Efficacy of greater occipital nerve block treatment for migraine and potential impact of patient positioning during procedure: Results of randomised controlled trial.

PURPOSE: Assess the efficacy, and potential impact of patient positioning for 10 minutes immediately post-procedure, of greater occipital nerve (GON) block for treatment of migraine. METHODS: Prospective multicentre non-blinded randomised controlled trial, randomisation and treatment of 60 neurology clinic patients with poorly controlled migraine. Outcomes measured with Headache Impact Test-6 (HIT-6), modified MIgraine Disability Assessment Scale (M-MIDAS), and RELIEF scores. RESULTS: Patient positioning did not lead to significant difference in RELIEF score (34% vs 11%, p-value 0.10, Chi-squared test) at day 90. When considered in a multiple regression analysis, the sitting position outperformed supine position significantly (p-value 0.04). However, no significant difference in HIT-6 score between the supine (n = 27) and sitting position groups (n = 33) was detected at baseline (p-value 0.76), day 30 (p-value 0.69) or day 90 (p-value 0.54, Mann-Whitney U-test). The HIT-6 score significantly improved post-GON block, from median 67 (baseline pre-GON) to 59 (day 30) and 62 (day 90) for the supine group and a score of 66, 61-62 for the sitting group (all p-value ≤ 0.001, intra-group comparison using Wilcoxon test); M-MIDAS achieved similar outcomes. Overall, a significant minimal clinically important improvement was obtained with GON block, and the GON injections were deemed very tolerable by patients (median score of 2 on 10 cm pain scale). CONCLUSION: Regardless of patient positioning, GON block is an effective and near-painless procedure for migraine symptom control. Unlike earlier published observational study data, this trial concludes that a sitting patient position immediately post-GON is preferred.

Digital diary App use for migraine in primary care: Prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Headache diaries are recommended for migraine management in primary care. OBJECTIVE: Determine the acceptability and use of a digital headache diary App for migraine METHODS: Evaluative prospective primary care cohort study in North of England. Part 1 was a postal survey; if responders were interested, in Part 2 participants trialled the digital N1-Headache App headache diary for 90 days, followed by survey feedback on the App's usability. RESULTS: A total of 637 out of 2189 invited patients (29%) completed the initial survey, and 32% of respondents had previously used a headache diary; 437 out of 637 patients (69%) were interested in using the App. Regression analysis showed that interested patients were those with more severe migraines that limit physical/intellectual activities, and who indicate to not know enough about their migraine. Actual registration numbers and compliance with the App was very modest; 53 out of 173 participants (23%), who ultimately activated their personal N1-Headache App account, were able to generate a personalised trigger and protector map & report. Furthermore, at the end of the 90 day App trial period there was a non-significant trend towards improvements in participants' health confidence levels. CONCLUSION: Migraine patients - particularly those with more severe and frequent migraines - show an interest in using a digital headache diary App, Ultimately, consistent daily use is very modest. The challenge is to improve App usage and compliance rates to allow interpretation of more patients' migraine trigger and/or protector patterns, and wider use amongst patients.

Influence of patient positioning on reported clinical outcomes after greater occipital nerve block for treatment of headache: Results from prospective single-centre, non-randomised, proof-of-concept study.

OBJECTIVE: Greater occipital nerve (GON) block is a treatment option applied for a variety of primary headache disorders. Although a patient's body position is known to have an impact on the effect of local anaesthetics, this has not before been investigated for patients undergoing GON block. Therefore, the clinical effectiveness of either a sitting or supine position was assessed. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This evaluative prospective study took place in a single neurology department in the UK. Baseline and follow-up data were collated during standard clinic consultations for 95 consecutive patients who underwent GON block and follow-up consultations for treatment-refractory headache disorder. The GON block procedure was identical for all patients in terms of constitution of the applied medication and volume injected (lidocaine hydrochloride 20 mg and methylprednisolone acetate 80 mg in 2 ml vial). Directly afterwards, patients opted to either sit up (n = 34) or lie down (n = 61) for ten minutes. RESULTS: Twenty-seven patients (44%) reported substantial benefit and 17 (28%) complete benefit (pain freedom) for a median duration of 70 days and 84 days in the 'supine' group, compared with 10 (29%) substantial and 6 (18%) complete benefit (pain freedom) for a median duration of 25 days (substantial) and 119 days (complete) in the 'sitting' group. Overall, a supine position results in a longer overall post-GON block headache-free period (p-value 0.007) and median relief score (p-value 0.017) compared to a sitting up position, as determined by Mann-Whitney U-test. Backward multiple linear regression analysis showed that the chronicity of the patient's condition is negatively associated (beta -0.24, p-value 0.024) and the post-GON block patient position is positively associated (beta 0.25, p-value 0.018) with the achieved headache-free period. Apart from variation in baseline headache characteristics, the 'sitting' and 'supine' cohorts did not significantly differ in terms of other clinical parameters and patient demographics. CONCLUSIONS: Placing a patient in a supine position following a GON block procedure for headache may significantly improve the resulting clinical effectiveness of this treatment. Further research, through a prospective, multi-centre, randomised, controlled trial, is indicated to determine if the initial positive observations in this present pragmatic evaluation can be confirmed.

Therapeutic effect of intranasal evaporative cooling in patients with migraine: a pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Cryotherapy is the most common non-pharmacological pain-relieving method. The aim of this pilot study was to ascertain whether intranasal evaporative cooling may be an effective intervention in an acute migraine attack. Studies have previously demonstrated effectiveness of a variety of cryotherapy approaches. Intranasal evaporative cooling due to vascular anatomy, allows the transfer of venous blood from nasal and paranasal mucous membranes to the dura mater, thereby providing an excellent anatomical basis for the cooling processes. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, open-label, observational, pilot study. Twenty-eight patients who satisfied the International Classification of Headache Disorders (ICHD 2) diagnostic criteria for migraine were recruited. A total of 20 treatments were administered in 15 patients. All patients provided pain severity scores and migraine-associated symptoms severity scores (based on a 0-10 visual analogue scale, [VAS]). RESULTS: Out of the 20 treatments, intranasal evaporative cooling rendered patients' pain and symptoms free immediately after treatment, in 8 of the treatments (40%), a further 10 treatments (50%) resulted in partial pain relief (headache reduced from severe or moderate to mild) and partial symptoms relief. At 2 hours, 9 treatments (45%) provided full pain and symptoms relief, with a further 9 treatments (45%) resulting in partial pain and symptoms relief. At 24 hours, 10 treatments (50%) resulted in patients reporting pain and symptom freedom and 3 (15%) provided partial pain relief. In summary 13 patients (87%) had benefit from the treatment within 2 hours that was sustained at 24 hours. CONCLUSIONS: Intranasal evaporative cooling gave considerable benefit to patients with migraine, improving headache severity and migraine-associated symptoms. A further randomised, placebo controlled, double blinded, parallel clinical trial is required to further investigate the potential of this application. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov registered trial, ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01898455.