PMCC PMCC

Search tips
Search criteria

Advanced
Results 1-25 (1845899)

Clipboard (0)
None

Related Articles

1.  TREATMENT OF ACUTE ATOPIC ECZEMA BY CHIROPRACTIC CARE 
Objective: To investigate a patient with atopic eczema and assess how they responded to chiropractic care.
Method: The study was run over a 7 week period with chiropractic treatments (diversified technique) on a once weekly schedule.
Outcome Measures: To measure the effect of treatment, a rating system was developed and the intensity of a range of symptoms was recorded (through a questionnaire) on a twice weekly basis.
Results: The results attained showed there was a marked improvement in the eczema symptoms following the chiropractic care. The patient reported an improvement in eczematous symptoms of excoriation, pruritus, oedema and general psychological ease. These findings were also confirmed by photographic evidence which documented the change in the lesions.
Discussion: The case is presented to assist practitioners making a more informed decision on the treatment of choice for eczema. The outcome of this case is also discussed in relation to recent research that concludes that chiropractic spinal manipulative therapy has a role in the treatment for some people with non-neuromusculoskeletal conditions.
Conclusion: It appears that chiropractic care may have assisted this patient with eczema. However, more research is required to investigate the role that chiropractic has in the treatment of patients with eczema, and the potential mechanisms that could explain the improvement.
PMCID: PMC2051093  PMID: 17987197
Eczema; dermatitis; atopic; chiropractic; case report
2.  Chiropractic spinal manipulative treatment of migraine headache of 40-year duration using Gonstead method: a case study 
Journal of Chiropractic Medicine  2011;10(3):189-193.
Objective
The purpose of this article is to present a case study of chiropractic spinal manipulative treatment (CSMT) using the Gonstead method for a patient with migraines.
Clinical Features
The patient was a 52-year-old married woman with a long-term history of chronic migraines, which included nausea, vomiting, and photophobia. The patient had endometriosis, but did not relate the migraines to her menstrual cycles. She also reported not using medication for her migraines due to previous drug-related issues. The average frequency of episodes before treatment was 1 per month, and her migraines often included an aura. The pain was moderate, was located on the right side, was pulsating, and lasted for approximately 15 hours. The numeric pain scale for an average episode was 8 out of a possible 10. The aura involved nausea, photophobia, and visual disturbances including black dots in the visual field lasting for approximately 10 minutes.
Intervention and Outcome
The patient reported all episodes being eliminated following CSMT. At 6-month follow-up, the patient had not had a single migraine episode in this period. The patient was certain that there had been no other lifestyle changes that could have contributed to her improvement.
Conclusion
This case adds to previous research suggesting that some migraine patients may respond favorably to CSMT. The case also provides information on the Gonstead method. A case study does not represent significant scientific evidence in context with other studies conducted; this study suggests that a trial of CSMT using the Gonstead methods could be considered for chronic, nonresponsive migraines.
doi:10.1016/j.jcm.2011.02.002
PMCID: PMC3259914  PMID: 22014909
Migraine disorders; Chiropractic; Manipulation, spinal
3.  THE EFFICACY OF CHIROPRACTIC SPINAL MANIPULATIVE THERAPY (SMT) IN THE TREATMENT OF MIGRAINE 
Objective: To test the efficacy of Chiropractic spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) in the treatment of migraine, using an uncontrolled clinical trial.
Design: A clinical trial of six months duration. The trial consisted of 3 stages: two months of pre-treatment, two months of treatment, and two months post treatment. Comparison was made to initial baseline episodes of migraine preceding commencement of SMT.
Setting: Chiropractic Research Centre of Macquarie University.
Participants: Thirty two volunteers, between the ages of 23 to 60 were recruited through media advertising. The diagnosis of migraine based on a detailed questionnaire, regarding self reported symptoms or signs, with minimum of one migraine with aura per month.
Interventions: Two months of SMT provided by an experienced chiropractor at a university clinic.
Main Outcome Measures: Participants completed diaries during the entire trial noting the frequency, intensity, duration, disability, associated symptoms and use of medication for each migraine episode. In addition, clinic records were compared to their diary entries of migraine episodes.
Results: A total of fifty nine participants responded to the advertising, with twenty five being excluded or deciding not to continue in the trial. Two participants (5.9%) withdrew during the trial, one due to alteration in work situation and one following soreness after SMT. The Chiropractic SMT group showed statistically significant improvement (p < 0.05) in migraine frequency and duration, when compared to initial baseline levels. Only one participant (3.1%) reported that the migraine episodes were worse after the two months of SMT, and this was not sustained at the two month post treatment follow up period.
Conclusion: The results of this study suggest that Chiropractic SMT is an effective treatment for migraine with aura. However, due to the cyclical nature of migraine with aura, and the finding that episodes usually reduce following any intervention, further research is required. A prospective randomised controlled trial utilising detuned EPT (interferential), a sham manipulation group and an SMT group is nearing conclusion. It is anticipated this trial will provide further information of the efficacy of Chiropractic SMT in the treatment of migraine with aura.
PMCID: PMC2050630  PMID: 17987148
Migraine; chiropractic; spinal manipulation; clinical trial
4.  A case of chronic migraine remission after chiropractic care 
Abstract
Objective
To present a case study of migraine sufferer who had a dramatic improvement after chiropractic spinal manipulative therapy (CSMT).
Clinical features
The case presented is a 72-year–old woman with a 60-year history of migraine headaches, which included nausea, vomiting, photophobia, and phonophobia.
Intervention and outcome
The average frequency of migraine episodes before treatment was 1 to 2 per week, including nausea, vomiting, photophobia, and phonophobia; and the average duration of each episode was 1 to 3 days. The patient was treated with CSMT. She reported all episodes being eliminated after CSMT. The patient was certain there had been no other lifestyle changes that could have contributed to her improvement. She also noted that the use of her medication was reduced by 100%. A 7-year follow-up revealed that the person had still not had a single migraine episode in this period.
Conclusion
This case highlights that a subgroup of migraine patients may respond favorably to CSMT. While a case study does not represent significant scientific evidence, in context with other studies conducted, this study suggests that a trial of CSMT should be considered for chronic, nonresponsive migraine headache, especially if migraine patients are nonresponsive to pharmaceuticals or prefer to use other treatment methods.
doi:10.1016/j.jcme.2008.02.001
PMCID: PMC2682939  PMID: 19674722
Migraine; Chiropractic; Spinal manipulative therapy
5.  A TWELVE MONTH CLINICAL TRIAL OF CHIROPRACTIC SPINAL MANIPULATIVE THERAPY FOR MIGRAINE 
Objective: To assess the efficacy of Chiropractic spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) in the treatment of migraine.
