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.

  • 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.
  • [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. DOI:10.1124/pr.111.005447 · 18.55 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Central sensitisation phenomena have been well recognized in the development of migraine attacks and tension type headache. It is also known that headache frequency is related to sensitization. Though some studies have focused on the effects of symptomatic treatment on allodynia, few reports have described the action of preventive agents on the facilitating factors for central sensitisation. In this study we aim to review the factors concurrent with an increase in central sensitisation, in view of the choice of preventive agents for primary headaches. Central sensitisation phenomena are increased in pain syndromes with psycho-pathological co-morbidities. For instance, sleep disorders are a frequent symptom in headache, prevailing in chronic forms and in patients with psychiatric comorbidity. Sleep deprivation is also a factor producing hyperalgesic changes. It is known that symptoms attributable to central sensitization are diffusely pronounced in fibromyalgic (FMS) patients, and that FMS co-morbidity is frequent in primary headaches and associated with higher frequency and poorer quality of life. We report our preliminary experience in a group of 20 chronic migraine patients, treated with duloxetine 60 mg/die vs a self-management program including stretching (relaxation training) and exercise (cervical-dorsal flexion and rotation) to decrease strength and flexibility of muscles of cervical and dorsal spine headache patients. Both the treatments were effective on headache frequency and pericranial tenderness, although FMS comorbidity significantly reduced their efficacy on migraine and quality of life. The whole spectrum of action of pharmacological and non pharmacological treatments on central sensitisation mechanisms, and on their facilitating factors, should be taken into account for the best preventive therapeutic approach of primary headaches.
    CNS & neurological disorders drug targets 01/2009; 7(6):524-35. DOI:10.2174/187152708787122932 · 2.70 Impact Factor

Preview (3 Sources)

Available from