Digital headache self-management interventions for patients with a primary headache disorder: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials.

OBJECTIVE: This article systematically reviews the empirical literature examining the efficacy of digital headache management interventions for patients with a primary headache disorder. BACKGROUND: Digital headache management interventions provide opportunities to improve access to behavioral headache interventions to underserved groups. METHODS: A systematic search of PubMed, Scopus, and EBSCO (PsycInfo, Education Research Complete, ERIC, Health Source: Nursing/Academic Edition, Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection) and reference review was conducted. Included studies had to recruit a sample with a primary headache diagnosis, be a randomized controlled trial including a digital component, assess a headache outcome (i.e., frequency, duration, severity, intensity, disability) or quality of life, and be published in English. Two authors independently extracted data for included studies. The methodological quality of studies was assessed using the revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. RESULTS: Thirteen studies with unique interventions met inclusion criteria. More than half of the studies were pilots; however, nearly 70% (9/13) demonstrated significant between-group or within-group improvements on one or more headache-related outcomes. All interventions included some form of relaxation training and the majority were delivered via interactive website. While fewer than half the studies report participant race and/or ethnicity, of those that do, 83% (5/6) reported a predominately White/Caucasian sample. CONCLUSIONS: Efficacy testing of digital headache interventions is in its infancy with the majority of these studies relying on pilot studies with small samples comprised of homogenous patient populations. Interactive websites were the most common digital medium to deliver digital headache management interventions and have demonstrated promising results. Further testing using large-scale randomized controlled trials and exploration of other digital tools is warranted. Future studies with more diverse samples are needed to inform health equity of digital headache interventions.

The Role of Expectations and Endogenous Opioids in Mindfulness-Based Relief of Experimentally Induced Acute Pain.

OBJECTIVE: Expectations contribute to cognitive pain modulation through opioidergically mediated descending inhibition. Mindfulness meditation reduces pain independent of endogenous opioids, engaging unique corticothalamocortical mechanisms. However, it remains unknown whether expectations for pain relief predict mindfulness-induced analgesia and if these expectations are modified by endogenous opioids. METHODS: In this secondary analysis of previously published work, 78 pain-free participants (mean age, 27 ± 7 years; 50% women) were randomized to a four-session mindfulness meditation or book listening regimen. Expectations for intervention-induced pain relief were assessed before and after each intervention. Pain ratings were examined after meditation or rest (control group) during noxious heat (49°C) and intravenous administration of saline placebo or the opioid antagonist naloxone (0.15 mg/kg bolus + 0.1 mg kg-1 h-1 infusion. RESULTS: Mindfulness significantly lowered pain during saline and naloxone infusion. Higher expected pain relief from mindfulness predicted lower pain intensity (r(40) = -0.41, p = .009). The relationship between meditation-related expectations and pain intensity reductions was exhibited during naloxone (r(20) = -0.76, p < .001) but not saline (r(20) = -0.22, p = .36). Expectations for book listening-based analgesia did not significantly predict pain changes during saline (r(20) = -0.37, p = .11) or naloxone (r(18) = 0.26, p = .30) in the control group. CONCLUSIONS: These novel findings demonstrate a significant role for expectations in mindfulness-based pain relief. However, this role was minimal during saline and stronger during opioid blockade, despite similar pain reductions. This supports growing evidence that mindfulness engages multiple mechanisms to reduce pain, suggesting that mindfulness might be an effective pain-reducing technique even for individuals with low expectations for pain relief.

The Effects of Yoga on Patients with Mild Cognitive Impairment and Dementia: A Scoping Review.