Design: A prospective clinical trial of twelve months duration. The trial consisted of 3 stages: two month pre-treatment, two month treatment, and two months post treatment. Comparison of outcomes to the initial baseline factors was made and also 6 months after the cessation of the study.
Setting: Chiropractic Research Centre of Macquarie University.
Participants: Thirty two volunteers, between the ages of 20 to 65 were recruited through media advertising. The diagnosis of migraine was based on a self reported detailed questionnaire, with minimum of one migraine per month.
Interventions: Two months of chiropractic SMT at vertebral fixations determined by the practitioner, through orthopedic and chiropractic testing.
Main Outcome Measures: Participants completed diaries during the entire trial noting the frequency, intensity (visual analogue score), duration, disability, associated symptoms and use of medication for each migraine episode.
Results: The initial 32 participants showed statistically significant (p < 0.05) improvement in migraine frequency, VAS, disability, and medication use, when compared to initial baseline levels. A further assessment of outcomes after a six month follow up (based on 24 participants), continued to show statistically significant improvement in migraine frequency (p < 0.005), VAS (p < 0.01), disability (p < 0.05), and medication use (p < 0.01), when compared to initial baseline levels.
In addition, information was collected regarding any changes in neck pain following chiropractic SMT. The results indicated that 14 participants (58%) reported no increase in neck pain as a consequence of the two months of SMT. Five participants (21%) reported a slight increase, three participants (13%) reported mild pain, and two participants (8%) reported moderate pain.
Conclusion: The results of this study support the hypothesis that Chiropractic SMT is an effective treatment for migraine, in some people. However, a larger controlled study is required.
PMCID: PMC2051091  PMID: 17987194
Migraine; chiropractic; spinal manipulation; prospective trial; neck
6.  Chiropractic management of essential tremor and migraine: a case report 
Journal of Chiropractic Medicine  2012;11(2):121-126.
Objective
The purpose of this case report is to describe the chiropractic management of a 39-year-old woman with essential tremors and migraine headaches.
Clinical Features
A 39-year-old woman presented with essential tremors and migraine headaches, which occurred 2 to 3 times per week. The essential tremor was diagnosed in 2000, and migraine headaches with aura were diagnosed when she was 10. Both diagnoses were made by her general medical practitioner. Previous treatments for migraine included propranolol, isometheptene, dichloralphenazone, acetaminophen, sumatriptan, and over-the-counter pain relievers.
Intervention and Outcome
The patient received high-velocity, low-amplitude chiropractic spinal manipulation to her upper cervical spine using the Blair Upper Cervical chiropractic technique protocol. There was improvement in her tremors and migraine headaches following her initial chiropractic treatment, with a sustained improvement after 4 months of care.
Conclusion
This case study demonstrated improvement in a woman with essential tremors and migraine headaches. This suggests the need for more research to examine how upper cervical specific chiropractic care may help mitigate tremors and migraine headaches.
doi:10.1016/j.jcm.2011.10.006
PMCID: PMC3368974  PMID: 23204956
Tremor; Migraine; Spinal adjustment, Chiropractic
7.  Chiropractic spinal manipulative therapy for migraine: a study protocol of a single-blinded placebo-controlled randomised clinical trial 
BMJ Open  2015;5(11):e008095.
Introduction
Migraine affects 15% of the population, and has substantial health and socioeconomic costs. Pharmacological management is first-line treatment. However, acute and/or prophylactic medicine might not be tolerated due to side effects or contraindications. Thus, we aim to assess the efficacy of chiropractic spinal manipulative therapy (CSMT) for migraineurs in a single-blinded placebo-controlled randomised clinical trial (RCT).
Method and analysis
According to the power calculations, 90 participants are needed in the RCT. Participants will be randomised into one of three groups: CSMT, placebo (sham manipulation) and control (usual non-manual management). The RCT consists of three stages: 1 month run-in, 3 months intervention and follow-up analyses at the end of the intervention and 3, 6 and 12 months. The primary end point is migraine frequency, while migraine duration, migraine intensity, headache index (frequency x duration x intensity) and medicine consumption are secondary end points. Primary analysis will assess a change in migraine frequency from baseline to the end of the intervention and follow-up, where the groups CSMT and placebo and CSMT and control will be compared. Owing to two group comparisons, p values below 0.025 will be considered statistically significant. For all secondary end points and analyses, a p value below 0.05 will be used. The results will be presented with the corresponding p values and 95% CIs.
Ethics and dissemination
The RCT will follow the clinical trial guidelines from the International Headache Society. The Norwegian Regional Committee for Medical Research Ethics and the Norwegian Social Science Data Services have approved the project. Procedure will be conducted according to the declaration of Helsinki. The results will be published at scientific meetings and in peer-reviewed journals.
Trial registration number
NCT01741714.
doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008095
PMCID: PMC4654276  PMID: 26586317
STATISTICS & RESEARCH METHODS
8.  Anatomical Alterations of the Visual Motion Processing Network in Migraine with and without Aura 
PLoS Medicine  2006;3(10):e402.
Background
Patients suffering from migraine with aura (MWA) and migraine without aura (MWoA) show abnormalities in visual motion perception during and between attacks. Whether this represents the consequences of structural changes in motion-processing networks in migraineurs is unknown. Moreover, the diagnosis of migraine relies on patient's history, and finding differences in the brain of migraineurs might help to contribute to basic research aimed at better understanding the pathophysiology of migraine.
Methods and Findings
To investigate a common potential anatomical basis for these disturbances, we used high-resolution cortical thickness measurement and diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) to examine the motion-processing network in 24 migraine patients (12 with MWA and 12 MWoA) and 15 age-matched healthy controls (HCs). We found increased cortical thickness of motion-processing visual areas MT+ and V3A in migraineurs compared to HCs. Cortical thickness increases were accompanied by abnormalities of the subjacent white matter. In addition, DTI revealed that migraineurs have alterations in superior colliculus and the lateral geniculate nucleus, which are also involved in visual processing.
Conclusions
A structural abnormality in the network of motion-processing areas could account for, or be the result of, the cortical hyperexcitability observed in migraineurs. The finding in patients with both MWA and MWoA of thickness abnormalities in area V3A, previously described as a source in spreading changes involved in visual aura, raises the question as to whether a “silent” cortical spreading depression develops as well in MWoA. In addition, these experimental data may provide clinicians and researchers with a noninvasively acquirable migraine biomarker.
