Is Chiari type I malformation a reason for chronic daily headache?

This article briefly reviews the spectrum of headaches associated with Chiari type I malformation and specifically analyzes current data on the possibility of this malformation as an etiology for some cases of chronic daily headache (CDH). Chiari type I malformation is definitely associated with cough headache and not with primary episodic headaches, with the rare exception of basilar migraine-like cases. With regard to CDH, there is no clear evidence supporting an association with this malformation. An MRI study would be justified only in patients showing either a Valsalva-aggravating component or cervicogenic features. Hydrocephalus and low intracranial pressure syndrome should be ruled out in patients showing tonsillar herniation in an MRI study and consulting due to daily headache.     

Is there a brainstem generator of chronic daily headache?

Using BOLD-fMRI we have previously documented activation of the red nucleus (RN) and substantia nigra (SN) during spontaneously and visually activated migraine headache. These observations prompted us to study brainstem function in chronic daily headache patients using high-resolution magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) techniques. Seventeen chronic daily headache (CDH) patients, ten episodic migraine (EM) patients and fifteen controls (N) were imaged with a 3 tesla MRI system. For each subject, the relaxation rates R2, R2* and R2' were obtained for RN and SN. There was a significant decrease in R2' and R2* values for RN and SN in CDH compared to N and EM groups (p < 0.05), but no significant difference between the N and EM groups. A decrease in R2' and R2* indicates reduced deoxyhemoglobin and hence persistent activation of the RN and SN in CDH patients most likely secondary to ongoing headache at the time of study. The imaging data provide objective evidence of disturbed central nervous system function in CDH.     

Chronic daily headache in the absence of medication overuse: Is daily or continuous pain more treatment-resistant than chronic daily headache with pain-free days?

To our patients, their families, and treatment providers who may not be headache specialists, chronic daily headache (CDH) would appear to refer to headache disorders marked by the presence of daily pain over an extended period of time. To the headache specialist, in contrast, CDH represents a family of headache disorders in which pain occurs from 15 to 30 days each month [1], now reflected in the International Headache Society (IHS) criteria for chronic migraine (CM) or chronic tension-type headache [2]. The IHS classification does not distinguish between daily CM and intermittent CM marked by at least some pain-free days [3]. Research studies and clinical reports of the diagnostic entities subsumed under CDH often include patients with pain-free days and those with true daily pain.     

Are there predictive factors for long-term outcome after withdrawal in drug-induced chronic daily headache?

OBJECTIVES: To investigate prognostic factors for long-term outcome of patients after inpatient withdrawal because of drug-induced chronic daily headache. PROCEDURES: Fifty-five patients (36 females) were re-examined by means of a standardized interview after inpatient withdrawal. The mean observation period was 9.28 +/- 2.85 years (mean +/- SD; median 8.58; range 5.00-13.50). RESULTS: Five years after withdrawal, one-third of the patients (34.6%) had an overall favourable outcome, one-third (32.7%) had no recurrent drug overuse and reported a clear-cut improvement of headache, and one-third (32.7%) developed recurrent drug overuse. Most relapses occurred within 2 years, and a small percentage within 5 years. No predictors for long-term outcome after inpatient withdrawal were found. CONCLUSIONS: All patients with drug-induced chronic daily headache should be considered as good candidates for inpatient withdrawal, and no patient should be excluded from that therapy.     

Is there hope for chronic pain and headache?

Currently the clinical needs for pain and headache management are not met. Despite the numerous and exciting recent advances in understanding the molecular and cellular mechanisms that originate pain, we cannot yet fully explain the mechanism underlying the biology of chronic pain. Pain is a natural mechanism preserving our species survival; however, when the protective quality is lost, physiologic changes to the peripheral and central nervous systems result in the formation of chronic pain states. Once we understand how this chronic pain state is created, either through genetic, environmental, therapeutic, or other triggers we may be able to enhance our species existence, limiting maladaptive pain and suffering. The future therapeutic targets will need to address the genetics, neurophysiologic changes of the neurons and brain as well as help control immune systems including the glia. The key to successful headache and pain therapy is research aimed at prevention and minimizing the plastic changes triggering chronic pain.     

The patients’ perceptions of migraine and chronic daily headache: a qualitative study

This study aimed to gain insight into the management of migraine and chronic daily headache (CDH) from the patients perspective. This article outlines the patients perceptions of migraine and chronic daily headache. Thirteen semi–structured interviews were carried out with patients suffering from IHS migraine. Five patients, due to their headache frequency of more than 15 headache days per month, were classed as CDH patients. The data were transcribed verbatim and analysed in accordance with the grounded theory methodology. The main themes were: headaches, impact and headaches related to health issues. The theme headaches was sub-divided into their pain and symptoms, differentiating between their headaches and perceptions of headaches as barriers and facilitators to management. The patients perceptions of migraine and CDH were sometimes conflicting and influenced the patients management behaviours. The qualitative methodology may help to inform doctors, other healthcare professionals and headache researchers about the patients perspective and possibly develop future headache research, care and education.     