Yoga is an ancient mind body practice. Although yoga has been used as a complementary health approach for enhancing wellness and addressing a variety of health issues, little is known about the impact of yoga on cognitive functioning in adults with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and dementia. We conducted a literature review to examine the impact of yoga on persons with MCI and dementia. Eight studies were identified that reported on yoga as either the primary intervention or one component of a multi-component intervention in samples of persons with MCI or dementia. Results suggest that yoga may have beneficial effects on cognitive functioning, particularly on attention and verbal memory. Further, yoga may affect cognitive functioning through improved sleep, mood, and neural connectivity. There are a number of limitations of the existing studies, including a lack of intervention details, as well as variability in the frequency/duration and components of the yoga interventions. A further complicating issue is the role of various underlying etiologies of cognitive impairment. Despite these limitations, providers may consider recommending yoga to persons with MCI or dementia as a safe and potentially beneficial complementary health approach.

Mindfulness-Meditation-Based Pain Relief Is Not Mediated by Endogenous Opioids.

Mindfulness meditation, a cognitive practice premised on sustaining nonjudgmental awareness of arising sensory events, reliably attenuates pain. Mindfulness meditation activates multiple brain regions that contain a high expression of opioid receptors. However, it is unknown whether mindfulness-meditation-based analgesia is mediated by endogenous opioids. The present double-blind, randomized study examined behavioral pain responses in healthy human volunteers during mindfulness meditation and a nonmanipulation control condition in response to noxious heat and intravenous administration of the opioid antagonist naloxone (0.15 mg/kg bolus + 0.1 mg/kg/h infusion) or saline placebo. Meditation during saline infusion significantly reduced pain intensity and unpleasantness ratings when compared to the control + saline group. However, naloxone infusion failed to reverse meditation-induced analgesia. There were no significant differences in pain intensity or pain unpleasantness reductions between the meditation + naloxone and the meditation + saline groups. Furthermore, mindfulness meditation during naloxone produced significantly greater reductions in pain intensity and unpleasantness than the control groups. These findings demonstrate that mindfulness meditation does not rely on endogenous opioidergic mechanisms to reduce pain. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: Endogenous opioids have been repeatedly shown to be involved in the cognitive inhibition of pain. Mindfulness meditation, a practice premised on directing nonjudgmental attention to arising sensory events, reduces pain by engaging mechanisms supporting the cognitive control of pain. However, it remains unknown if mindfulness-meditation-based analgesia is mediated by opioids, an important consideration for using meditation to treat chronic pain. To address this question, the present study examined pain reports during meditation in response to noxious heat and administration of the opioid antagonist naloxone and placebo saline. The results demonstrate that meditation-based pain relief does not require endogenous opioids. Therefore, the treatment of chronic pain may be more effective with meditation due to a lack of cross-tolerance with opiate-based medications.

Survey of Opioid and Barbiturate Prescriptions in Patients Attending a Tertiary Care Headache Center.

OBJECTIVE: To educate physicians about appropriate acute migraine treatment guidelines by determining (1) where headache patients were first prescribed opioids and barbiturates, and (2) the characteristics of the patient population who had been prescribed opioids and barbiturates. BACKGROUND: Several specialty societies issued recommendations that caution against the indiscriminate use of opioids or barbiturate containing medications for the treatment of migraine. These medications are still being prescribed in various medical settings and could put headache specialists in a difficult position when patients request these agents. METHODS: Patients presenting to a headache center comprised of eight physicians were asked to complete a survey that assessed headache types, comorbid conditions, and whether they had ever been prescribed opioids or barbiturates. If they responded affirmatively to the latter question, they were asked about the prescribing doctor, medication effectiveness, and whether they were currently on the medication. Data collection took place over a one month period. RESULTS: Two hundred forty-four patients were given the survey and 218 of these patients completed it. The predominant diagnosis was migraine (83.9%). More than half of the patients reported having been prescribed an opioid (54.8%) or a barbiturate (56.7%). About one fifth were on opioids (19.4%) or barbiturates (20.7%) at the time of completing the survey. Most patients reported being on opioids for more than 2 years (24.6%) or less than one week (32.1%). The reasons most frequently cited for stopping opioids were that the medications did not help (30.9%) or that they saw a new doctor who would not prescribe them (29.4%). Among patients who had previously been on barbiturates, 32.2% had been on these for over 2 years. Most patients (61.8%) stopped barbiturates because they did not find the medication helpful, while 17.6% said they saw a new doctor who would not prescribe them. The physician specialty most frequently cited as being the first prescriber for opioids was emergency medicine (20.2%) with family doctors and general neurologists the next groups at 17.7% each. General neurologists were the most frequent (37.8%) first prescribers of barbiturates. CONCLUSIONS: Approximately 20% of patients presenting to a headache center reported current use of opioids and/or barbiturates. ED physicians were reported to be the most frequent first prescribers of opioids and general neurologists were the most frequent first prescribers of barbiturates. Taken as a whole, these data provide a useful snapshot of the wide variety of physician specialties that might benefit from additional education on the appropriate use of opioids and barbiturate-containing medications in patients with headaches.