A structural abnormality in the network of motion-processing areas could account for, or be the result of, the cortical hyperexcitability seen in people who have migraine.
Editors' Summary
Background.
Migraine is a disabling brain disorder that affects more than one in ten people during their lifetimes. It is characterized by severe, recurrent headaches, often accompanied by nausea, vomiting, and light sensitivity. In some migraineurs (people who have migraines), the headaches are preceded by neurological disturbances known as “aura.” These usually affect vision, causing illusions of flashing lights, zig-zag lines, or blind spots. There are many triggers for migraine attacks—including some foods, stress, and bright lights—and every migraineur has to learn what triggers his or her attacks. There is no cure for migraine, although over-the-counter painkillers can ease the symptoms and doctors can prescribe stronger remedies or drugs to reduce the frequency of attacks. Exactly what causes migraine is unclear but scientists think that, for some reason, the brains of migraineurs are hyperexcitable. That is, some nerve cells in their brains overreact when they receive electrical messages from the body. This triggers a local disturbance of brain function called “cortical spreading depression,” which, in turn, causes aura, headache, and the other symptoms of migraine.
Why Was This Study Done?
Researchers need to know more about what causes migraine to find better treatments. One clue comes from the observation that motion perception is abnormal in migraineurs, even between attacks—they can be very sensitive to visually induced motion sickness, for example. Another clue is that aura are usually visual. So could brain regions that process visual information be abnormal in people who have migraines? In this study, the researchers investigated the structure of the motion processing parts of the brain in people who have migraine with aura, in people who have migraine without aura, and in unaffected individuals to see whether there were any differences that might help them understand migraine.
What Did the Researchers Do and Find?
The researchers used two forms of magnetic resonance imaging—a noninvasive way to produce pictures of internal organs—to examine the brains of migraineurs (when they weren't having a migraine) and healthy controls. They concentrated on two brain regions involved in motion processing known as the MT+ and V3A areas and first measured the cortical thickness of these areas—the cortex is the wrinkled layer of gray matter on the outside of the brain that processes information sent from the body. They found that the cortical thickness was increased in both of these areas in migraineurs when compared to healthy controls. There was no difference in cortical thickness between migraineurs who had aura and those who did not, but the area of cortical thickening in V3A corresponded to the source of cortical spreading depression previously identified in a person who had migraine with aura. The researchers also found differences between the white matter (the part of the brain that transfers information between different regions of the gray matter) immediately below the V3A and MT+ areas in the migraineurs and the controls but again not between the two groups of migraineurs.
What Do These Findings Mean?
This study provides new information about migraine. First, it identifies structural changes in the brains of people who have migraines. Until now, it has been thought that abnormal brain function causes migraine but that migraineurs have a normal brain structure. The observed structural differences might either account for or be caused by the hyperexcitability that triggers migraines. Because migraine runs in families, examining the brains of children of migraineurs as they grow up might indicate which of these options is correct, although it is possible that abnormalities in brain areas not examined here actually trigger migraines. Second, the study addresses a controversial question about migraine: Is migraine with aura the same as migraine without aura? The similar brain changes in both types of migraine suggest that they are one disorder. Third, the abnormalities in areas MT+ and V3A could help to explain why migraineurs have problems with visual processing even in between attacks. Finally, this study suggests that it might be possible to develop a noninvasive test to help doctors diagnose migraine.
Additional Information.
Please access these Web sites via the online version of this summary at http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0030402.
The MedlinePlus encyclopedia has several pages on migraine
The US National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke offers patient information on migraine and other headaches
The NHS Direct Online contains patient information on migraine from the UK National Health Service
MAGNUM provides information from The US National Migraine Association
The Migraine Trust is a UK charity that supports research and provides support for patients
The Migraine Aura Foundation is a site about aura that includes a section on art and aura
doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0030402
PMCID: PMC1609120  PMID: 17048979
9.  Chiropractic treatment of chronic episodic tension type headache in male subjects: a case series analysis 
Objective:
To assess effectiveness of chiropractic management, primarily cervical adjustment, in the treatment of chronic episodic muscle tension type headache in male patients.
Design:
Prospective case series analysis with pre-treatment baseline. Sixteen sessions of chiropractic care were provided to each patient over an eight week period. Data was also collected during a two week no-treatment baseline period prior to initiation of care. The subjects took no pain medication or had any other treatment for the entire duration of the study.
Setting:
A large chiropractic teaching clinic: Palmer College of Chiropractic-West Outpatient Clinic.
Participants:
Eleven male outpatients between the ages of 18-40 years old with a self-reported history of chronic headache at least six months duration and an average of at least weekly headache episodes were recruited. There was one dropout due to moving out of the area before study completion.
Interventions:
Primary: high velocity, short lever cervical adjustment (Diversified technique). Secondary: myofascial trigger point therapy using ischemic compression to the cervical and thoracic musculature; thoracic and lumbar adjustment if indicated (Diversified technique); moist hot packs to cervical and thoracic spine regions.
Outcome measures:
Pain diary measuring frequency, duration, and intensity of head/neck pain; and McGill Pain Questionnaires.
Results:
Mean pre-treatment to post-treatment headache frequency changed from 6.4 episodes per two week period to 3.1, a statistically significant change (p < 0.01). Mean pre-treatment to post-treatment headache duration changed from 6.7 hours per episode to 3.88 hours which was statistically significant (p < 0.05). Mean anchored pain scale intensity ratings changed from 5.05 to 3.37 but this was just beyond statistical significance (p = 0.059). There were no significant changes in any McGill pain questionnaire scores pre and post treatment.
Conclusions:
In this case series analysis of episodic tension headache in 10 male patients, typical chiropractic interventions of adjusting, muscle work and moist heat significantly reduced self-reported frequency and duration of headache episodes following 12 treatments over an 8 week period. No significant effect was observed in self-reported pain intensity, however a trend of reduction may indicate that a larger sample size might show increased significance. The McGill Pain Questionnaire did not appear to provide any useful information in assessing change in this sample. This may lend support to the result that little or no effect is obtained in reducing intensity of individual headache episodes with this treatment approach. These findings are limited by the small sample size and suggest a need for a larger study population as well as specific treatment comparison studies. These results may further be limited in that all subjects were male.
PMCID: PMC2485120
tension-type headache; muscle contraction headache; vertebrogenic headache; chiropractic; spinal manipulation
10.  Chronic migraine and chiropractic rehabilitation: A case report 
Abstract
Objective
To describe the use of chiropractic rehabilitation, functional assessment methods, and outcome measures in treatment of a single case of chronic recurrent migraine headache.
