Article

Intra-oral orthosis vs amitriptyline in chronic tension-type headache: a clinical and laser evoked potentials study.

Neurological and Psychiatric Sciences Department University of Bari, Bari, Italy.
Head & Face Medicine (Impact Factor: 0.87). 02/2006; 2:15. DOI: 10.1186/1746-160X-2-15
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT In the present study, we examined clinical and laser-evoked potentials (LEP) features in two groups of chronic tension-type headache (CTTH) patients treated with two different approaches: intra-oral appliance of prosthesis, aiming to reduce muscular tenderness, and 10 mg daily amitriptyline.
Eighteen patients with diagnosed CTTH participated in this open label, controlled study. A baseline evaluation was performed for clinical features, Total Tenderness Score (TTS) and a topographic analysis of LEPs obtained manually and the pericranial points stimulation in all patients vs. healthy subjects. Thereafter, patients were randomly assigned to a two-month treatment by either amitriptyline or intra-oral appliance.
Both the intra-oral appliance and amitriptyline significantly reduced headache frequency. The TTS was significantly reduced in the group treated with the appliance. The amplitude of P2 response elicited by stimulation of pericranial zones showed a reduction after amitriptyline treatment.Both therapies were effective in reducing headache severity, the appliance with a prevalent action on the pericranial muscular tenderness, amitriptyline reducing the activity of the central cortical structures subtending pain elaboration
The results of this study may suggest that in CTTH both the interventions at the peripheral and central levels improve the outcome of headache.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
85 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Pain models in animals have shown low predictivity for analgesic efficacy in humans, and clinical studies are often very confounded, blurring the evaluation. Human experimental pain models may therefore help to evaluate mechanisms and effect of analgesics and bridge findings from basic studies to the clinic. The present review outlines the concept and limitations of human experimental pain models and addresses analgesic efficacy in healthy volunteers and patients. Experimental models to evoke pain and hyperalgesia are available for most tissues. In healthy volunteers, the effect of acetaminophen is difficult to detect unless neurophysiological methods are used, whereas the effect of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs could be detected in most models. Anticonvulsants and antidepressants are sensitive in several models, particularly in models inducing hyperalgesia. For opioids, tonic pain with high intensity is attenuated more than short-lasting pain and nonpainful sensations. Fewer studies were performed in patients. In general, the sensitivity to analgesics is better in patients than in healthy volunteers, but the lower number of studies may bias the results. Experimental models have variable reliability, and validity shall be interpreted with caution. Models including deep, tonic pain and hyperalgesia are better to predict the effects of analgesics. Assessment with neurophysiologic methods and imaging is valuable as a supplement to psychophysical methods and can increase sensitivity. The models need to be designed with careful consideration of pharmacological mechanisms and pharmacokinetics of analgesics. Knowledge obtained from this review can help design experimental pain studies for new compounds entering phase I and II clinical trials.
    Pharmacological reviews 06/2012; 64(3):722-79. · 18.55 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The first edition of the Italian diagnostic and therapeutic guidelines for primary headaches in adults was published in J Headache Pain 2(Suppl. 1):105-190 (2001). Ten years later, the guideline committee of the Italian Society for the Study of Headaches (SISC) decided it was time to update therapeutic guidelines. A literature search was carried out on Medline database, and all articles on primary headache treatments in English, German, French and Italian published from February 2001 to December 2011 were taken into account. Only randomized controlled trials (RCT) and meta-analyses were analysed for each drug. If RCT were lacking, open studies and case series were also examined. According to the previous edition, four levels of recommendation were defined on the basis of levels of evidence, scientific strength of evidence and clinical effectiveness. Recommendations for symptomatic and prophylactic treatment of migraine and cluster headache were therefore revised with respect to previous 2001 guidelines and a section was dedicated to non-pharmacological treatment. This article reports a summary of the revised version published in extenso in an Italian version.
    The Journal of Headache and Pain 05/2012; 13 Suppl 2:S31-70. · 3.28 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: This study was designed to compare the effectiveness of oral gabapentin and locally injected depomedrol in trig-ger points (TrPts) of the head of patients suffering from chronic tension type headaches (CTTH). METHODS: In this study patients with a diagnosis of CTTH who had at least one active trigger point in their scalp were recruited. Patients were randomly divided into two groups: one receiving depomedrol and the other receiving gabapentin. Depomedrol was injected 10 mg per each TrPt up to a to-tal dose of 40 mg in each patient. Gabapentin was initiated with 200 mg/day and was gradually increased to 300-600 mg daily de-pending on the therapeutic response. Patients were followed for two months and during the study patients were given a headache di-ary to record the number, duration and intensity of their headaches, these records were compared at baseline one month and two months after the initiation of therapy. RESULTS: Headache Intensity × Duration index showed a significant decrease in both groups. It was however, significantly lower in depomedrol receiving patients at the end of the first 4 weeks (368.13 ± 195.75 Vs. 467.73 ± 203.09, p < 0.05), and the second 4 weeks (165.44 ± 62.75 Vs. 238.68 ± 81.39, p < 0.05). Similar superiority was detecta-ble for intensity, duration and frequency of headaches (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: We found trigger point injection with depome-drol to be a more potent prophylactic agent in comparison to daily oral gabapentin.

Preview (2 Sources)

Download
0 Downloads
Available from