Emerging behavioral treatments for migraine.

Although the efficacy of behavioral interventions for migraine (e.g., relaxation training, stress management, cognitive-behavioral therapy, biofeedback) is well established, other behavioral interventions that have shown efficacy for other conditions are being adapted to treat migraine. This paper reviews the literature to date on acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT), mindfulness-based interventions, and behavioral interventions for common migraine comorbidities. ACT and mindfulness interventions prioritize the outcome of improved functioning above headache reduction and have demonstrated efficacy for chronic pain broadly. These emerging behavioral therapies show considerable promise for improving outcomes of migraine patients, particularly in reducing headache-related disability and affective distress, but efficacy to date is limited by small trials, short follow-up periods, and a need for comparison or integration with established pharmacologic and behavioral migraine treatments.

Behavioral and mind/body interventions in headache: unanswered questions and future research directions.

BACKGROUND: Many unanswered questions remain regarding behavioral and mind/body interventions in the treatment of primary headache disorders in adults. METHODS: We reviewed the literature to ascertain the most pressing unanswered research questions regarding behavioral and mind/body interventions for headache. RESULTS: We identify the most pressing unanswered research questions in this field, describe ideal and practical ways to address these questions, and outline steps needed to facilitate these research efforts. We discuss proposed mechanisms of action of behavioral and mind/body interventions and outline goals for future research in this field. CONCLUSIONS: Although challenges arise from the complex nature of the interventions under study, research that adheres to published study design and reporting standards and focuses closely on answering key questions is most likely to lead to progress in achieving these goals.

Education and decision making at the time of triptan prescribing: patient expectations vs actual practice.

BACKGROUND: Optimizing patient satisfaction with their medical care and maximizing patient adherence with treatment plans requires an understanding of patient preferences regarding education and their role in decision making when treatments are prescribed. OBJECTIVE: To assess the congruence between patient expectations and actual practice regarding education and decision making at the time a triptan is prescribed. METHODS: This multicenter cross-sectional survey was performed by headache fellow members of the American Headache Society Headache Fellows Research Consortium at their respective tertiary care headache clinics. Migraine patients who were new patients to the headache clinic and who were current triptan users (use within prior 3 months and for ≥1 year) or past triptan users (no use within 6 months; prior use within 2 years) completed questionnaires that assessed the education they received and their role in decision making at the time a triptan was first prescribed as well as their desire for education and participation in decision making when a triptan is prescribed. RESULTS: Consistent with patient preference, most participants received the majority of their education about the triptan from the prescriber's office (70.2%). In descending rank order, participants most desired to be informed about how to decide if a triptan should be taken, when during the course of migraine a triptan should be taken, possible side effects, cost, and how to obtain refills. Regarding side effects, most participants preferred to receive education about the most common side effects of a triptan rather than addressing all possible side effects. Regarding triptan dosing, participants desired to be informed in descending order of importance about taking other medications with triptans, how many doses can be taken for each migraine, how many doses can be taken each week/month, what to do if the triptan does not work, and the triptan mechanism of action. The vast majority of participants (92%) preferred that the decision to prescribe a triptan be a joint decision between the patient and the provider. In actual practice, participants were not as involved in decision making as they would like to be, with patients reporting that the prescriber was the sole decision maker 55.1% of the time. Participants had confidence in their providers (87.7%) and generally felt they did a good job educating them about the triptan (71.1%). CONCLUSIONS: Based on this study, it is clear that patients prefer the shared model approach to medical decision making in regards to the prescription of triptans. The majority of patients received education that was generally consistent with their desires. Patients preferred that the prescribing provider be the primary source of information. The most desired educational topics included when/if a triptan should be taken, the number of times a triptan can be taken for a single migraine, co-administration with other acute medications, and the most common side effects. Focusing on these topics should enhance patient satisfaction and may improve compliance.