Does chronic daily headache arise de novo in association with regular use of analgesics?

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of chronic daily headache in association with regular use of analgesics is about 2%. Whether regular use of analgesics has a causal or consequential relationship to daily headache has not been established. A causal relationship has been suggested consequent to the observation of improvement or resolution of headache following analgesic withdrawal in patients attending headache clinics, but this observation has not been validated by controlled trials. PURPOSE: The aim of our investigation was to determine whether regular use of analgesics is associated with the development of chronic daily headache de novo and to characterize the clinical phenotype of those headaches by carefully studying chronic daily headache in patients with regular use of analgesics for a nonheadache indication. METHODS: Patients attending a rheumatology-monitoring clinic of second-line agents were interviewed by a training neurologist with regard to their analgesic and headache history. Headache classification was according to the criteria of the International Headache Society. Daily headache characteristics were surveyed via a standardized questionnaire, and headache features were further explored by a trained medical interviewer. RESULTS: Of 110 patients presenting to a rheumatology-monitoring clinic, 73% had a diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis, 23% had seronegative arthritis, and 4% comprised a miscellaneous group. One hundred three were using one or more analgesics regularly for their arthritis. Of this group, 8 (7.6%) reported a history of chronic daily headache, each of whom reported a history of migraine. The onset of migraine occurred before the onset of chronic daily headache in 7 patients and at about the same time as the chronic daily headache in 1 patient. In those with onset of migraine prior to chronic daily headache, the mean interval before the onset of headache was 30 years (range, 10 to 50 years). Regular use of analgesics preceded the onset of daily headache in 5 patients by a mean of 5.4 years (range, 2 to 10 years). In 1 patient, analgesic use and the development of daily headache occurred at about the same time. In 1 patient, the onset of daily headache preceded regular use of analgesics by almost 30 years. Five of those with regular use of analgesics had been taking an opiate-based preparation in combination with a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agent in 4. Two had been on a combination of acetaminophen (paracetamol) and a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug. The minimum number of tablets per week was 7, and the mean was 48 (range, 7 to 87). Of those patients who did not have daily headache, 41% had a history of migraine and 27% reported a history of tension-type headache. CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that individuals with primary headache, specifically migraine, are predisposed to developing chronic daily headache in association with regular use of analgesics.     

Is chronic tension-type headache a vascular headache? The relation between chronic tension-type headache and cranial hemodynamics

Twenty-seven patients with chronic tension-type headache were studied as to end-tidal PCO2, heart rate, mean blood pressure, diameter and blood flow of the common carotid arteries, cranial vascular resistance, and headache intensity at supine rest, after administration of nitroglycerin, and at head down tilt. The results were compared to the results of nitroglycerin and head down tilt provocations in age- and sex-matched controls. During supine rest, no change in chronic tension-type headache occurred. Nitroglycerin and tilting induced significant increase of the headache intensity compared to baseline in patients with chronic tension-type headache (P=0.01 and P<0.05, respectively) in contradistinction to controls who did not develop significant headache. Common carotid artery blood flow changes were similar during nitroglycerin provocations in the two groups, but greater (P<0.05) during head down tilt in patients than in controls. Lumbar cerebrospinal fluid pressure was found to be greater than 20 but less than 26 cm H2O in 45% of the 22 patients studied with chronic tension-type headache. The results indicate that the pain in chronic tension-type headache is related to cranial hemodynamics, presumably to distention of intracranial veins.     

Botulinum toxin: could it be an effective treatment for chronic tension-type headache?

Several clinical trials suggest that botulinum toxin type-A (BTX-A) may be an effective treatment option for patients with chronic tension-type headache (CTTH); however, controversy remains as to how the botulinum toxin optimally should be used for treating headache and which patient's profile fits this treatment. The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of BTX-A for the prophylactic treatment of CCTH in Egyptian patients. This was a randomized, single-blind, placebo-controlled study of BTX-A for the treatment of patients aged 25–50 years old with CCTH. Following a 30-day screening, headache parameters and severity assessed by the standard visual analogue scale (VAS), and the 25-item Henry Ford Hospital Headache Disability Inventory (HDI) were recorded as a baseline. Then, injection was done with either BTX-A or with saline by a combination of two methods for detecting injection sites (the fixed-site approach and follow-the-pain approach). Our study showed significant improvement after 1 month of BTX-A injection regarding headache days/month, severity measured by VAS and HDI in headache severity. There was significant reduction of prophylactic medications, and there were minor complications, but these reversed spontaneously without further treatment. BTX-A was an effective and well-tolerated prophylactic treatment in Egyptian patients with CCTH.     

Primary and secondary chronic cluster headache: two separate entities?

