A pilot study of cognitive behavioural therapy and relaxation for migraine headache: a randomised controlled trial

Effect of different non-pharmacologic placebo treatments on migraine prevention: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Placebo control plays an important role in evaluating the effectiveness of interventions. Specifying differential effects of various placebo controls on migraine prevention would be essential in the explanation of preventive treatment for migraine and the indirect comparison between different prophylactic therapeutics.

OBJECTIVES

To access the impact of different non-pharmacologic placebo types on different outcomes in migraine patients.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials, Embase, and Web of Science databases from the date of creation to June 19, 2023. Randomized controlled trials of migraine that included sham intervention of acupuncture or cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) or non-invasive Vagus Nerve Stimulation (nVNS) or repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (rTMS) or transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) were conducted. The primary outcome was the migraine days, and the secondary outcomes were the number of migraine attacks, headache days, headache frequency, and responder's rate. Placebo effects were assessed using five individual placebos for network meta-analysis, using mean differences to measure the relative effect of pair-wise comparisons between interventions.

RESULT

A total of 50 trials with 4880 subjects were included. Twenty-seven trials were evaluated for low risk of bias. The results of indirect comparisons show that sham rTMS and sham tDCS had optimal and similar effects in reducing migraine days; sham acupuncture has the greatest effect on reducing the number of migraine attacks and relieving headache frequency; sham rTMS had a highly significant advantage in reducing headache days compared with the other placebo controls.

CONCLUSION

Based on the network meta-analysis results, we found that sham acupuncture had the greatest effect on migraine prophylaxis. The strong placebo effect of sham acupuncture should be considered when assessing the therapeutic effect.

Effects on neuromodulation, acupuncture, and aerobic exercises on migraine and tension-type headache outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Headache disorders are common diseases that cause a social burden. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effects of various non-pharmacological treatments to address or prevent acute headaches, including neuromodulation, acupuncture, and aerobic exercises in patients with episodic migraine and tension-type headache (TTH).

METHODS

We performed a systematic search of the electronic databases PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, WANFANG MEDICINE ONLINE, and Chinese Medical Journal database using Stata/SE 14.0 to obtain weighted mean differences (WMDs). The outcomes included monthly headache days, headache intensity, headache duration, days per month of acute medication use, and the Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey.

RESULTS

Of 872 identified articles, 27 were included in the meta-analysis. Neuromodulation was associated with reduced headache days (WMD: -1.274, 95% CI [-1.914, -0.634], P < .001), duration (WMD: -2.2, 95% CI [-3.32, -0.107], P < .001) and medication consumption (WMD: -1.808, 95% CI [-2.546, -1.071], P < .001) in cases of migraine. Acupuncture was associated with the alleviation of headache days (WMD: -0.677, 95% CI [-0.932, -0.422], P < .001) and intensity (WMD: -0.893, 95% CI [-1.573, -0.212], P = .01) in cases of migraine and acute medication use (WMD: -3.29, 95% CI [-4.86, -1.72], P < .001) in cases of TTH. Aerobic exercise was associated with reduced headache duration (WMD: -5.1, 95% CI [-8.97, -1.22], P = .01) in cases of TTH. The risk of bias for included articles was moderate.

CONCLUSIONS

There is low- and moderate-quality evidence that neuromodulation, acupuncture, and aerobic exercises are associated with attenuated headache symptoms in patients with episodic migraine or TTH. However, high-quality studies are needed to draw more detailed conclusions.

Lifestyle factors and migraine

Migraine, a common and disabling neurological disorder, is among the top reasons for outpatient visits to general neurologists. In addition to pharmacotherapy, lifestyle interventions are a mainstay of treatment. High-quality daily diary studies and intervention studies indicate intraindividual variations in the associations between lifestyle factors (such as stress, sleep, diet, and physical activity) and migraine attack occurrence. Behaviour change interventions can directly address overlapping lifestyle factors; combination approaches could capitalise on multiple mechanisms. These findings provide useful directions for integration of lifestyle management into routine clinical care and for future research.