Identifying the factors underlying discontinuation of triptans.

OBJECTIVE: To identify factors associated with triptan discontinuation among migraine patients. BACKGROUND: It is unclear why many migraine patients who are prescribed triptans discontinue this treatment. This study investigated correlates of triptan discontinuation with a focus on potentially modifiable factors to improve compliance. METHODS: This multicenter cross-sectional survey (n = 276) was performed at US tertiary care headache clinics. Headache fellows who were members of the American Headache Society Headache Fellows Research Consortium recruited episodic and chronic migraine patients who were current triptan users (use within prior 3 months and for ≥1 year) or past triptan users (no use within 6 months; prior use within 2 years). Univariate analyses were first completed to compare current triptan users to past users for: migraine characteristics, other migraine treatments, triptan education, triptan efficacy, triptan side effects, type of prescribing provider, Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) scores and Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) scores. Then, a multivariable logistic regression model was selected from all possible combinations of predictor variables to determine the factors that best correlated with triptan discontinuation. RESULTS: Compared with those still using triptans (n = 207), those who had discontinued use (n = 69) had higher rates of medication overuse (30 vs. 18%, P = .04) and were more likely to have ever used opioids for migraine treatment (57 vs. 38%, P = .006) as well as higher MIDAS (mean 63 vs. 37, P = .001) and BDI scores (mean 10.4 vs. 7.4, P = .009). Compared with discontinued users, current triptan users were more likely to have had their triptan prescribed by a specialist (neurologist, headache specialist, or pain specialist) (74 vs. 54%, P = .002) and were more likely to report headache resolution (53 vs. 14%, P < .001) or a reduction in pain intensity (71 vs. 28%, P < .001) most of the time from their triptan. On a 1-5 scale (1 = disagree, 5 = agree), triptan users felt they had more: control over their migraine attacks (2.9 vs. 2.1), confidence in their prescribing provider (4.5 vs. 4.0), and were more educated about triptan use (4.2 vs. 3.7) compared with triptan discontinuers (P < .001 for all comparisons). Although both current and prior users reported similar rates of side effects (48 vs. 43%, P = .44), of those who discontinued use, the main reasons were for lack of effect (44%) and side effects (29%). Our multivariable modeling revealed that the strongest correlate of triptan discontinuation was lack of efficacy (odds ratio = 17, 95% confidence interval [8.8, 33.0]). Other factors associated with discontinuation included MIDAS > 24 (2.6, [1.5, 4.6]), BDI >4 (2.5, [1.4, 4.5]), and a history of ever using opioids for migraine therapy (2.2, [1.3, 3.8]). Having a triptan prescribed by a specialist and using at least 1 other abortive medication with the triptan were associated with a decreased likelihood of triptan discontinuation (0.41, [0.2-0.7] and 0.44 [0.3, 0.8], respectively). CONCLUSIONS: As expected, discontinuation was most correlated with lack of efficacy, but other important factors associated with those who had discontinued use included greater migraine-related disability, depression, and the use of opioids for migraine attacks. Compared with patients who had discontinued triptans, current triptan users felt more: educated about their triptan, control over their migraine attacks, and confidence in their prescribing provider. Current triptan users had their triptan prescribed by a specialist and used other abortive medications with their triptan more often compared with patients who had discontinued triptans. Given the cross-sectional nature of this study, we cannot determine if these factors contributed to triptan discontinuation or reflect the impact of such discontinuation. Interventions that address modifiable risk factors for triptan discontinuation may decrease the likelihood of triptan discontinuation and thus improve overall migraine control. Because lack of efficacy was most strongly associated with triptan discontinuation, future research should determine why triptans are effective for some patients but not others.