The International Headache Society (IHS) classification divides chronic cluster headache (CH) into two subtypes: chronic CH unremitting from onset (CCHU) and chronic CH evolved from episodic (CCHE). The purpose of our study was to point out any similarities and differences between the two chronic CH subtypes and to determine whether or not they can be considered as two separate clinical entities. We reviewed data about 31 CCHE patients and 38 CCHU patients referred to the Parma Headache Centre between 1975 and 1999. Clinically, CCHE patients exhibited statistically significant differences from CCHU patients, i.e. earlier CH onset and duration of attacks varying more frequently between 120 and 180 min. From the point of view of lifestyle, heavy alcohol and coffee drinkers prevailed among CCHU patients, while CCHE patients were more frequently heavy smokers. Based on clinical features, it seems reasonable to suppose that chronic CH may occur as two distinct entities.     

Post-infectious headache: a reactive headache?

Post-infectious disease syndrome includes both neurological and non-neurological disorders. However, headache as an isolated or a presenting complaint of post-infectious illness has not been well acknowledged in the literature. In this retrospective observation, patients having daily headache of more than 1 week and <4 weeks duration were included. We divided this group into patients having headache with preceding history of febrile illness in the recent past and patients without such history of febrile illness. We compared clinical features and therapeutic responses of various drugs between the groups. There were no significant differences in demographic features in these groups. However, associated neck pain, nausea, photophobia and meningeal signs were more prevalent in patients having history of preceding infection. A relatively lower proportion of subjects showed complete response to drugs at 3 months in post-infectious group. Good responses were noted to steroids in post-infectious group. In conclusion, a subset of patients with daily headache may be because of post-infectious pathology and treatment in the early stage may prevent it from becoming chronic. Large prospective studies are required to confirm these observations.     

Hypnic headache: another indomethacin-responsive headache syndrome?

Hypnic headache syndrome is a benign, recurrent, late-onset headache disorder that occurs exclusively during sleep. Lithium has been reported to be an effective treatment, but the side effects of this medication are sometimes prohibitive, particularly in the elderly. Other drugs have been reported to be effective in this disorder, including caffeine, flunarizine, and verapamil. Recently, indomethacin has been reported to effectively suppress hypnic headaches. We report the response of seven patients with hypnic headache who were treated with indomethacin. Hypnic headache syndrome appears to represent yet another headache disorder in which there is sometimes an impressive response to indomethacin.     

Cognitive-behavioral treatments for chronic pain: what works for whom?

Since the introduction of behavioral medicine in the early 70s, cognitive-behavioral treatment interventions for chronic pain have expanded considerably. It is now well established that these interventions are effective in reducing the enormous suffering that patients with chronic pain have to bear. In addition, these interventions have potential economic benefits in that they appear to be cost-effective as well. Despite these achievements, there is still room for improvement. First, there is a substantial proportion of patients who do not appear to benefit from treatment interventions available. Second, although the effect sizes of most cognitive-behavioral treatments for chronic pain are comparable to those in psychopathology, they are quite modest. Third, there is little evidence for differential outcomes for different treatment methods. Fourth, there still is relatively little known about the specific biobehavioral mechanisms that lead to chronic pain and pain disability. One direction is to better match treatment programs to patients' characteristics. This can be done according to an "Aptitude X Treatment Interaction" framework, or from the perspective of the Moderator-Mediator distinction. In this introduction to the special series on what works for whom in cognitive-behavioral treatments for chronic pain, we review existing knowledge concerning both moderating and mediating variables in cognitive-behavioral treatments for chronic pain. We further argue in favor of theory-driven research as the only way to define specific a priori hypotheses about which patient-treatment interactions to expect. We also argue that replicated single-participant studies, with appropriate statistics, are likely to enhance new developments in this clinical research area.     

Similarities in stress physiology among patients with chronic pain and headache disorders: evidence for a common pathophysiological mechanism?

One common feature of chronic musculoskeletal pain and headaches are that they are both influenced by stress. Among these, tension-type headache (TTH), fibromyalgia (FMS) and chronic shoulder/neck pain (SNP) appear to have several similarities, both with regard to pathophysiology, clinical features and demographics. The main hypothesis of the present study was that patients with chronic pain (TTH, FMS and SNP) had stress-induced features distinguishing them from migraine patients and healthy controls. We measured pain, blood pressure, heart rate (HR) and skin blood flow (BF) during (1 h) and after (30 min) controlled low-grade cognitive stressor in 22 migraine patients, 18 TTH patients, 23 FMS patients, 29 SNP patients and 44 healthy controls. FMS patients had a lower early HR response to stress than migraine patients, but no differences were found among FMS, TTH and SNP patients. Finger skin BF decreased more in FMS patients compared to migraine patients, both during and after the test. When comparing chronic pain patients (chronic TTH, FMS and SNP) with those with episodic pain (episodic TTH and migraine patients) or little or no pain (healthy controls), different adaptation profiles were found during the test for systolic and diastolic blood pressure, HR and skin BF in the chronic group. In conclusion, these results suggest that TTH, FMS and SNP patients may share common pathophysiological mechanisms regarding the physiological responses to and recovery from low-grade cognitive stress, differentiating them from episodic pain conditions such as migraine.