Cognitive Behavioral Therapy: Principles, Science, and Patient Selection in Neurology

Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) is a widely used therapeutic modality in general psychiatric practice. In this review, we consider its application to neurological disorders. We examine the basic framework of CBT-that symptoms, emotions, thoughts, and behaviors are all interrelated and that therapeutic interventions that lead to change in thoughts or behavior may have the potential to reduce symptoms or emotional distress. We also outline specific methodological issues to consider when reading or planning studies of CBT interventions, highlighting important topics pertaining to quality control, control group selection, dropouts, and generalizability. We then review the evidence base for CBT's use across a range of neurological disorders. In doing so, we highlight where there is a clear evidence base, and where it is a technique with potential. The review is targeted at a general neurology audience as introduction to the topic not as an advanced guide for expert practitioners.

Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Migraine Headache: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background and Objectives: Migraine headaches are chronic neurological diseases that reduce the quality of life by causing severe headaches and autonomic nervous system dysfunction, such as facial flushing, nasal stuffiness, and sweating. Their major treatment methods include medication and cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT). CBT has been used for pain treatment and various psychogenic neurological diseases by reducing pain, disability, and emotional disorders caused by symptoms of mental illness and improving the understanding of mental health. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of CBT in treating migraines. Materials and Methods: Seven electronic databases were searched from the date of inception to December 2020. Randomized controlled studies (RCTs) using CBT as an intervention for migraine were included. The primary outcome of this study was to determine the frequency of migraines and the intensity of migraines on Visual Analog Scale (VAS), the frequency of drug use, Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS), and Headache Impact Test (HIT-6) index. The two authors independently conducted the data extraction and quality assessment of the included RCTs, and conducted meta-analysis with RevMan V.5.4. Results: Among the 373 studies, 11 RCTs were included in this systematic review. Seven out of the 11 RCTs were conducted in the USA, and four were conducted in the UK, Germany, Iran, and Italy, respectively. Headache frequency and MIDAS scores were statistically significant reduced. In the subgroup analysis, headache strength was significantly reduced. Two of the included studies reported adverse effects, including worsening of migraine intensity and frequency, respiratory symptoms, and vivid memory of a traumatic event. Conclusions: CBT for migraine effectively reduced headache frequency and MIDAS score in meta-analysis and headache intensity subgroup analysis, with few adverse events. Additional RCTs with CBT for migraine headaches are needed for a more accurate analysis.

The American Headache Society Consensus Statement: Update on integrating new migraine treatments into clinical practice

OBJECTIVE

To incorporate recent research findings, expert consensus, and patient perspectives into updated guidance on the use of new acute and preventive treatments for migraine in adults.

BACKGROUND

The American Headache Society previously published a Consensus Statement on the use of newly introduced treatments for adults with migraine. This update, which is based on the expanded evidence base and emerging expert consensus concerning postapproval usage, provides practical recommendations in the absence of a formal guideline.

METHODS

This update involved four steps: (1) review of data about the efficacy, safety, and clinical use of migraine treatments introduced since the previous Statement was published; (2) incorporation of these data into a proposed update; (3) review and commentary by the Board of Directors of the American Headache Society and patients and advocates associated with the American Migraine Foundation; (4) consideration of these collective insights and integration into an updated Consensus Statement.

RESULTS

Since the last Consensus Statement, no evidence has emerged to alter the established principles of either acute or preventive treatment. Newly introduced acute treatments include two small-molecule calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor antagonists (ubrogepant, rimegepant); a serotonin (5-HT1F ) agonist (lasmiditan); a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (celecoxib oral solution); and a neuromodulatory device (remote electrical neuromodulation). New preventive treatments include an intravenous anti-CGRP ligand monoclonal antibody (eptinezumab). Several modalities, including neuromodulation (electrical trigeminal nerve stimulation, noninvasive vagus nerve stimulation, single-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation) and biobehavioral therapy (cognitive behavioral therapy, biofeedback, relaxation therapies, mindfulness-based therapies, acceptance and commitment therapy) may be appropriate for either acute and/or preventive treatment; a neuromodulation device may be appropriate for acute migraine treatment only (remote electrical neuromodulation).

CONCLUSIONS

The integration of new treatments into clinical practice should be informed by the potential for benefit relative to established therapies, as well as by the characteristics and preferences of individual patients.