Clinical Features
A 22-year-old woman had migraine, recurrent duration 2 years. She had no history of trauma and the symptoms persisted despite multiple medical interventions. She had head pain, primarily left frontal retro-orbital, accompanied by nausea and visual aura of “spots” when severe.
Intervention and Outcome
This subject was managed with rehabilitative exercises in combination with chiropractic manipulation. Outcome measures, including the Headache Disability Index, are described.
Conclusion
The chronic recurrent migraine resolved over a 12-week period with use of chiropractic rehabilitation in this patient. More research is necessary to determine whether this approach is consistently reproducible and how it compares with spinal manipulation alone and other forms of treatment. Further investigation of combining rehabilitation with chiropractic manipulation for some migraine patients should be considered.
doi:10.1016/S0899-3467(07)60043-3
PMCID: PMC2646959  PMID: 19674596
Migraine; Headache; Rehabilitation; Chiropractic Manipulation; Cervical Spine; Headache Disability Index
11.  Effect of Atlas Vertebrae Realignment in Subjects with Migraine: An Observational Pilot Study 
BioMed Research International  2015;2015:630472.
Introduction. In a migraine case study, headache symptoms significantly decreased with an accompanying increase in intracranial compliance index following atlas vertebrae realignment. This observational pilot study followed eleven neurologist diagnosed migraine subjects to determine if the case findings were repeatable at baseline, week four, and week eight, following a National Upper Cervical Chiropractic Association intervention. Secondary outcomes consisted of migraine-specific quality of life measures. Methods. After examination by a neurologist, volunteers signed consent forms and completed baseline migraine-specific outcomes. Presence of atlas misalignment allowed study inclusion, permitting baseline MRI data collection. Chiropractic care continued for eight weeks. Postintervention reimaging occurred at week four and week eight concomitant with migraine-specific outcomes measurement. Results. Five of eleven subjects exhibited an increase in the primary outcome, intracranial compliance; however, mean overall change showed no statistical significance. End of study mean changes in migraine-specific outcome assessments, the secondary outcome, revealed clinically significant improvement in symptoms with a decrease in headache days. Discussion. The lack of robust increase in compliance may be understood by the logarithmic and dynamic nature of intracranial hemodynamic and hydrodynamic flow, allowing individual components comprising compliance to change while overall it did not. Study results suggest that the atlas realignment intervention may be associated with a reduction in migraine frequency and marked improvement in quality of life yielding significant reduction in headache-related disability as observed in this cohort. Future study with controls is necessary, however, to confirm these findings. Clinicaltrials.gov registration number is NCT01980927.
doi:10.1155/2015/630472
PMCID: PMC4689902  PMID: 26783523
12.  Transcutaneous supraorbital neurostimulation in “de novo” patients with migraine without aura: the first Italian experience 
Background
Transcutaneous supraorbital neurostimulation (tSNS) has been recently found superior to sham stimulation for episodic migraine prevention in a randomized trial. We evaluated both the safety and efficacy of a brief period of tSNS in a group of patients with migraine without aura (MwoA).
Methods
We enrolled 24 consecutive patients with MwoA experiencing a low frequency of attacks, which had never taken migraine preventive drugs in the course of their life. Patients performed a high frequency tSNS and were considered “compliant” if they used the tSNS for ≥ 2/3 of the total time expected. For this reason, four patients were excluded from the final statistical analysis. Primary outcome measures were the reduction migraine attacks and migraine days per month (p < 0.05). Furthermore, we evaluated the percentage of patients having at least 50 % reduction of monthly migraine attacks and migraine days. Secondary outcome measures were the reduction of headache severity during migraine attacks and HIT-6 (Headache Impact Test) rating as well as in monthly intake of rescue medication (p < 0.05). Finally, compliance and satisfaction to treatment and potential adverse effects related to tSNS have been evaluated.
Results
Between run-in and second month of tSNS treatment, both primary and secondary endpoints were met. Indeed, we observed a statistically significant decrease in the frequency of migraine attacks (p < 0.001) and migraine days (p < 0.001) per month. We also demonstrated at least 50 % reduction of monthly migraine attacks and migraine days in respectively 81 and 75 % of patients. Furthermore, a statistically significant reduction in average of pain intensity during migraine attacks (p = 0.002) and HIT-6 rating (p < 0.001) and intake of rescue medication (p < 0.001) has been shown. All patients showed good compliance levels and no relevant adverse events.
Conclusion
In patients experiencing a low frequency of attacks, significant improvements in multiple migraine severity parameters were observed following a brief period of high frequency tSNS. Therefore, tSNS may be considered a valid option for the preventive treatment of migraine attacks in patients who cannot or are not willing to take daily medications, or in whom low migraine frequency and/or intensity would not require pharmacological preventive therapies.
doi:10.1186/s10194-015-0551-3
PMCID: PMC4510103  PMID: 26197977
Migraine; Transcutaneous supraorbital neurostimulation; tSNS; Therapy; Cefaly
13.  A CASE STUDY OF CHRONIC HEADACHES 
The following paper is a case study of a patient with a history of chronic headaches (originally diagnosed as migraine without aura) who was being treaded at the Macquarie University Chiropractic Outpatients Clinic for cervical spine dysfunction. The treatments successfully reduced the upper neck and thoracic pain that the patient was experiencing and for which they had initially presented at the clinic. During the treatments, the patient also showed a significant subjective reduction in prevalence and intensity of headaches over a four month period. Analysis of the outcome is complicated by the fact that it is not clear whether the patient’s headaches were initially misdiagnosed as common migraine when in fact, they were cervicogenic. There may be some overlap between the two conditions, and a possible causative relationship between cervical spine dysfunction and common migraine. Furthermore, this case study discusses the validity of chiropractic treatment of organic disorders such as chronic headache or migraine.
PMCID: PMC2050613  PMID: 17987139
Chiropractic; headache.
14.  Assessing Barriers to Chronic Migraine Consultation, Diagnosis, and Treatment: Results From the Chronic Migraine Epidemiology and Outcomes (CaMEO) Study 
Headache  2016;56(5):821-834.
Objective
To assess the rates and predictors of traversing steps essential to good medical care for chronic migraine, including: (1) medical consultation, (2) accurate diagnosis, and (3) minimal pharmacologic treatment. Candidate predictors included socioeconomic, demographic, and headache‐specific variables.
Background
Previous research has established that barriers to effective management for episodic migraine include the absence of health insurance, lack of appropriate medical consultation, failure to receive an accurate diagnosis, and not being offered a regimen with acute and preventive treatments.
