Widespread mechanical pain hypersensitivity in patients with chronic migraine and temporomandibular disorders: relationship and correlation between psychological and sensorimotor variables.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess mechanical hyperalgesia in the trigeminal and extra-trigeminal regions in patients with chronic migraine (CM) and temporomandibular disorders (TMD) in comparison to asymptomatic subjects and to determine the association between sensorimotor variables and psychological and disability variables and evaluate the prediction of a sensorimotor variables though psychological and disability variables in patients with CM and TMD. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 52 subjects with concomitant CM and TMD and 30 asymptomatic subjects were included in the study. The pressure pain threshold (PPT), maximal mouth opening (MMO) and a series of self-reported factors were compared. RESULTS: There were 52 CM and TMD (92.3% women and 7.7% men; age = 46.2 ± 9.5) and 30 asymptomatic subjects (80% women and 20% men; age = 47.4 ± 10). Differences were found between patients with CM and TMD and asymptomatic participants (p < .01) when comparing the PPTs in the trigeminal and extra-trigeminal regions. The PPT for the trigeminal region was predicted by depressive symptoms (variance of 18%) as well as disability and craniofacial pain (variance of 20%). The extra-trigeminal region PPT was predicted by depressive symptoms (variance of 10%), and pain-free MMO was predicted by disability and craniofacial pain (variance of 24%). CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that patients with CM and TMD present with generalized mechanical hyperalgesia. In addition, an association between sensorimotor, psychological and disability variables was observed.

Effects of a Physical Therapy Protocol in Patients with Chronic Migraine and Temporomandibular Disorders: A Randomized, Single-Blinded, Clinical Trial.

AIMS: To investigate the effects of adding orofacial treatment to cervical physical therapy in patients with chronic migraine and temporomandibular disorders (TMD). METHODS: A total of 45 participants with chronic migraine and TMD aged 18 to 65 years were randomized into two groups: a cervical group (CG) and a cervical and orofacial group (COG). Both groups continued their medication regimens for migraine treatment and received physical therapy. The CG received physical therapy only in the cervical region, and the COG received physical therapy in both the cervical and orofacial regions. Both groups received six sessions of treatment that consisted of manual therapy and therapeutic exercise in the cervical region or the cervical and orofacial regions. Scores on the Craniofacial Pain and Disability Inventory (CF-PDI) and the Headache Impact Test (HIT-6) were primary outcome variables, and the secondary outcome variables were scores on the Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia (TSK-11), pain intensity measured on a visual analog scale (VAS), pressure pain thresholds (PPTs) in the temporal, masseter (2 points, M1 and M2) and extratrigeminal (wrist) regions, and maximal mouth opening (MMO). Data were recorded at baseline, posttreatment, and after 12 weeks of follow-up. The α level was set at .05 for all tests and two-way repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) for within- and between-group interactions. RESULTS: There were 22 CG participants (13.6% men and 86.4% women) and 23 COG participants (13% men and 87% women). The ANOVA analysis revealed statistically significant differences for group × time interaction in CF-PDI, HIT-6 in the last follow-up, pain intensity, PPTs in the trigeminal region, and MMO (P < .05), with a medium-large magnitude of effect. No statistically significant differences were found in the PPTs of the extratrigeminal region or in the TSK-11 (P > .05). CONCLUSION: Both groups reported a significant improvement in CF-PDI, HIT-6, and pain intensity. Cervical and orofacial treatment was more effective than cervical treatment alone for increasing PPTs in the trigeminal region and producing pain-free MMO. Physical therapy alone was not effective for increasing the PPTs in the extratrigeminal region (wrist) or decreasing the level of TSK-11.

[A comparative study of the effectiveness of topiramate and flunarizine in independent series of chronic migraine patients without medication abuse]. / Estudio comparativo de la efectividad del topiramato y la flunaricina en series independientes de pacientes con migraña cronica sin abuso de medicacion.