Cognition and Pain: A Review

Cognition is defined as the brain's ability to acquire, process, store, and retrieve information. Pain has been described as an unpleasant sensory or emotional experience, and for experiencing pain consciously, cognitive processing becomes imperative. Moreover, evaluation of pain strongly depends on cognition as it requires learning and recall of previous experiences. There could be a possible close link between neural systems involved in cognition and pain processing, and studies have reported an association between pain and cognitive impairment. In this narrative review, we explore the available evidence that has investigated cognitive changes associated with pain. We also examine the anatomical, biochemical, and molecular association of pain and neuro-cognition. Additionally, we focus on the cognitive impairment caused by analgesic medications. There is a need to improve our understanding of pathophysiology and cognitive impairment mechanisms associated with chronic pain and its treatment. This area provides a diverse opportunity for grounding future research, aiding institution of timely interventions to prevent chronic pain and associated cognitive decline, ultimately improving patient care.

From research to clinical practice: a systematic review of the implementation of psychological interventions for chronic headache in adults

BACKGROUND

Psychological interventions have been proved to be effective in chronic headache (CH) in adults. Nevertheless, no data exist about their actual implementation into standard clinical settings. We aimed at critically depicting the current application of psychological interventions for CH into standard care exploring barriers and facilitators to their implementation. Secondarily, main outcomes of the most recent psychological interventions for CH in adults have been summarized.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review through PubMed and PsycINFO in the time range 2008-2018. A quality analysis according to the QATSDD tool and a narrative synthesis were performed. We integrated results by: contacting the corresponding author of each paper; exploring the website of the clinical centers cited in the papers.

RESULTS

Of the 938 identified studies, 28 papers were selected, whose quality largely varied with an average %QATSDD quality score of 64.88%. Interventions included CBT (42.85%), multi-disciplinary treatments (22.43%), relaxation training (17.86%), biofeedback (7.14%), or other interventions (10.72%). Treatments duration (1 day-9 months) and intensity varied, with a prevalence of individual-basis implementation. The majority of the studies focused on all primary headaches; 4 studies focused on medication-overuse headache. Most of the studies suggest interventions as effective, with the reduction in frequency of attacks as the most reported outcome (46.43%). Studies were distributed in different countries, with a prevalent and balanced distribution in USA and Europe. Ten researches (35.71%) were performed in academic contexts, 11 (39.28%) in clinical settings, 7 (25%) in pain/headache centres. Interventions providers were professionals with certified experience. Most of the studies were funded with private or public funding. Two contacted authors answered to our e-mail survey, with only one intervention implemented in the routine clinical practice. Only in three out of the 16 available websites a reference to the implementation into the clinical setting was reported.

CONCLUSION

Analysis of contextual barriers/facilitators and cost-effectiveness should be included in future studies, and contents regarding dissemination/implementation of interventions should be incorporated in the professional training of clinical scientists. This can help in filling the gap between the existing published research and treatments actually offered to people with CH.

Usual care and a self-management support programme versus usual care and a relaxation programme for people living with chronic headache disorders: a randomised controlled trial protocol (CHESS)

INTRODUCTION

Chronic headaches are poorly diagnosed and managed and can be exacerbated by medication overuse. There is insufficient evidence on the non-pharmacological approaches to helping people living with chronic headaches.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Chronic Headache Education and Self-management Study is a pragmatic randomised controlled trial to test the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a self-management education support programme on top of usual care for patients with chronic headaches against a control of usual care and relaxation. The intervention is a 2-day group course based on education, personal reflection and a cognitive behavioural approach, plus a nurse-led one-to-one consultation and follow-up over 8 weeks. We aim to recruit 689 participants (356 to the intervention arm and 333 to the control) from primary care and self-referral in London and the Midlands. The trial is powered to show a difference of 2.0 points on the Headache Impact Test, a patient-reported outcome measure at 12 months post randomisation. Secondary outcomes include health related quality of life, self-efficacy, social activation and engagement, anxiety and depression and healthcare utilisation. Outcomes are being measured at 4, 8 and 12 months. Cost-effectiveness will be expressed in terms of incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year gained.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This trial will provide data on effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a self-management support programme for chronic headaches. The results will inform commissioning of services and clinical practice. North West - Greater Manchester East Research Ethics Committee have approved the trial. The current protocol version is 3.6 date 7 March 2019.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN79708100.

