Home- versus clinic-based treatment of vascular headache

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.

An online self-help CBT intervention for chronic lower back pain

OBJECTIVES

Research has shown that cognitive and behavioral therapies can effectively improve quality of life in chronic pain patients. Unfortunately, many patients lack access to cognitive and behavioral therapy treatments. We developed a pilot version of an interactive online intervention to teach self-management skills for chronic lower back pain, a leading cause of disability and work absenteeism. The objective of this randomized, controlled trial was to evaluate its efficacy.

METHODS

Individuals with chronic lower back pain were recruited over the Internet, screened by phone, and randomly assigned to receive access to the intervention (Wellness Workbook; WW) either immediately (intervention group) or after a 3-week delay (wait-list control). Participants (n=141, 83% female, 23% minority) were asked to complete the WW over 3 weeks. Self-report measures of pain, disability, disabling attitudes and beliefs, self-efficacy for pain control, and mood regulation were completed at baseline, week 3, and week 6.

RESULTS

Controlling for baseline individual differences in the outcome measures, multivariate analysis of covariance revealed that, at week 3, the intervention group scored better than the wait-list control group on all outcomes, including pain severity ratings. At week 6, after both groups had been exposed to the WW, there were no differences between groups.

DISCUSSION

Use of this pilot intervention seems to have had positive effects on a number of pain-related outcomes, including disability. Future research will evaluate the effectiveness of the completed intervention, with particular attention to quality of life and disability.

Behavioral treatments of chronic tension-type headache in adults: are they beneficial?

To assess the efficacy of behavioral treatments in patients with tension headache. Medline, Cinahl, EMBASE, and the Cochrane library were searched from inception to October 2007 and reference lists were checked. We selected randomized trials evaluating behavioral treatments (e.g., relaxation, electromyographic [EMG] biofeedback, and cognitive behavioral training) in patients with tension-type headache (TTH). We assessed the risk of bias using the Delphi list and extracted data from the original reports. A qualitative analysis was carried out. We found 44 trials (2618 patients), which were included in this review, of which only 5 studies (11.4%) were considered to have low risk of bias. Most trials lacked adequate power to show statistical significant differences, but frequently, recovery/improvement rates did not reach clinical relevance. In 8 studies, relaxation treatment was compared with waiting list conditions, and in 11 studies, biofeedback was compared with waiting list conditions, both showing inconsistent results. On the basis of the available literature, we found no indications that relaxation, EMG biofeedback, or cognitive behavioral treatment is better than no treatment, waiting list, or placebo controls.

Behavioral Headache Treatment: History, Review of the Empirical Literature, and Methodological Critique

Theoretical developments and burgeoning research on stress and illness in the mid-20th century yielded the foundations necessary to conceptualize headache as a psychophysiological disorder and eventually to develop and apply contemporary behavioral headache treatments. Over the past three decades, these behavioral headache treatments (relaxation training, biofeedback, cognitive-behavioral therapy, and stress-management training) have amassed a sizeable evidence base. Meta-analytic reviews of the literature consistently have shown behavioral interventions to yield 35% to 55% improvements in migraine and tension-type headache and that these outcomes are significantly superior to control conditions. The strength of the evidence has lead many professional practice organizations to recommend use of behavioral headache treatments alongside pharmacologic treatments for primary headache. The present overview was prepared as a companion article to and intended to provide a background for the Guidelines for Trials of Behavioral Treatments for Recurrent Headache also published within this journal supplement. This article begins with a synopsis of key historical developments leading to our current conceptualization of migraine and tension-type headache as psychophysiological disorders amenable to behavioral intervention. The evolution of the behavioral headache literature is discussed, exemplified by publication trends in the journal Headache. Leading empirically-based behavioral headache interventions are described, and meta-analytic reviews examining the migraine and tension-type headache literatures are summarized, compared, and contrasted. A critique of the methodological quality of the clinical trials literature is presented, highlighting the strengths and weaknesses in relation to recruitment and selection of patients, sample size and statistical power, the use of a credible control, and the reproducibility of the study interventions in clinical practice.

A pilot study of feasibility and efficacy of telemedicine-delivered psychophysiological treatment for vascular headache

Headache is a common complaint. Psychological treatment has been effective in managing the symptoms of vascular (migraine and combined migraine-tension) headache. Traditional office-based treatment may be inconvenient for many patients in terms of time and travel constraints, thereby limiting access. Telemedicine has emerged as a promising delivery medium to address these barriers to access. However, the efficacy of remotely delivered treatment for vascular headache remains untested. This case series is a preliminary evaluation of effectiveness and feasibility of an analogue telemedicine system for delivery of psychophysiological treatment for vascular headache. Three of four subjects showed improvement. These findings are encouraging for follow-up study of the clinical utility and broader viability of headache treatment via distance technology.

Specific effects and biofeedback versus biofeedback-assisted self-regulation training

In any field, clear and logical conceptualizations are the basis of accurate models----correct research design----correct results----correct conclusions----advancement in the field. Faulty conceptualizations----faulty models----faulty research design----faulty results----faulty conclusions----confusion. In analyzing the conceptualizations of "biofeedback" as expressed by John Furedy (1987) in, "Specific versus Placebo Effects in Biofeedback Training: A Critical Lay Perspective," we focus on two issues: Does biofeedback have a treatment effect? Is biofeedback necessary for the training effect? In discussing issue (1) we describe the multiple meanings of "biofeedback" and raise the fundamental question: Is biofeedback a treatment? We argue that faulty conceptualizations of clinical biofeedback (1) assume that the treatment in clinical biofeedback is "biofeedback" with specific effects, (2) assume that the scientific basis of biofeedback is dependent upon demonstrations of these specific effects through double-blind design that distinguish "specific" from "placebo effects," and (3) trivialize clinical research by attempting to determine the usefulness of biofeedback information--usefulness that is already understood logically by professionals and consumers and demonstrated by clinical studies in the laboratory and in the clinic. We further argue that accurate conceptualizations of clinical biofeedback (1) identify self-regulation skills as the treatment with specific effects of physiological change and symptom reduction, and (2) describe the use of information from biofeedback instruments as scientific verification of self-regulation skills. Finally, the scientific basis of clinical biofeedback is based on (1) evidence from experimental and clinical control studies that have demonstrated the effectiveness of self-regulation skills for symptom alleviation, and (2) the use of biofeedback instruments to verify the acquisition of self-regulatory skills, thus fulfilling the scientific dictum of verifiability.

Evaluation of a minimal-therapist-contact thermal biofeedback treatment program for essential hypertension

We compared a clinic-based regimen of 16 individual sessions (2 per week) of thermal biofeedback with a largely home-based regimen of 5 sessions (spread over 8 weeks) for the treatment of essential hypertension in patients who required at least two drugs to maintain control of blood pressure (BP). On the basis of the clinical end point of being successfully withdrawn from the second stage medication while BP remained under control, the clinic-based regimen (5 of 9) was superior (chi less than (1) = 4.0, p less than .05) to the home-based regimen (1 of 9). Internal analyses point to more frequently obtaining a hand temperature of at least 95 degrees F by the office-based patients as possibly the reason for the difference.

Biofeedback and relaxation treatments for headache in the elderly: a caution and a challenge

Results for 11 older (60 years or greater) headache patients treated with combinations of biofeedback and relaxation are presented. Overall, only 18.2% were clinically improved after treatment. None of the 5 tension headache patients were improved. Suggestions for future work with the older headache patient are offered.