, and massage for the treatment of various headache types. There is also evidence for strain counterstrain technique, ischemic compression, and spinal manipulative therapies for cervicogenic headache. Although larger randomized clinical trials are necessary for many of these modalities, recent findings show that manual therapies could be an important tool for the treatment of some headache disorders.

Effectiveness and Safety of Chronic Migraine Preventive Treatments: A Systematic Literature Review

INTRODUCTION

Numerous medications are used for the preventive treatment of chronic migraine (CM), including oral treatments, onabotulinumtoxinA (onabotA; BOTOX), and calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibodies (mAbs). Despite substantial clinical trial evidence, less is published about the real-world experience of these treatments based on data routinely collected from a variety of sources. This systematic review assessed real-world evidence on the effectiveness and safety of preventive treatments for CM in adults.

METHODS

A systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane library with back-referencing and supplementary searches retrieved data published between January 2010 and February 2020. Publications were screened, extracted, and quality assessed. Data were narratively synthesized. Search criteria included preventive medications for CM. Evidence was available for topiramate, onabotulinumtoxinA, CGRP mAbs (erenumab, galcanezumab, and fremanezumab). OnabotulinumtoxinA was most commonly assessed (55 studies), followed by erenumab (six studies), multiple CGRP mAbs (one study), and topiramate (one study). Long-term data (> 1 year) were available for onabotulinumtoxinA only, with erenumab reported up 6 months, topiramate up to 3 months, and multiple CGRP mAbs up to 12 months.

RESULTS

Substantial data demonstrated that onabotulinumtoxinA reduces the number/frequency of headaches, concomitant acute medication use, and impact of headaches on well-being and daily activity. More limited evidence showed benefits for the same parameters with erenumab. Single studies suggested topiramate and multiple CGRP mAbs decrease the number/frequency of headaches and impact of headaches. To date, onabotulinumtoxinA is the only preventive treatment for CM that has long-term safety data in real-world settings reporting treatment-related adverse events of up to 3 years.

CONCLUSION

While substantial real-world evidence supports the long-term effectiveness and safety of onabotulinumtoxinA, real-world data on other preventive treatments of CM are currently limited to short term effectiveness due to their more recent approvals.

Effectiveness of onabotulinumtoxinA (BOTOX®) for the preventive treatment of chronic migraine: A meta-analysis on 10 years of real-world data

BACKGROUND

This meta-analysis evaluated the real-world effectiveness of onabotulinumtoxinA (BOTOX®), the first preventive treatment FDA-approved specifically for chronic migraine in 2010.

METHODS

We systematically reviewed onabotulinumtoxinA observational data in chronic migraine published between 1 January 2010 and 31 March 2021. Random-effects models evaluated available data for primary and secondary endpoints defined in onabotulinumtoxinA pivotal trials at approximately 24 weeks and 52 weeks.

RESULTS

Of the 44 full-text eligible studies (29 prospective; 13 retrospective; 2 other), seven evaluated change from baseline (mean[confidence interval]) at ∼24 weeks and ∼52 weeks, respectively, for onabotulinumtoxinA in: number of headache days/month: (-10.64 [-12.31, -8.97]; -10.32 [-14.92, -5.73]); number of days of acute headache pain medication intake per month (-7.40 [-13.04, -1.77]; overlapping CIs at 52 weeks); total Headache Impact Test-6 score (-11.70 [-13.86, -9.54]); -11.80 [14.70, -8.90]); and Migraine-Specific Quality-of-Life v2.1 score (MSQ; 23.60 [CI: 21.56, 25.64]; 30.90 [CI: 28.29, 33.51]). At ∼24 weeks onabotulinumtoxinA showed total Migraine Disability Assessment score of 44.74 [28.50, 60.99] and ≥50% reduction in migraine days response rate of 46.57% [29.50%, 63.65%]. A sensitivity analysis at study-end suggested durability of onabotulinumtoxinA effectiveness on MSQ.

CONCLUSION

The meta-analysis reflecting real-world practice broadly corroborated with evidence from pivotal and long-term open-label studies of onabotulinumtoxinA in chronic migraine preventive treatment.