Psychological therapies for the prevention of migraine in adults

BACKGROUND

Migraine is a common neurological problem associated with the highest burden amongst neurological conditions in terms of years lived with disability. Medications can be used as prophylaxis or rescue medicines, but are costly and not always effective. A range of psychological interventions have been developed to manage migraine.

OBJECTIVES

The objective was to evaluate the efficacy and adverse events of psychological therapies for the prevention of migraine in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and CINAHL from their inception until July 2018, and trials registries in the UK, USA, Australia and New Zealand for randomised controlled trials of any psychological intervention for adults with migraine.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of a psychological therapy for people with chronic or episodic migraine, with or without aura. Interventions could be compared to another active treatment (psychological or medical), an attention-placebo (e.g. supportive counselling) or other placebo, routine care, or waiting-list control. We excluded studies where fewer than 15 participants completed each arm.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted study characteristics and outcome data at post-treatment and the longest available follow-up. We analysed intervention versus control comparisons for the primary outcome of migraine frequency. We measured migraine frequency using days with migraines or number of migraine attacks measured in the four weeks after treatment. In addition, we analysed the following secondary outcomes: responder rate (the proportion of participants with a 50% reduction in migraine frequency between the four weeks prior to and the four weeks after treatment); migraine intensity; migraine duration; migraine medication usage; mood; quality of life; migraine-related disability; and proportion of participants reporting adverse events during the treatment. We included these variables, where available, at follow-up, the timing of which varied between the studies. We used the GRADE approach to judge the quality of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We found 21 RCTs including 2482 participants with migraine, and we extracted meta-analytic data from 14 of these studies. The majority of studies recruited participants through advertisements, included participants with migraine according to the International Classification of Headache Disorders (ICHD) criteria and those with and without aura. Most intervention arms were a form of behavioural or cognitive-behavioural therapy. The majority of comparator arms were no treatment, routine care or waiting list. Interventions varied from one 20-minute session to 14 hours of intervention. No study had unequivocally low risk of bias; all had at least one domain at high risk of bias, and 20 had two to five domains at high risk. Reporting of randomisation procedures and allocation concealment were at high or unclear risk of bias. We downgraded the quality of evidence for outcomes to very low, due to very serious limitations in study quality and imprecision. Reporting in trials was poor; we found no preregistrations stipulating the outcomes, or demonstrating equivalent expectations between groups. Few studies reported our outcomes of interest, most only reported outcomes post treatment; follow-up data were sparse.Post-treatment effectsWe found no evidence of an effect of psychological interventions for migraine frequency in number of migraines or days with migraine (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.02, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.17 to 0.13; 4 studies, 681 participants; very low-quality evidence).The responder rate (proportion of participants with migraine frequency reduction of more than 50%) was greater for those who received a psychological intervention compared to control: 101/186 participants (54%) with psychological therapy; 37/152 participants (24%) with control (risk ratio (RR) 2.21, 95% CI 1.63 to 2.98; 4 studies, 338 participants; very low-quality evidence). We found no effect of psychological therapies on migraine intensity (SMD -0.13, 95% CI -0.28 to 0.02; 4 studies, 685 participants). There were no data for migraine duration (hours of migraine per day). There was no effect on migraine medication usage (SMD -0.06, 95% CI -0.35 to 0.24; 2 studies, 483 participants), mood (mean difference (MD) 0.08, 95% CI -0.33 to 0.49; 4 studies, 432 participants), quality of life (SMD -0.02, 95% CI -0.30 to 0.26; 4 studies, 565 participants), or migraine-related disability (SMD -0.67, 95% CI -1.34 to 0.00; 6 studies, 952 participants). The proportion of participants reporting adverse events did not differ between those receiving psychological treatment (9/107; 8%) and control (30/101; 30%) (RR 0.16, 95% CI 0.00 to 7.85; 2 studies, 208 participants). Only two studies reported adverse events and so we were unable to draw any conclusions.We rated evidence from all studies as very low quality.Follow-upOnly four studies reported any follow-up data. Follow-ups ranged from four months following intervention to 11 months following intervention. There was no evidence of an effect on any outcomes at follow-up (very low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review identified 21 studies of psychological interventions for the management of migraine. We did not find evidence that psychological interventions affected migraine frequency, a result based on four studies of primarily brief treatments. Those who received psychological interventions were twice as likely to be classified as responders in the short term, but this was based on very low-quality evidence and there was no evidence of an effect of psychological intervention compared to control at follow-up. There was no evidence of an effect of psychological interventions on medication usage, mood, migraine-related disability or quality of life. There was no evidence of an effect of psychological interventions on migraine frequency in the short-term or long-term. In terms of adverse events, we were unable to draw conclusions as there was insufficient evidence. High and unclear risk of bias in study design and reporting, small numbers of participants, performance and detection bias meant that we rated all evidence as very low quality. Therefore, we conclude that there is an absence of high-quality evidence to determine whether psychological interventions are effective in managing migraine in adults and we are uncertain whether there is any difference between psychological therapies and controls.