Methods/Design
The Chronic Migraine Epidemiology and Outcomes (CaMEO) Study, a longitudinal web‐based panel study of migraine, included a cross‐sectional module focused on patterns of and barriers to medical care. Participants eligible for this analysis met the study criteria for chronic migraine, had evidence of headache‐related disability, and provided data on health insurance status. The main outcomes in the current analysis included the proportion of respondents who sought consultation for headache with a designated healthcare professional, self‐reported receiving a diagnosis of chronic or transformed migraine, and received minimal pharmacologic treatment for headache with a focus on prescribed acute and preventive treatments.
Results
In the CaMEO Study, 80,783 respondents provided study data, 16,789 (20.8% of respondents) met criteria for migraine, and 1476 (8.8% of those with migraine) met chronic migraine criteria. In total, 1254 participants (85.0% of those with chronic migraine) met inclusion criteria for this analysis. Of those, 512 respondents (40.8%) reported currently consulting with a healthcare professional for headache. Odds of consulting increased with increasing age (OR 1.02; 95% CI 1.01–1.03), body mass index (BMI) (OR 1.01; 95% CI 1.00–1.03), migraine‐related disability (OR 1.02; 95% CI 1.00–1.04), and migraine severity (OR 1.16; 95% CI 1.11–1.22) and presence of health insurance (OR 4.61; 95% CI 3.05–6.96). Among those consulting a healthcare professional, 126 (24.6%) received an accurate diagnosis and 56 of those with a correct diagnosis (44.4%) received both acute and preventive pharmacologic treatments; odds of a CM diagnosis were higher for women (OR 1.93; 95% CI 1.03–3.61), those with greater migraine severity (OR 1.25; 95% CI 1.14–1.37), and those currently consulting a specialist (OR 2.38; 95% CI 1.54–3.69). No predictors of receiving appropriate treatment were identified among those currently consulting. Among our sample of people with chronic migraine, only 56 (4.5%) individuals successfully traversed the series of 3 barriers to successful chronic migraine care (ie, consulted a healthcare professional for migraine, received an accurate diagnosis, and were prescribed minimal acute and preventive pharmacologic treatments).
Conclusion
Our findings suggest that <5% of persons with chronic migraine traversed 3 barriers to receiving care for headache (consultation, diagnosis, and treatment), representing a large unmet need for improving care in this population. Predictors of consulting a healthcare professional included age, having health insurance, greater migraine‐related disability, and greater migraine symptom severity. Among those consulting, predictors of an appropriate diagnosis included consulting a specialist, female sex, and greater migraine severity. Public health efforts are needed to improve outcomes for patients with chronic migraine by a range of interventions and educational efforts aimed at improving consultation rates, diagnostic accuracy, and adherence to minimal pharmacologic treatment.
doi:10.1111/head.12774
PMCID: PMC5084794  PMID: 27143127
migraine; chronic migraine; barrier to care; headache‐related disability; acute medication; preventive medication
15.  Chiropractic Management of a Patient with Migraine Headache 
Abstract
Objective
To describe the use of chiropractic care for a patient with migraine headache.
Clinical Features
A patient suffered from migraine headaches after an automobile accident. Neck disability scores, visual analog score, and algometry scores were used to track patient progress.
Intervention and Outcome
The patient's range of motion, flexibility, and strength improved following a regimen of spinal manipulation and active and passive therapeutic care. After 12 weeks of treatment, the duration, frequency, and intensity of her migraines decreased.
Conclusion
This case offers an example of the potential effects of chiropractic and rehabilitative treatment for migraine headache sufferers.
doi:10.1016/S0899-3467(07)60109-8
PMCID: PMC2647030  PMID: 19674643
Migraine; Manipulation, Chiropractic; Musculoskeletal Manipulations; Exercise Movement Techniques
16.  Collaborative Care for Older Adults with low back pain by family medicine physicians and doctors of chiropractic (COCOA): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial 
Trials  2013;14:18.
Background
Low back pain is a prevalent and debilitating condition that affects the health and quality of life of older adults. Older people often consult primary care physicians about back pain, with many also receiving concurrent care from complementary and alternative medicine providers, most commonly doctors of chiropractic. However, a collaborative model of treatment coordination between these two provider groups has yet to be tested. The primary aim of the Collaborative Care for Older Adults Clinical Trial is to develop and evaluate the clinical effectiveness and feasibility of a patient-centered, collaborative care model with family medicine physicians and doctors of chiropractic for the treatment of low back pain in older adults.
Methods/design
This pragmatic, pilot randomized controlled trial will enroll 120 participants, age 65 years or older with subacute or chronic low back pain lasting at least one month, from a community-based sample in the Quad-Cities, Iowa/Illinois, USA. Eligible participants are allocated in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive 12 weeks of medical care, concurrent medical and chiropractic care, or collaborative medical and chiropractic care. Primary outcomes are self-rated back pain and disability. Secondary outcomes include general and functional health status, symptom bothersomeness, expectations for treatment effectiveness and improvement, fear avoidance behaviors, depression, anxiety, satisfaction, medication use and health care utilization. Treatment safety and adverse events also are monitored. Participant-rated outcome measures are collected via self-reported questionnaires and computer-assisted telephone interviews at baseline, and at 4, 8, 12, 24, 36 and 52 weeks post-randomization. Provider-rated expectations for treatment effectiveness and participant improvement also are evaluated. Process outcomes are assessed through qualitative interviews with study participants and research clinicians, chart audits of progress notes and content analysis of clinical trial notes.
Discussion
This pragmatic, pilot randomized controlled trial uses a mixed method approach to evaluate the clinical effectiveness, feasibility, and participant and provider perceptions of collaborative care between medical doctors and doctors of chiropractic in the treatment of older adults with low back pain.
Trial registration
This trial registered in ClinicalTrials.gov on 04 March 2011 with the ID number of NCT01312233.
doi:10.1186/1745-6215-14-18
PMCID: PMC3557195  PMID: 23324133
Aged; Chiropractic; Education; Professional; Electronic health records; Family practice; Integrative medicine; Interprofessional relations; Low back pain; Therapy
17.  The effect of chiropractic treatment on the reaction and response times of special operation forces military personnel: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial 
Trials  2016;17:457.