Algometer Assessment of Pressure Pain Threshold After Onabotulinumtoxin-A and Physical Therapy Treatments in Patients With Chronic Migraine: An Observational Study

The purpose of this study was to evaluate pain hypersensitivity in chronic migraine patients 3 months after undergoing onabotulinumtoxin-A therapy, physical therapy (PT), or the combination of the two. Pressure pain threshold (PPT) was assessed in accordance with Andersen's guidelines, focusing on five muscles in the trigeminocervical area (namely, trapezius, levator scapulae, temporalis, sub-occipitalis, and scalenus medius) and one muscle outside of the area, (i.e., tensor fasciae latae). Moreover, three headache parameters, namely, attack frequency, duration, and pain intensity, were recorded in an ad hoc diary kept by the patients. A total of 30 patients were included in three treatment groups: 1. onabotulinumtoxin-A therapy, 2. PT, and 3. a combination of onabotulinumtoxin-A and PT. The results show that, at the final assessment, the PPT was significantly reduced in the combined treatment group compared to the two single-therapy groups. As regards headache parameters, frequency and duration of the attacks were decreased significantly in all three treatment groups, whereas in pain intensity, the reduction was statistically significant in the combined treatment group and the onabotulinumtoxin-A therapy. Results suggest that a better pain modulation in patients with chronic migraine can be achieved with a combined treatment of onabotulinumtoxin-A and physical therapy. Indeed, the combination of both pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments results in the reduction of both headache-related parameters and widespread pressure hyperalgesia.

A Qualitative Study to Explore Patient Perspectives of Prophylactic Treatment with OnabotulinumtoxinA for Chronic Migraine

INTRODUCTION

OnabotulinumtoxinA (OBT-A) is one of the most studied prophylactic treatments for chronic migraine. Large clinical trials, and now real-world studies, continue to provide evidence to support the use of OBT-A as an effective treatment to manage chronic migraine. The objective of this study was to explore patient experience and perception of prophylactic treatment with OBT-A for chronic migraine.

METHODS

Data were collected using semi-structured interviews using open-ended questions to uncover rich descriptive data on patient experiences. Interviews were transcribed and analysed using NVivo data analysis software to code and identify themes across the dataset. Three patient groups were included in the analysis: (1) patients who were receiving continued OBT-A treatment; (2) patients who discontinued OBT-A treatment; (3) patients who were recommended for OBT-A treatment but did not proceed.

RESULTS

For patients who received at least one OBT-A treatment, four main themes emerged, which described patients' expectations, experiences, and feelings towards their treatment decisions. Two main themes emerged that were common to patients, who had discontinued their treatment and those, who were recommended for OBT-A treatment but did not proceed, which were identified as potential barriers to initiate or continue prophylactic treatment with OBT-A.

CONCLUSION

Understanding patients' perspective is an important part of clinical practice and may impact on decision-making. Qualitative data can provide a more holistic view of patient care and treatment insights that may not be evaluated during a clinical trial. This study revealed potential barriers to treatment that can inform future policy and practice.

Instrumental assessment of physiotherapy and onabolulinumtoxin-A on cervical and headache parameters in chronic migraine

Introduction

The purpose of the present study is to compare the effect of the physiotherapy to onabolulinumtoxin-A, and their combination, in relation to cervical and headache parameters in patients with chronic migraine.

Methods

This is an observational cohort study conducted by a headache center and a physiotherapy degree course on 30 patients with chronic migraine. The patients were distributed in three groups of treatments for three months: onabolulinumtoxin-A only, physiotherapy only, and onabolulinumtoxin-A plus physiotherapy. The patients were evaluated, before and after each treatment, using the following: the postural assessment software SAPO for the forward head posture; the CROM goniometer for the cervical range of motion; the Migraine Disability Assessment Score for headache parameters.

Results

After 3 months of each treatment, the scores obtained for the headache-related disability and the frequency of migraine decreased significantly for all groups, but the pain intensity scores changed significantly only in the onabolulinumtoxin-A (p = 0.01) and in the onabolulinumtoxin-A plus physiotherapy groups (p = 0.007). On the other hand, the forward head posture was reduced significantly in the physiotherapy (p = 0.002) and in the onabolulinumtoxin-A plus physiotherapy groups (p = 0.003). The cervical range of motion increased significantly in certain directions in the physiotherapy group and in the onabolulinumtoxin-A plus physiotherapy groups.

