The
Foundation for Chiropractic | ||||
|
|
Click Here for a Printer-Friendly PDF Version Executive Summary Evidence Report: Behavioral and Physical Treatments for Tension-type and Cervicogenic Headache
Douglas C. McCrory, MD, MHSc Donald B. Penzien, PhD Vic Hasselblad, PhD Rebecca N. Gray, DPhil
Duke University Evidence-based Practice Center Center for Clinical Health Policy Research 2200 W. Main Street, Suite 230 Durham, NC 27705 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Background
The objective of this report is to describe and assess the
evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and other prospective,
comparative clinical trials (CCTs) for the efficacy and safety of
behavioral and physical treatments for tension-type and cervicogenic
headache. The report is limited to therapies that have been studied
specifically among populations of patients with tension-type or
cervicogenic headache. As a result, some treatments routinely used by
health care providers to treat these types of headache may not be
represented.
The literature review addressed the questions:
(1) What are the effects on headache frequency and/or
headache intensity when behavioral treatments are compared to no
intervention (wait-list control), "placebo" or sham interventions,
alternative behavioral or physical treatments, and drug therapies
among patients with tension-type or cervicogenic headache?
To be considered for the review, studies were required to
be prospective, controlled trials of behavioral or physical treatments
aimed at the prevention of attacks of tension-type or cervicogenic
headache or the relief of symptoms of individual episodes of headache in
patients with tension-type or cervicogenic headache. The behavioral
interventions considered included the broad categories of relaxation,
biofeedback, cognitive-behavioral (or stress-management) therapy, and
hypnosis. Physical interventions considered for this report included
acupuncture; cervical spinal manipulation; low-force techniques, such as
cranial sacral therapy; massage (including trigger point release);
mobilization; stretching; heat therapy; ultrasound; transcutaneous
electrical nerve stimulation (TENS); surgery; and exercise (including
postural exercises). Acceptable control treatments included wait-list/no
intervention, sham interventions (placebo), other behavioral or physical
treatments, and preventive or acute drug therapies.
Behavioral Treatments
Thirty-five trials of behavioral treatments were included
in the report; 23 of these reported continuous outcome and variance data
and were included in a meta-analysis. The principal findings of the
analysis were: Behavioral treatments for tension-type headache have a
consistent body of research indicating efficacy. The effect size data
suggest that each of the interventions examined (relaxation training,
cognitive-behavioral therapy with or without relaxation training, EMG
biofeedback combined with relaxation training, and EMG biofeedback
alone) is effective for reducing tension-type headache symptoms when
compared to wait-list control. The collection of trials and the results of the
meta-analysis provide little guidance for choosing among the treatments
considered. The summary effect size estimates for the various categories
of behavioral therapy are statistically indistinguishable. Clinically, behavioral treatments are often used in
combination. Five of the trials we reviewed were designed to test the
incremental benefit of adding EMG biofeedback to relaxation training,
and seven trials allowed estimating the incremental benefit of adding
cognitive-behavioral therapy to relaxation training. Finally, three
trials examined the effect of adding relaxation to EMG biofeedback. None
of these studies found a statistically significant incremental benefit
to the added component; however, all the studies were too small to
detect small, but potentially clinically significant differences. The question of combining drug and behavioral therapy
has been examined in a single study which suggested that amitriptyline
with cognitive-behavioral therapy and relaxation training leads to
better headache outcomes than the behavioral component alone.
Longer-term 6-month results no longer showed significant differences,
perhaps because the behavioral therapy resulted in slower onset of
improvement. A large number of studies could not be included in the
meta-analysis because they did not report variance data to allow
calculation of effect size scores, even though they met all other
inclusion criteria. Comparison of percentage improvement scores from
trials included in, and excluded from, the meta-analysis did not
substantially change our interpretation of the analysis.
Seventeen controlled trials of physical treatments were
reviewed. The main findings were as follows:
Four trials of acupuncture compared to sham acupuncture
suggest a modest improvement in headache outcomes; however,
statistically significant findings reported in a small pilot study are
probably spurious because of an inappropriate statistical analysis.
Another trial was so poorly reported that it was impossible to evaluate
it. Acupuncture was less effective than physiotherapy in one study, but
this study had a high dropout rate in the acupuncture arm, which may
have biased the estimates of effect. spinal manipulation was associated with
improvement in headache outcomes in two trials involving patients with
neck pain and/or neck dysfunction and headache. Manipulation appeared to
result in immediate improvement in headache severity when used to treat
episodes of cervicogenic headache when compared with an
attention-placebo control. Furthermore, when compared to soft-tissue
therapies (massage), a course of manipulation treatments resulted in
sustained improvement in headache frequency and severity. However, among
patients without a neck pain/dysfunction component to their headache
syndrome – that is, patients with episodic or chronic tension-type
headache – the effectiveness of cervical spinal manipulation was less
clear. No placebo or no-treatment control studies of manipulation have
been performed in these populations. In one trial conducted among
patients with episodic tension-type headache, manipulation conferred no
extra benefit when added to a soft-tissue therapy (deep friction
massage). In another trial conducted among patients with tension-type
headache, amitriptyline was significantly better than manipulation at
reducing headache severity during the 6-week treatment period; there was
no significant difference between the two treatments for headache
frequency during the same period. Interpretation of these results is
difficult because all patients received the same relatively low dose of
amitriptyline (30 mg). Despite the uniform and relatively low dose of
amitriptyline, however, adverse effects were much more common with
amitriptyline (82% of patients) than with manipulation (4%). During the
4-week period after both treatments ceased, patients who had received
manipulation were significantly better than those who had taken
amitriptyline for both headache frequency and severity. Although
amitriptyline is usually continued for longer than 6 weeks, the return
to near-baseline values for headache outcomes in this group contrasts
with a sustained reduction in headache frequency and severity in those
who had received manipulation. Very limited conclusions may be reached about the
efficacy of physiotherapy on the basis of the trials reviewed in this
report. One study found that deep friction massage was significantly
less effective than cervical spinal manipulation at reducing headache
severity and frequency in patients with cervicogenic headache. Another
trial – this one conducted among patients with tension-type headache –
found that physiotherapy (massage, cryotherapy, TENS, passive
stretching, relaxation, and headache education) was significantly more
effective than acupuncture at reducing headache severity, but this trial
had a high dropout rate in the acupuncture arm, which may have biased
the results. A single trial conducted among patients with post-traumatic
headache found that physiotherapy (mobilization) was significantly
better than cold-pack therapy at reducing headache index; however,
results from this trial were difficult to interpret due to several
methodological and design flaws. Of two studies of cranial electrical stimulation (CES)
for tension-type headache, one suggested that the technique is
effective, and the other did not. A single small trial comparing aerobic exercise with a
behavioral intervention among patients with tension-type headache was
inconclusive. A single study of therapeutic touch suggested an effect
on headache severity; however, since the only comparator treatment was
sham therapeutic touch, it is possible that the observed effect may be
due to nonverbal cues delivered to the subjects by the non-blinded
therapist, with patients in the genuine therapeutic touch group
responding with a greater expectancy or placebo response.
The trials reviewed in this report suggest that several
behavioral and physical treatments are effective in treating tension-type
and/or cervicogenic headache. However, further research is needed on many
topics. The methodological shortcomings of many of the currently available
studies limit certainty about the effectiveness of these treatments. These
shortcomings include the relative lack of no-treatment controls, lack of
credible blinding (in those cases in which blinding was possible), short
duration of follow-up, and small numbers of patients. |
|