INTRODUCTION: Topiramate and onabotulinumtoxin A have proven to be effective in chronic migraine with or without medication abuse according to recent criteria of the International Headache Society's Headache Classification. AIMS: To show that flunarizine is as effective as topiramate in cases of chronic migraine without medication abuse. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a prospective, non-randomised, comparative study of two groups of patients paired by age and sex, with chronic migraine without abuse, who had been treated preventively for the first time with topiramate or flunarizine. RESULTS: Forty patients treated with flunarizine were assigned a patient of their same sex and age who was being treated with topiramate. The mean rate of reduction in intense migraines in the topiramate group was 59% and in the flunarizine group, 58.5% (p = 0.9444); the responder rate at four months of treatment did not show any significant differences either, the figures being 75% for topiramate and 70% for flunarizine (p = 0.6236). The mean reduction of other headaches in the topiramate group was 57% and in the flunarizine group, 64% (p = 0.4261); the responder rate at four months of treatment was similar in the two groups: 76%. The percentage of dropouts from treatment was higher with topiramate (19.5%) than with flunarizine (10%) (p = 0.3493). No serious side effects occurred in either of the groups. In all, 78.9% of the patients who took topiramate said they were satisfied with the drug versus 75% of those in the flunarizine group (p = 0.7903). CONCLUSIONS: Flunarizine proved to be as effective as topiramate in the treatment of chronic migraine without medication abuse.

TITLE: Estudio comparativo de la efectividad del topiramato y la flunaricina en series independientes de pacientes con migraña cronica sin abuso de medicacion.Introduccion. El topiramato y la onabotulinumtoxina A han mostrado ser eficaces en la migraña cronica con o sin abuso de farmacos segun los criterios recientes de la Clasificacion de Cefaleas de la Sociedad Internacional de Cefaleas. Objetivo. Demostrar que la flunaricina es tan efectiva como el topiramato en la migraña cronica sin abuso de farmacos. Pacientes y metodos. Estudio prospectivo, no aleatorizado, comparativo de dos grupos de pacientes con similar edad y sexo, con migraña cronica sin abuso, tratados preventivamente por primera vez con topiramato o flunaricina. Resultados. A 40 pacientes tratados con flunaricina se les asigno un paciente del mismo sexo y edad tratado con topiramato. La media de reduccion de las migrañas intensas en el grupo del topiramato fue del 59% y en el grupo de la flunaricina, del 58,5% (p = 0,9444); la tasa de respondedores al cuarto mes de tratamiento tampoco mostro diferencias significativas, ya que fue del 75% para el topiramato y del 70% para la flunaricina (p = 0,6236). La media de reduccion de otras cefaleas en el grupo del topiramato fue del 57%, y en el grupo de la flunaricina, del 64% (p = 0,4261); la tasa de respondedores al cuarto mes de tratamiento fue del 76%, similar en ambos grupos. El porcentaje de abandonos del tratamiento fue mayor con el topiramato (19,5%) que con la flunaricina (10%) (p = 0,3493). En ninguno de los dos grupos hubo efectos adversos graves. Un 78,9% de los pacientes que tomo topiramato presento satisfaccion con el farmaco frente al 75% del grupo de la flunaricina (p = 0,7903). Conclusion. La flunaricina mostro ser tan efectiva como el topiramato en el tratamiento de la migraña cronica sin abuso de farmacos.

[Predisposing factors affecting drop-out rates in preventive treatment in a series of patients with migraine]. / Factores predisponentes al abandono del tratamiento preventivo en una serie de pacientes con migraña.