Conclusions

The physiotherapy improved the cervical parameters. The onabolulinumtoxin-A decreased pain intensity. As a consequence, it can be said that the combined treatment was more useful than a mono-therapy alone. From our results, it can be concluded that onabolulinumtoxin-A plus physiotherapy could be a good option in the management of chronic migraine.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10072-021-05491-w.

The Efficacy of Botulinum Toxin in Pediatric Chronic Migraine: A Literature Review

AIMS

To conduct a review of the literature on the use of botulinum toxin for the treatment of pediatric chronic migraine.

METHODS

A review of the literature was performed using EMBASE, PubMed, and Cochrane/Ovid. Using our inclusion and exclusion criteria, we targeted any study, published before April 2020, evaluating the efficacy of botulinum toxin in migraineurs younger than 18 years.

RESULTS

Seven studies were included: 2 retrospective analyses, 3 case series, a case report, and a randomized control trial. Studies included 1 to 125 patients, with the number of botulinum toxin treatments ranging from 1 to 11 treatments. The results of the randomized controlled trial showed nonsuperiority between placebo and botulinum toxin. Results of the other studies were generally favorable but were difficult to compare because of lack of standardization of botulinum toxin dosing, injection paradigm, frequency and duration of treatment, usage of accompanying prophylaxis, and variation in outcome measures across studies. There was low-quality evidence that botulinum toxin improved headache frequency and intensity, though some studies demonstrated efficacy in treatment with botulinum toxin.

CONCLUSION

This review is the first of its kind, updating the literature on the efficacy of botulinum toxin in pediatric patients. Given evidence of its utility in treating pediatric migraines, off-label use should be considered in certain cases. Further study is warranted to better characterize injection paradigms and patient selection because of the limited and inconsistent data available.

Myofascial trigger points in migraine and tension-type headache

BACKGROUND

A myofascial trigger point is defined as a hyperirritable spot in skeletal muscle that is associated with a hypersensitive palpable nodule in a taut band. It has been suggested that myofascial trigger points take part in chronic pain conditions including primary headache disorders. The aim of this narrative review is to present an overview of the current imaging modalities used for the detection of myofascial trigger points and to review studies of myofascial trigger points in migraine and tension-type headache.

FINDINGS

Different modalities have been used to assess myofascial trigger points including ultrasound, microdialysis, electromyography, infrared thermography, and magnetic resonance imaging. Ultrasound is the most promising of these modalities and may be used to identify MTrPs if specific methods are used, but there is no precise description of a gold standard using these techniques, and they have yet to be evaluated in headache patients. Active myofascial trigger points are prevalent in migraine patients. Manual palpation can trigger migraine attacks. All intervention studies aiming at trigger points are positive, but this needs to be further verified in placebo-controlled environments. These findings may imply a causal bottom-up association, but studies of migraine patients with comorbid fibromyalgia syndrome suggest otherwise. Whether myofascial trigger points contribute to an increased migraine burden in terms of frequency and intensity is unclear. Active myofascial trigger points are prevalent in tension-type headache coherent with the hypothesis that peripheral mechanisms are involved in the pathophysiology of this headache disorder. Active myofascial trigger points in pericranial muscles in tension-type headache patients are correlated with generalized lower pain pressure thresholds indicating they may contribute to a central sensitization. However, the number of active myofascial trigger points is higher in adults compared with adolescents regardless of no significant association with headache parameters. This suggests myofascial trigger points are accumulated over time as a consequence of TTH rather than contributing to the pathophysiology.

CONCLUSIONS

Myofascial trigger points are prevalent in both migraine and tension-type headache, but the role they play in the pathophysiology of each disorder and to which degree is unclarified. In the future, ultrasound elastography may be an acceptable diagnostic test.