Efficacy of psychological treatment for headache disorder: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Headache disorder is not only a common complaint but also a global burden. Pharmacotherapeutic and non-pharmacotherapeutic approaches have been developed for its treatment and prophylaxis. The present study included a systematic review of psychological treatments for primary headache disorder accessible in Korea.

Methods

We included English and Korean articles from EMBASE, MEDLINE, Cochrane library database, SCOPUS, ScienceDirect, Web of Science, CINAHL, PsycArticles and Korean database, KoreaMed and KMBASE which studied primary headache and medication-overuse headache. The primary efficacy measure was the number of headache days per month, while secondary efficacy measures were the number of headache attacks per week, headache index, treatment response rate, and migraine disability assessment. The meta-analysis was performed using R 3.5.1. to obtain pooled mean difference and pooled relative risk with 95% confidence interval (CI) for continuous data and dichotomous data, respectively.

Results

From 12,773 identified articles, 27 randomized clinical trials were identified. Primary outcome showed significant superiority of psychological treatments (pooled mean difference = − 0.70, 95% CI [− 1.22, − 0.18]). For the secondary outcomes, the number of headache attacks (pooled mean difference = − 1.15, 95% CI [− 1.63, − 0.67]), the headache index (pooled mean difference = − 0.92, 95% CI [− 1.40 to − 0.44]) and the treatment response rate (pooled relative risk = 3.13, 95% CI [2.24, 4.37]) demonstrated significant improvements in the psychological treatment group over the control group.

Conclusion

Psychological treatments for primary headache disorder reduced headache frequency and the headache index. Future research using standardized outcome measures and strategies for reducing bias is needed.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s10194-019-0965-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The American Headache Society Position Statement On Integrating New Migraine Treatments Into Clinical Practice

OBJECTIVE

To provide healthcare professionals with updated guidance in the use of novel preventive and acute treatments for migraine in adults.

BACKGROUND

The principles of preventive and acute pharmacotherapy for patients with migraine have been outlined previously, but the emergence of new technologies and treatments, as well as new formulations of previously established treatments, has created a need for an updated guidance on the preventive and acute treatment of migraine.

METHODS

This statement is based on a review of existing guidelines and principles for preventive and acute treatment of migraine, as well as the results of recent clinical trials of drugs and devices for these indications. Input was sought from health insurance providers, employers, pharmacy benefit service companies, device manufacturers, pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, patients, and patient advocates. Expert clinicians and researchers in the field of headache medicine from across North America and the European Union provided input and feedback.