Background
Chiropractic care is commonly used to treat musculoskeletal conditions and has been endorsed by clinical practice guidelines as being evidence-based and cost-effective for the treatment of patients with low back pain. Gaps in the literature exist regarding the physiological outcomes of chiropractic treatment. Previous pilot work has indicated the possibility of improvements in response time following the application of chiropractic treatment. However, it is unknown whether or not chiropractic treatment is able to improve reaction and response times in specific populations of interest. One such population is the U.S. military special operation forces’ (SOF) personnel.
Methods
This study is a randomized controlled trial of 120 asymptomatic volunteer SOF personnel. All participants are examined by a study doctor of chiropractic (DC) for eligibility prior to randomization. The participants are randomly allocated to either a treatment group receiving four treatments of chiropractic manipulative therapy (CMT) over 2 weeks or to a wait-list control group. The wait-list group does not receive any treatment but has assessments at the same time interval as the treatment group. The outcome measures are simple reaction times for dominant hand and dominant foot, choice reaction time with prompts calling for either hand or either foot, response time using Fitts’ law tasks for small movements involving eye-hand coordination, and brief whole body movements using the t-wall, a commercially available product. At the first visit, all five tests are completed so that participants can familiarize themselves with the equipment and protocol. Assessments at the second and the final visits are used for data analysis.
Discussion
SOF personnel are highly motivated and extremely physically fit individuals whose occupation requires reaction times that are as quick as possible during the course of their assigned duties. A goal of CMT is to maximize the functionality and integration of the neuromusculoskeletal systems. Therefore, chiropractic treatment may be able to optimize the capacity of the numerous components of those systems, resulting in improved reaction time. The objective of this study is to test the hypothesis that CMT improves reaction and response times in asymptomatic SOF personnel.
Trial registration
ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02168153. Registered on 12 June 2014.
doi:10.1186/s13063-016-1580-1
PMCID: PMC5029007  PMID: 27645465
Chiropractic manipulative therapy; Reaction times; Response times; Special forces; Biomechanical assessments
18.  Beyond spinal manipulation: should Medicare expand coverage for chiropractic services? A review and commentary on the challenges for policy makers 
Objectives
Private insurance plans typically reimburse doctors of chiropractic for a range of clinical services, but Medicare reimbursements are restricted to spinal manipulation procedures. Medicare pays for evaluations performed by medical and osteopathic physicians, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, podiatrists, physical therapists, and occupational therapists; however, it does not reimburse the same services provided by chiropractic physicians. Advocates for expanded coverage of chiropractic services under Medicare cite clinical effectiveness and patient satisfaction, whereas critics point to unnecessary services, inadequate clinical documentation, and projected cost increases. To further inform this debate, the purpose of this commentary is to address the following questions: (1) What are the barriers to expand coverage for chiropractic services? (2) What could potentially be done to address these issues? (3) Is there a rationale for Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to expand coverage for chiropractic services?
Methods
A literature search was conducted of Google and PubMed for peer-reviewed articles and US government reports relevant to the provision of chiropractic care under Medicare. We reviewed relevant articles and reports to identify key issues concerning the expansion of coverage for chiropractic under Medicare, including identification of barriers and rationale for expanded coverage.
Results
The literature search yielded 29 peer-reviewed articles and 7 federal government reports. Our review of these documents revealed 3 key barriers to full coverage of chiropractic services under Medicare: inadequate documentation of chiropractic claims, possible provision of unnecessary preventive care services, and the uncertain costs of expanded coverage. Our recommendations to address these barriers include the following: individual chiropractic physicians, as well as state and national chiropractic organizations, should continue to strengthen efforts to improve claims and documentation practices; and additional rigorous efficacy/effectiveness research and clinical studies for chiropractic services need to be performed. Research of chiropractic services should target the triple aim of high-quality care, affordability, and improved health.
Conclusions
The barriers that were identified in this study can be addressed. To overcome these barriers, the chiropractic profession and individual physicians must assume responsibility for correcting deficiencies in compliance and documentation; further research needs to be done to evaluate chiropractic services; and effectiveness of extended episodes of preventive chiropractic care should be rigorously evaluated. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services policies related to chiropractic reimbursement should be reexamined using the same standards applicable to other health care providers. The integration of chiropractic physicians as fully engaged Medicare providers has the potential to enhance the capacity of the Medicare workforce to care for the growing population. We recommend that Medicare policy makers consider limited expansion of Medicare coverage to include, at a minimum, reimbursement for evaluation and management services by chiropractic physicians.
doi:10.1016/j.echu.2013.07.001
PMCID: PMC4111075  PMID: 25067927
Chiropractic; Medicare; Spinal manipulation; Public policy; Health policy; Health care reform
19.  Can weight loss improve migraine headaches in obese women? Rationale and design of the WHAM randomized controlled trial 
Contemporary clinical trials  2013;35(1):133-144.
Background
Research demonstrates a link between migraine and obesity. Obesity increases the risk of frequent migraines and is associated with migraine prevalence among reproductive-aged women. These findings are substantiated by several plausible mechanisms and emerging evidence of migraine improvements after surgical and non-surgical weight loss. However, no previous study has examined the effect of weight loss on migraine within a treatment-controlled framework. The WHAM trial is a RCT to test the efficacy of behavioral weight loss as a treatment for migraine.
Study design
Overweight/obese women (n=140; BMI=25.0–49.9 kg/m2) who meet international diagnostic criteria for migraine and record ≥3 migraines and 4–20 migraine days using a smartphone-based headache diary during a 4-week baseline period, will be randomly assigned to 4 months of either group-based behavioral weight loss (intervention) or migraine education (control). Intervention participants will be taught strategies to increase physical activity and consume fewer calories in order to lose weight. Control participants will receive general education on migraine symptoms/triggers and various treatment approaches. Both groups will use smartphones to record their headaches for 4 weeks at baseline, after the 16-week treatment period, and at the end of a 16-week follow-up period. Changes in weight and other potential physiological (inflammation), psychological (depression), and behavioral (diet and physical activity) mediators of the intervention effect will also be assessed.
Conclusion
The WHAM trial will evaluate the efficacy of a standardized behavioral weight loss intervention for reducing migraine frequency, and the extent to which weight loss and other potential mediators account for intervention effects.
doi:10.1016/j.cct.2013.03.004
PMCID: PMC3640582  PMID: 23524340
migraine; headache; obesity; weight loss; randomized controlled trial
20.  Migraine and psychiatric comorbidity: a review of clinical findings 
The Journal of Headache and Pain  2011;12(2):115-125.