INTRODUCTION: The drop-out rate among patients receiving preventive treatment for migraine is higher than 30%. This situation is not very widely known and the risk factors that lead patients to drop out from treatment have yet to be identified. AIM: To evaluate some of the factors that can predispose patients to drop out of preventive treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a prospective study of patients suffering from migraine who required preventive treatment for the first time with one of what are considered the top three first-choice drugs, i.e. a beta-blocker (nadolol), a neuromodulator (topiramate) or a calcium antagonist (flunarizine). Two groups were established according to whether patients dropped out of treatment or not. Different demographic and clinical variables were analysed and compared in the two groups. RESULTS: Of 800 patients with migraine who required preventive treatment for the first time, the drop-out rate was 19.7%. In the drop-out group, the variables 'age', 'number of seizures', 'number of seizures prior to preventive treatment' and 'side effects' showed significant differences with those from the group of patients who did not drop out of preventive treatment. CONCLUSIONS: The drug used as preventive treatment, the side effects, a younger age and a lower number of seizures before starting the preventive treatment favoured higher drop-out rates. Whether the migraine was episodic or chronic, the presence of medication abuse and the drugs used to treat the seizures were not related with dropping out of preventive treatment.

[Comparative study of the effectiveness of topiramate and nadolol in the preventive treatment of episodic migraine in independent series of patients]. / Estudio comparativo de la efectividad del topiramato y del nadolol en el tratamiento preventivo de la migraña episodica en series independientes de pacientes.

INTRODUCTION: Topiramate and nadolol with levels A and C of scientific evidence, respectively, would be indicated as preventive treatments of migraine. To date only one study of satisfaction has been carried out to compare the two pharmaceuticals. AIM: To compare the effectiveness parameters in independent groups of patients treated preventively with one of the pharmaceuticals from the study. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From a database of 700 patients with migraine, those with episodic migraine and who had followed a course of preventive treatment, for the first time, with topiramate or nadolol were selected for the study. The effectiveness variables (reduction in the number of crises at four months of preventive treatment and responder rates) were analysed. RESULTS: Altogether 208 patients with were included for treatment: 140 with topiramate (77.8% females; mean age, 37.9) and 68 with nadolol (69% females; mean age, 36.9). The mean number of crises in the month prior to treatment was: topiramate group, 6.3 +/- 2.6; nadolol group 5.3 +/- 2.0 (p = 0.0066). At four months after starting treatment: topiramate group, 2.69 +/- 2.6; nadolol group 2.6 +/- 2.2 (NS). The percentage of reduction in the number of migraines was 56.6% with topiramate and 51.6% with nadolol (NS). The responder rate (reduction in the frequency of crises by at least 50%) was 71.3% with topiramate versus 69% with nadolol (NS). The excellent response rate (reduction in crises by at least 75%) was 53.3% with topiramate versus 32.2% with nadolol (p = 0.0077). Adverse side effects were reported by 54% of patients treated with topiramate versus 30.8% of those treated with nadolol (p = 0.0015). The rate of satisfaction was 61% for the topiramate group and 71% for the group with nadolol (NS). CONCLUSIONS: Both topiramate and nadolol proved to be effective in the preventive treatment of episodic migraine. Topiramate was found to be more effective than nadolol, although it was used in patients with a higher frequency of crises, and was not tolerated so well.

[Zonisamide in the preventive treatment of refractory migraine]. / Zonisamida en el tratamiento preventivo de la migraña refractaria.

INTRODUCTION: Chronic migraine refractory to preventive treatment is a common clinical situation in general neurology clinics. The aim is to analyse our experience with zonisamide in the preventive treatment of patients with frequent refractory migraine. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Those patients with no response or intolerance to topiramate and at least one more preventative received zonisamide. This drug was increased 25 mg per week up to 200 mg/day. The efficacy of zonisamide was evaluated in terms of 'response' (reduction in attack frequency below 50%) at the third month of treatment. RESULTS: Our series comprises a total of 172 patients, with ages ranging from 22 to 69 years. 85% were women. The final dosage of zonisamide was 50-200 mg/day, with the 100 mg/day being the most frequently administered dose. Zonisamide was efficacious (response) in 76 (44%) patients; response being excellent in 22 (13%). MIDAS score was reduced by 43.2%. Zonisamide was not tolerated by 27% of the patients, mainly due to subjective mental slowness or digestive symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: These results, obtained in a big sample of patients refractory or intolerant to topiramate and other preventatives, indicate that, at least in conditions of daily clinical practice, zonisamide, at relatively low dosages, is an option to be considered for the preventive treatment of patients with frequent migraine.