RESULTS

The principles of pharmacologic preventive treatment of migraine with oral treatments have been as follows: use evidence-based treatments when possible and appropriate; start with a low dose and titrate slowly; reach a therapeutic dose if possible; allow for an adequate treatment trial duration; establish expectations of therapeutic response and adverse events; and maximize adherence. Newer injectable treatments may work faster and may not need titration. The principles of acute treatment include: use evidence-based treatments when possible and appropriate; treat early after the onset of a migraine attack; choose a nonoral route of administration for selected patients; account for tolerability and safety issues; consider self-administered rescue treatments; and avoid overuse of acute medications. Neuromodulation and biobehavioral therapy may be appropriate for preventive and acute treatment, depending on the needs of individual patients. Neuromodulation may be useful for patients who prefer nondrug therapies or who respond poorly, cannot tolerate, or have contraindications to pharmacotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

This statement updates prior recommendations and outlines the indications for initiating, continuing, combining, and switching preventive and acute treatments of migraine.

Primary care management of headaches and how direct-access MRI fits: a qualitative study of UK general practitioners' views

OBJECTIVES

To develop a better understanding of general practitioners' (GPs) views and experiences of the management of patients with headaches and use of direct-access MRI scans, and observe outcomes of an educational session offered by a GP with a special interest (GPwSI) to GPs.

DESIGN

A qualitative study using semistructured interviews, analysed using thematic analysis. A GPwSI in headaches visited practices delivering a talk on headache medication, diagnosis and management.

SETTING

Sixteen (16) primary care family practices in South London, UK.

PARTICIPANTS

Twenty (20) GPs.

RESULTS

Not all GPs were aware of the availability of direct-access MRI, but all acknowledged having used referral or direct scans to manage patients' concern about their headaches. A normal scan result helped resolve uncertainty for patient and GP and helped management towards discussion of preventative treatment. However, patients with psychological and/or severe headache symptoms could not necessarily be reassured. GPs reported difficulty interpreting radiology reports, particularly incidental abnormalities. Those who received the educational talk gained knowledge in diagnosis and medication, improving their confidence in management.

CONCLUSIONS

Increased access to imaging, training in headache management, addressing physical and psychological symptoms and standardised reporting of scans may improve GPs' use of direct-access MRI in the future.

Non-pharmacological self-management for people living with migraine or tension-type headache: a systematic review including analysis of intervention components

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect of non-pharmacological self-management interventions against usual care, and to explore different components and delivery methods within those interventions PARTICIPANTS: People living with migraine and/or tension-type headache INTERVENTIONS: Non-pharmacological educational or psychological self-management interventions; excluding biofeedback and physical therapy.We assessed the overall effectiveness against usual care on headache frequency, pain intensity, mood, headache-related disability, quality of life and medication consumption in meta-analysis.We also provide preliminary evidence on the effectiveness of intervention components and delivery methods.

RESULTS

We found a small overall effect for the superiority of self-management interventions over usual care, with a standardised mean difference (SMD) of -0.36 (-0.45 to -0.26) for pain intensity; -0.32 (-0.42 to -0.22) for headache-related disability, 0.32 (0.20 to 0.45) for quality of life and a moderate effect on mood (SMD=0.53 (-0.66 to -0.40)). We did not find an effect on headache frequency (SMD=-0.07 (-0.22 to 0.08)).Assessment of components and characteristics suggests a larger effect on pain intensity in interventions that included explicit educational components (-0.51 (-0.68 to -0.34) vs -0.28 (-0.40 to -0.16)); mindfulness components (-0.50 (-0.82 to -0.18) vs 0.34 (-0.44 to -0.24)) and in interventions delivered in groups vs one-to-one delivery (0.56 (-0.72 to -0.40) vs -0.39 (-0.52 to -0.27)) and larger effects on mood in interventions including a cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) component with an SMD of -0.72 (-0.93 to -0.51) compared with those without CBT -0.41 (-0.58 to -0.24).

CONCLUSION

Overall we found that self-management interventions for migraine and tension-type headache are more effective than usual care in reducing pain intensity, mood and headache-related disability, but have no effect on headache frequency. Preliminary findings also suggest that including CBT, mindfulness and educational components in interventions, and delivery in groups may increase effectiveness.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

PROSPERO 2016:CRD42016041291.

Migraine in childhood: biobehavioural or psychosomatic disorder?