Monocentric Prospective Study into the Sustained Effect of Incobotulinumtoxin A (XEOMIN®) Botulinum Toxin in Chronic Refractory Migraine

Refractory chronic migraine is a disabling disorder impacting quality of life. BOTOX^® (Onabotulinumtoxin A) is approved as a prophylactic treatment of chronic migraine in patients unresponsive to at least three prior preventive treatments. The objective of this study was to determine the prophylactic effect of 145 U XEOMIN^® (Incobotulinumtoxin A) injected at 31 specific sites in adult patients with refractory chronic migraine. Sixty-one patients (8 men and 53 women, mean age 50) with migraine were recruited, including 20 patients with isolated chronic migraine, 18 patients with chronic migraine associating tension-type headache, 12 patients with migraine associating medication overuse headache, and 11 patients with episodic disabling migraine. The mean number of injections and duration of treatment per patient was 3.5 (range 2–13) and 21 (6–68) months, respectively. From baseline to first injection, 44 patients (73%) had >50% reduction in frequency of migraine episodes, 29 patients (48%) showed >50% reduction in number of headache days, and 28 patients (46%) had a >50% reduction in drug intake. Stable response for all three parameters was observed after the last injection. XEOMIN^® thus seems to represent an effective and sustained prophylactic treatment of chronic migraine.

An academic debate: OnabotulinumtoxinA for chronic migraine: PREEMPT-derived vs "customized" dosing/injection paradigm

In 2010 onabotulinumtoxinA (OnabotA) was approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of chronic migraine (CM). Data supporting approval were derived primarily from two parallel placebo-controlled trials, the PREEMPT studies. Many clinicians and research investigators critical of those data have recommended that the dosing/injection paradigm for treating CM be "customized" to the needs of the individual patient rather than administered in a uniform fashion conforming to the methodology utilized in the PREEMPT studies. In this paper the authors debate the issue of whether treatment of CM with OnabotA should be standardized versus customized.

Long-term study of the efficacy and safety of OnabotulinumtoxinA for the prevention of chronic migraine: COMPEL study

BACKGROUND

OnabotulinumtoxinA is approved for the prevention of headache in those with chronic migraine (CM); however, more clinical data on the risk-benefit profile for treatment beyond one year is desirable.

METHODS

The Chronic Migraine OnabotulinuMtoxinA Prolonged Efficacy open Label (COMPEL) Study ( ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT01516892) is an international, multicenter, open-label long-term prospective study. Adults with CM received 155 U of onabotulinumtoxinA (31 sites in a fixed-site, fixed-dose paradigm across 7 head/neck muscles) every 12 weeks (±7 days) for 9 treatment cycles (108 weeks). The primary outcome was headache day reductions at 108 weeks; secondary outcomes were headache day reductions at 60 weeks and change in the 6-item Headache Impact Test (HIT-6) score. Safety and tolerability were assessed by reviewing the frequency and nature of adverse events (AEs). AEs were determined at each visit through patient self-report, general non-directed and, for specific AEs, directed questioning, and physical examination. Subgroup analyses for safety and efficacy included, but were not limited to, patients with/without concomitant oral preventive treatment and acute medication overuse at baseline.

RESULTS

Enrolled patients (N = 716) were 18-73 years old and most were female (n = 607, 84.8%). At baseline, patients reported an average 22.0 (SD = 4.8) headache days per month. 52.1% of patients (n = 373) completed the study. By 60 and 108 weeks, a significant reduction in headache days (- 9.2 days and - 10.7 days, respectively, P < 0.0001) was observed. Significant improvements (P < 0.0001) in HIT-6 scores (- 7.1 point change at week 108) were also demonstrated. 131 patients (18.3%) reported ≥1 treatment-emergent adverse events; most frequently reported was neck pain (n = 29, 4.1%). One patient reported a serious treatment-related adverse event (rash). No deaths were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

The COMPEL Study provides additional clinical evidence for the consistency of the efficacy and for the long-term safety and tolerability of onabotulinumtoxinA for the prevention of headache in those with CM who have been treated with onabotulinumtoxinA every 12 weeks over 2 years (9 treatments) with the fixed-site, fixed-dose injection paradigm.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Trial registration number: NCT01516892 . Name of registry: clinicaltrials.gov . Date of registration: January 20 2012. Date of enrollment of first patient: December 2011.