Migraine is an extremely common disorder. The underlying mechanisms of this chronic illness interspersed with acute symptoms appear to be increasingly complex. An important aspect of migraine heterogeneity is comorbidity with other neurological diseases, cardiovascular disorders, and psychiatric illnesses. Depressive disorders are among the leading causes of disability worldwide according to WHO estimation. In this review, we have mainly considered the findings from general population studies and studies on clinical samples, in adults and children, focusing on the association between migraine and psychiatric disorders (axis I of the DSM), carried over after the first classification of IHS (1988). Though not easily comparable due to differences in methodology to reach diagnosis, general population studies generally indicate an increased risk of affective and anxiety disorders in patients with migraine, compared to non-migrainous subjects. There would also be a trend towards an association of migraine with bipolar disorder, but not with substance abuse/dependence. With respect to migraine subtypes, comorbidity mainly involves migraine with aura. Patients suffering from migraine, however, show a decreased risk of developing affective and anxiety disorders compared to patients with daily chronic headache. It would also appear that psychiatric disorders prevail in patients with chronic headache and substance use than in patients with simple migraine. The mechanisms underlying migraine psychiatric comorbidity are presently poorly understood, but this topic remains a priority for future research. Psychiatric comorbidity indeed affects migraine evolution, may lead to chronic substance use, and may change treatment strategies, eventually modifying the outcome of this important disorder.
doi:10.1007/s10194-010-0282-4
PMCID: PMC3072482  PMID: 21210177
Migraine; Comorbidity; Psychiatric disorders; Depression; Meta-analysis
21.  Migraine and psychiatric comorbidity: a review of clinical findings 
The Journal of Headache and Pain  2011;12(2):115-125.
Migraine is an extremely common disorder. The underlying mechanisms of this chronic illness interspersed with acute symptoms appear to be increasingly complex. An important aspect of migraine heterogeneity is comorbidity with other neurological diseases, cardiovascular disorders, and psychiatric illnesses. Depressive disorders are among the leading causes of disability worldwide according to WHO estimation. In this review, we have mainly considered the findings from general population studies and studies on clinical samples, in adults and children, focusing on the association between migraine and psychiatric disorders (axis I of the DSM), carried over after the first classification of IHS (1988). Though not easily comparable due to differences in methodology to reach diagnosis, general population studies generally indicate an increased risk of affective and anxiety disorders in patients with migraine, compared to non-migrainous subjects. There would also be a trend towards an association of migraine with bipolar disorder, but not with substance abuse/dependence. With respect to migraine subtypes, comorbidity mainly involves migraine with aura. Patients suffering from migraine, however, show a decreased risk of developing affective and anxiety disorders compared to patients with daily chronic headache. It would also appear that psychiatric disorders prevail in patients with chronic headache and substance use than in patients with simple migraine. The mechanisms underlying migraine psychiatric comorbidity are presently poorly understood, but this topic remains a priority for future research. Psychiatric comorbidity indeed affects migraine evolution, may lead to chronic substance use, and may change treatment strategies, eventually modifying the outcome of this important disorder.
doi:10.1007/s10194-010-0282-4
PMCID: PMC3072482  PMID: 21210177
Migraine; Comorbidity; Psychiatric disorders; Depression; Meta-analysis
22.  Effect of preventive (β blocker) treatment, behavioural migraine management, or their combination on outcomes of optimised acute treatment in frequent migraine: randomised controlled trial 
Objective To determine if the addition of preventive drug treatment (β blocker), brief behavioural migraine management, or their combination improves the outcome of optimised acute treatment in the management of frequent migraine.
Design Randomised placebo controlled trial over 16 months from July 2001 to November 2005.
Setting Two outpatient sites in Ohio, USA.
Participants 232 adults (mean age 38 years; 79% female) with diagnosis of migraine with or without aura according to International Headache Society classification of headache disorders criteria, who recorded at least three migraines with disability per 30 days (mean 5.5 migraines/30 days), during an optimised run-in of acute treatment.
Interventions Addition of one of four preventive treatments to optimised acute treatment: β blocker (n=53), matched placebo (n=55), behavioural migraine management plus placebo (n=55), or behavioural migraine management plus β blocker (n=69).
Main outcome measure The primary outcome was change in migraines/30 days; secondary outcomes included change in migraine days/30 days and change in migraine specific quality of life scores.
Results Mixed model analysis showed statistically significant (P≤0.05) differences in outcomes among the four added treatments for both the primary outcome (migraines/30 days) and the two secondary outcomes (change in migraine days/30 days and change in migraine specific quality of life scores). The addition of combined β blocker and behavioural migraine management (−3.3 migraines/30 days, 95% confidence interval −3.2 to −3.5), but not the addition of β blocker alone (−2.1 migraines/30 days, −1.9 to −2.2) or behavioural migraine management alone (−2.2 migraines migraines/30 days, −2.0 to −2.4), improved outcomes compared with optimised acute treatment alone (−2.1 migraines/30 days, −1.9 to −2.2). For a clinically significant (≥50% reduction) in migraines/30 days, the number needed to treat for optimised acute treatment plus combined β blocker and behavioural migraine management was 3.1 compared with optimised acute treatment alone, 2.6 compared with optimised acute treatment plus β blocker, and 3.1 compared with optimised acute treatment plus behavioural migraine management. Results were consistent for the two secondary outcomes, and at both month 10 (the primary endpoint) and month 16.
Conclusion The addition of combined β blocker plus behavioural migraine management, but not the addition of β blocker alone or behavioural migraine management alone, improved outcomes of optimised acute treatment. Combined β blocker treatment and behavioural migraine management may improve outcomes in the treatment of frequent migraine.
Trial registration Clinical trials NCT00910689.
doi:10.1136/bmj.c4871
PMCID: PMC2947621  PMID: 20880898
23.  Effect of preventive (β blocker) treatment, behavioural migraine management, or their combination on outcomes of optimised acute treatment in frequent migraine: randomised controlled trial 
The BMJ  2010;341:c4871.
Objective To determine if the addition of preventive drug treatment (β blocker), brief behavioural migraine management, or their combination improves the outcome of optimised acute treatment in the management of frequent migraine.
Design Randomised placebo controlled trial over 16 months from July 2001 to November 2005.
Setting Two outpatient sites in Ohio, USA.
Participants 232 adults (mean age 38 years; 79% female) with diagnosis of migraine with or without aura according to International Headache Society classification of headache disorders criteria, who recorded at least three migraines with disability per 30 days (mean 5.5 migraines/30 days), during an optimised run-in of acute treatment.
Interventions Addition of one of four preventive treatments to optimised acute treatment: β blocker (n=53), matched placebo (n=55), behavioural migraine management plus placebo (n=55), or behavioural migraine management plus β blocker (n=69).
