In patients with frequent migraine, prophylactic treatments are used. Patients often request non-pharmacological alternatives. One treatment option can be aerobic exercise. The value of aerobic exercise as prophylactic treatment however needs to be determined. A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to investigate the result of aerobic exercise on the number of migraine days, duration and pain intensity in patients with migraine. After screening three online databases, PubMed, Cochrane library and Web of Science, using predefined in- and exclusion criteria, six studies were retained. Pooling of data was performed when possible. Significant reductions in the number of migraine days after aerobic exercise treatment were found with a mean reduction of 0.6 ± 0.3 migraine days/month. Other outcomes were too variable to pool due to heterogeneity of outcome measurements. Unpooled data revealed small to moderate reductions in attack duration (20–27%) and pain intensity (20–54%) after aerobic exercise intervention. Various exercise intensities are applied. There is moderate quality evidence that in patients with migraine aerobic exercise therapy can decrease the number of migraine days. No conclusion for pain intensity or duration of attacks can be drawn. Effect sizes are small due to a lack of uniformity. For future studies, we recommend standardized outcome measures and sufficiently intense training programs. CRD42018091178 .
Sensitivity of tissues can be measured by algometry. Decreased pressure pain thresholds over the cranio-cervical area are supposed to reflect signs of sensitization of the trigemino-cervical nucleus caudalis. A systematic review was conducted to assess the current scientific literature describing pressure pain threshold (PPT) values over the cranio-cervical region in patients with migraine, tension-type headache (TTH), and cervicogenic headache (CeH). A literature search was executed in three databases. The search strategy included the following keywords: migraine, TTH, CeH, PPT and algometry. A total of 624 papers was identified of which relevant papers were subsequently assessed for methodological quality. Twenty-two selected papers were assessed by two independent reviewers and the majority of studies scored low risk of bias on the selected items. Mean PPT values of several sites measured in the cranio-cervical region in patients with migraine, chronic TTH and CeH scored lower values compared to controls. The trapezius muscle (midpoint between vertebrae C7 and acromion) was the most frequently targeted site and showed significantly lower PPT values in adults with migraine (pooled standardized mean difference kPa: 1.26 [95%CI -1.71, −0.81]) and chronic TTH (pooled standardized mean difference kPa: -2.00 [95%CI -2.93, −1.08]). Most studies found no association between PPT values and headache characteristics such as frequency, duration or intensity. Further standardization of PPT measurement in the cranio-cervical region is recommended.
Objective: To determine the minimal clinically important change (MCIC) in Headache Impact Test-6 (HIT-6) score in patients with chronic tension-type headache (CTTH). Methods: The HIT-6 was administered at baseline and at 8 weeks follow-up in a cohort of 186 participants with CTTH who received manual therapy or usual care by their general practitioner. An anchor-based method was used to determine the MCIC, with the external criterion (anchor) being based on general perceived improvement (‘much improved or very much improved’ on a 7-point Likert scale) in combination with 50% reduction in headache days. Using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis we defined an optimal cut-off score discriminating between improved and not improved participants. Results: The optimal cut-off point for the MCIC for the HIT-6 was −8 points, on a total scale range of 42 points. Conclusion: A clinically relevant improvement in patients with CTTH is reflected by a decrease of at least 8 points on the HIT-6.
The most prevalent primary headaches tension-type headache and migraine are frequently associated with neck pain. A wide variety of treatment options is available for people with headache and neck pain. Some of these interventions are recommended in guidelines on headache: self-management strategies, pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions. Physical treatment is a frequently applied treatment for headache. Although this treatment for headache is predominantly targeted on the cervical spine, the neurophysiological background of this intervention remains unclear. Recent knowledge from neuroscience will enhance clinical reasoning in physical treatment of headache. Therefore, we summarize the neuro- anatomical and—physiological findings on headache and neck pain from experimental research in both animals and humans. Several neurophysiological models (referred pain, central sensitization) are proposed to understand the co-occurrence of headache and neck pain. This information can be of added value in understanding the use of physical treatment as a treatment option for patients with headache and neck pain.