Attention to breath sensations does not engage endogenous opioids to reduce pain.

The endogenous opioidergic system is critically involved in the cognitive modulation of pain. Slow-breathing-based techniques are widely used nonpharmacological approaches to reduce pain. Yet, the active mechanisms of actions supporting these practices are poorly characterized. Growing evidence suggest that mindfulness-meditation, a slow-breathing technique practiced by nonreactively attending to breathing sensations, engages multiple unique neural mechanisms that bypass opioidergically mediated descending pathways to reduce pain. However, it is unknown whether endogenous opioids contribute to pain reductions produced by slow breathing. The present double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover study examined behavioral pain responses during mindfulness-meditation (n = 19), sham-mindfulness meditation (n = 20), and slow-paced breathing (n = 20) in response to noxious heat (49°C) and intravenous administration (0.15 mg/kg bolus + 0.1 mg/kg/hour maintenance infusion) of the opioid antagonist, naloxone, and placebo saline. Mindfulness significantly reduced pain unpleasantness ratings across both infusion sessions when compared to rest, but not pain intensity. Slow-paced breathing significantly reduced pain intensity and unpleasantness ratings during naloxone but not saline infusion. Pain reductions produced by mindfulness-meditation and slow-paced breathing were insensitive to naloxone when compared to saline administration. By contrast, sham-mindfulness meditation produced pain unpleasantness reductions during saline infusion but this effect was reversed by opioidergic antagonism. Sham-mindfulness did not lower pain intensity ratings. Self-reported "focusing on the breath" was identified as the operational feature particularly unique to the mindfulness-meditation and slow paced-breathing, but not sham-mindfulness meditation. Across all individuals, attending to the breath was associated with naloxone insensitive pain-relief. These findings provide evidence that slow breathing combined with attention to breath reduces pain independent of endogenous opioids.

Effect of tai chi on cognitive performance in older adults: systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To summarize and critically evaluate research on the effects of Tai Chi on cognitive function in older adults. DESIGN: Systematic review with meta-analysis. SETTING: Community and residential care. PARTICIPANTS: Individuals aged 60 and older (with the exception of one study) with and without cognitive impairment. MEASUREMENTS: Cognitive ability using a variety of neuropsychological testing. RESULTS: Twenty eligible studies with a total of 2,553 participants were identified that met inclusion criteria for the systematic review; 11 of the 20 eligible studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs), one was a prospective nonrandomized controlled study, four were prospective noncontrolled observational studies, and four were cross-sectional studies. Overall quality of RCTs was modest, with three of 11 trials categorized as high risk of bias. Meta-analyses of outcomes related to executive function in RCTs of cognitively healthy adults indicated a large effect size when Tai Chi participants were compared with nonintervention controls (Hedges' g = 0.90; P = .04) and a moderate effect size when compared with exercise controls (Hedges' g = 0.51; P = .003). Meta-analyses of outcomes related to global cognitive function in RCTs of cognitively impaired adults, ranging from mild cognitive impairment to dementia, showed smaller but statistically significant effects when Tai Chi was compared with nonintervention controls (Hedges' g = 0.35; P = .004) and other active interventions (Hedges' g = 0.30; P = .002). Findings from nonrandomized studies add further evidence that Tai Chi may positively affect these and other domains of cognitive function. CONCLUSION: Tai Chi shows potential to enhance cognitive function in older adults, particularly in the realm of executive functioning and in individuals without significant impairment. Larger and methodologically sound trials with longer follow-up periods are needed before more-definitive conclusions can be drawn.