Main outcome measure The primary outcome was change in migraines/30 days; secondary outcomes included change in migraine days/30 days and change in migraine specific quality of life scores.
Results Mixed model analysis showed statistically significant (P≤0.05) differences in outcomes among the four added treatments for both the primary outcome (migraines/30 days) and the two secondary outcomes (change in migraine days/30 days and change in migraine specific quality of life scores). The addition of combined β blocker and behavioural migraine management (−3.3 migraines/30 days, 95% confidence interval −3.2 to −3.5), but not the addition of β blocker alone (−2.1 migraines/30 days, −1.9 to −2.2) or behavioural migraine management alone (−2.2 migraines migraines/30 days, −2.0 to −2.4), improved outcomes compared with optimised acute treatment alone (−2.1 migraines/30 days, −1.9 to −2.2). For a clinically significant (≥50% reduction) in migraines/30 days, the number needed to treat for optimised acute treatment plus combined β blocker and behavioural migraine management was 3.1 compared with optimised acute treatment alone, 2.6 compared with optimised acute treatment plus β blocker, and 3.1 compared with optimised acute treatment plus behavioural migraine management. Results were consistent for the two secondary outcomes, and at both month 10 (the primary endpoint) and month 16.
Conclusion The addition of combined β blocker plus behavioural migraine management, but not the addition of β blocker alone or behavioural migraine management alone, improved outcomes of optimised acute treatment. Combined β blocker treatment and behavioural migraine management may improve outcomes in the treatment of frequent migraine.
Trial registration Clinical trials NCT00910689.
doi:10.1136/bmj.c4871
PMCID: PMC2947621  PMID: 20880898
24.  Migraine Care Among Different Ethnicities: Do Disparities Exist? 
Headache  2006;46(5):754-765.
Objective
Evaluate whether, in a primary care setting, Caucasians (C) and African Americans (AA) with moderately to severely disabling migraines differed in regards to: utilizing the health-care system for migraine care, migraine diagnosis and treatment, level of mistrust in the health-care system, perceived communication with their physician, and perceived migraine triggers.
Background
Research has documented ethnic disparities in pain management. However, almost no research has been published concerning potential disparities in utilization, diagnosis, and/or treatment of migraine. It is also important to consider whether ethnic differences exist for trust and communication between patients and physicians, as these are essential when diagnosing and treating migraine.
Methods
Adult patients with headache (n = 313) were recruited from primary care waiting rooms. Of these, 131 (AA = 77; C = 54) had migraine, moderate to severe headache-related disability, and provided socioeconomic status (SES) data. Participants completed measures of migraine disability (MIDAS), migraine health-care utilization, diagnosis and treatment history, mistrust of the medical community, patient–physician communication (PPC), and migraine triggers. Analysis of covariance (controlling for SES and recruitment site), chi-square, and Pearson product moment correlations were conducted.
Results
African Americans were less likely to utilize the health-care setting for migraine treatment (AA = 46% vs. C = 72%, P < .001), to have been given a headache diagnosis (AA = 47% vs. C = 70%, P < .001), and to have been prescribed acute migraine medication (AA = 14% vs. C = 37%, P < .001). Migraine diagnosis was low for both groups, and <15% of all participants had been prescribed a migraine-specific medication or a migraine preventive medication despite suffering moderate to severe levels of migraine disability. African Americans had less trust in the medical community (P < .001, η2 = 0.26) and less positive PPC (P < .001, η2 = 0.11). Also, the lower the trust and communication, the less likely they were to have ever seen (or currently be seeing) a doctor for migraine care or to have been prescribed medication.
Conclusions
Migraine utilization, diagnosis, and treatment were low for both groups. However, this was especially true for African Americans, who also reported lower levels of trust and communication with doctors relative to Caucasians. The findings highlight the need for improved physician and patient education about migraine diagnosis and treatment, the importance of cultural variation in pain presentation, and the importance of communication when diagnosing and treating migraine.
doi:10.1111/j.1526-4610.2006.00453.x
PMCID: PMC2443411  PMID: 16643578
migraine; ethnicity; health-care disparities; utilization; migraine diagnosis and treatment; patient–physician communication
25.  Impact of migraine on fibromyalgia symptoms 
Background
Fibromyalgia (FMS) and high frequency episodic/chronic migraine (M) very frequently co-occur, suggesting common pathophysiological mechanisms; both conditions display generalized somatic hyperalgesia. In FMS-M comorbidity we assessed if: a different level of hyperalgesia is present compared to one condition only; hyperalgesia is a function of migraine frequency; migraine attacks trigger FMS symptoms.
Methods
Female patients with fibromyalgia (FMS)(n.40), high frequency episodic migraine (M1)(n.41), chronic migraine (M2)(n.40), FMS + M1 (n.42) and FMS + M2 (n.40) underwent recording of: −electrical pain thresholds in skin, subcutis and muscle and pressure pain thresholds in control sites, −pressure pain thresholds in tender points (TePs), −number of monthly migraine attacks and fibromyalgia flares (3-month diary). Migraine and FMS parameters were evaluated before and after migraine prophylaxis, or no prophylaxis, for 3 months with calcium-channel blockers, in two further FMS + H1 groups (n.49, n.39). 1-way ANOVA was applied to test trends among groups, Student’s t-test for paired samples was used to compare pre and post-treatment values.
Results
The lowest electrical and pressure thresholds at all sites and tissues were found in FMS + M2, followed by FMS + H1, FMS, M2 and M1 (trend: p < 0.0001). FMS monthly flares were progressively higher in FMS, FMS + M1 and FMS + M2 (p < 0.0001); most flares (86–87 %) occurred within 12 h from a migraine attack in co-morbid patients (p < 0.0001). Effective migraine prophylaxis vs no prophylaxis also produced a significant improvement of FMS symptoms (decreased monthly flares, increased pain thresholds)(0.0001 < p < 0.003).
Conclusions
Co-morbidity between fibromyalgia and migraine involves heightened somatic hyperalgesia compared to one condition only. Increased migraine frequency – with shift towards chronicity – enhances both hyperalgesia and spontaneous FMS pain, which is reversed by effective migraine prophylaxis. These results suggest different levels of central sensitization in patients with migraine, fibromyalgia or both conditions and a role for migraine as a triggering factor for FMS.
doi:10.1186/s10194-016-0619-8
PMCID: PMC4803717  PMID: 27002510
Migraine; Fibromyalgia; Pain thresholds; Tender points; Hyperalgesia; Central sensitization

Results 1-25 (1845899)