It is well documented that headache is a multifactorial disorder which includes not only genetic, biological, medical and neuropsychological factor but also psychological and personality traits. The close relationship between stress and migraine attacks and the significant psychiatric comorbidities in migraine provide evidence of a “paradigm” of tight interaction between somatic and psychological aspects in paediatric migraine. In particular in younger children, an uncomfortable situation, a psychological problem or an emotional distress is rarely expressed directly but usually through physical symptoms. So migraine may be considered as a disorder of psychobiological adaptation in which genetic predisposition interplays with internal and/or external environmental influences such as psycho-emotional, climatic, hormonal, dietary or other factors.

Behavioral management of headache in children and adolescents

Headache is the most frequent neurological symptom and the most prevalent pain in children and adolescents, and constitutes a serious health problem that may lead to impairment in several areas. Psychosocial factors, social environment, life events, school and family stressors are all closely related to headaches. A multidisciplinary strategy is fundamental in addressing headache in children and adolescents. Applying such a strategy can lead to reductions in frequency and severity of the pain, improving significantly the quality of life of these children.

It has been demonstrated that behavioral intervention is highly effective, especially in the treatment of paediatric headache, and can enhance or replace pharmacotherapy, with the advantage of eliminating dangerous side effects and or reducing costs. Behavioral interventions appear to maximize long-term therapeutic benefits and improve compliance with pharmacological treatment, which has proven a significant problem with child and adolescent with headache.

The goal of this review is to examine the existing literature on behavioral therapies used to treat headache in children and adolescents, and so provide an up-to-date picture of what behavioral therapy is and what its effectiveness is.

Psychological interventions for migraine: a systematic review

Migraine causes major health impairment and disability. Psychological interventions offer an addition to pharmacotherapy but they are not currently recommended by the National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE) or available in the National Health Service. We aimed to systematically review evidence on the efficacy of psychological interventions for migraine in adults. A search was done of MEDLINE, psychINFO, http://www.opengrey.eu , the meta-register of controlled trials and bibliographies. Twenty-four papers were included and rated independently by two people using the Yates scale, which has 35 points. Cochrane recommendations are that high quality reports score above the mid-point (18 points). Methods used in 17/24 papers were rated 'high quality'. However, frequently descriptions of key areas such as randomisation methods were omitted. Eighteen studies measured effects of psychological interventions on headache-related outcomes, fifteen reporting significant improvements, ranging 20-67 %. Interventions also produced improvements in psychological outcomes. Few trials measured or reported improvement in disability or quality of life. We conclude that evidence supports the efficacy of psychological interventions in migraine. Over half of the studies were from the USA, which did not provide universal health care at the time of the study, so it is difficult to generalise results to typical populations in receipt of publically funded health services. We agree with the NICE recommendation that high quality pragmatic randomised controlled trials are needed in the UK.

Patients' experiences of a behavioural intervention for migraine headache: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Migraine headache has a high prevalence and a severe impact on personal, social and work life, forming a significant burden on patients, service providers and society. There is some evidence of the effectiveness of behavioural interventions to supplement drug therapy but a recognised need to identify an effective minimal contact approach to enhance access and provide a model for use in publicly funded health systems. This study uses in-depth interviews to examine patients' experience and responses to a behavioural intervention with relaxation and CBT components delivered in three individual therapist sessions with follow-up.

METHODS

Qualitative study of 20 adults aged 18-75 years in London, UK, with clinically diagnosed migraine and at least four headache days per month. Semi-structured and tape recorded interviews were held post intervention based on a topic guide. Transcripts were coded and charted for all participants and analysed thematically.

RESULTS

The majority of participants cited the impacts of migraine and a desire for additional non-drug treatment as their main reasons for taking part and almost all completed the course. They valued contact with the therapist and almost all reported benefiting from the therapy. Post intervention they used those techniques they found most beneficial and implemented them flexibly in their daily life to reduce stress and risks of migraine or to respond to migraine. Relaxation training (deep breathing) was easily adopted and often used post intervention. The CBT components were mainly viewed positively but regarded as more challenging to learn and implement.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients' selectively identified and employed the techniques learned as 'tools' to assist in preventing and managing their migraines, with reported benefits supporting the development of minimal contact behavioural therapy to increase accessibility for adults with migraine headache and the conduct of a definitive trial.