Content uploaded by Giresh Kanji
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Giresh Kanji on Mar 11, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
Efficacy of Regular Sauna Bathing for Chronic
Tension-Type Headache:
A Randomized Controlled Study
Giresh Kanji, PhD,
1
Mark Weatherall, FRACP,
2
Raja Peter, PhD,
3
Gordon Purdie, BSc,
4
and Rachel Page, PhD
5
Abstract
Objective: Chronic tension-type headache (CTTH) is a chronic syndrome characterized by frequent headache
occurring more than 15 days per month. The intensity and duration of headache pain can be very distressing and
disabling on an individuals’ well-being. The purpose of this study was to examine the applicability of sauna
bathing as a new method of treatment for reducing pain in patients with CTTH.
Methods: Thirty-seven people who fulfilled the International Headache Society criteria for CTTH were ran-
domly assigned into two groups. The control group (n=20) received advice and education while the inter-
vention group (n=17) received the same advice and attended a sauna regularly for 8 weeks. Reductions in
subjective pain were determined using the numerical pain rating scale (NPRS). Disturbance in sleep, depression
as assessed by Beckman Disability Index (BDI), and Headache Disability Index (HDI) were measured.
Results: Mean change in headache intensity significantly differed between the sauna and control group by 1.27
(95% confidence interval, 0.48–2.07; F=10.17; df =1, 117; p=0.002). There was no statistically significant
change in duration of headache or improvement in sleep, depression, or HDI between the sauna and control groups.
Conclusion: Regular sauna bathing is a simple, self-directed treatment that is effective for reducing headache
pain intensity in CTTH.
Introduction
Headache disorders, including tension-type headache
(TTH) and migraine, are syndromes (symptoms with no
known cause). The symptom of pain in the head seems to
affect every aspect of a person’s well-being causing dis-
ability
1
and is a major public health problem because it costs
billions of dollars in treatment and lost productivity world-
wide.
2–5
Headache disorders account for up to 20% of all
work absences due to illness.
6
Chronic tension-type headache (CTTH) is defined as 15 or
more episodes of TTH per month. The prevalence of CTTH is
around 3%.
7
CTTH is notoriously difficult to treat and often
coexists with migraine, making a diagnosis difficult at times.
The first author’s PhD research (Kanji, G. 2013. The
Sensory Amplification of Pain: The Adrenaline Model of
Headache Causation. PhD diss., Massey Univ.), led to crea-
tion of a model of central sensitization, whose main focus is
on reduction in pain threshold through increased sympathetic
tone and increased pain threshold through reduced sympa-
thetic tone. Sympathetic tone is reduced by relaxation,
8
heat,
9
and regular exercise.
10
Prior research has found regular ex-
ercise and autogenic meditation to be helpful for headache
disorders,
11
with relaxation and regular exercise possibly
reducing sympathetic tone. Because heat reduces sympathetic
tone,
9
we decided to investigate whether regular sauna bath-
ing would improve symptoms in CTTH.
To identify relevant articles on the effects of sauna on chronic
pain, a literature search of Web of Science, EBSCO, and Ovid
Medline was performed by using ‘‘far-infrared sauna’’ OR
‘‘sauna’’ OR ‘‘thermal therapy.’’ The above search was com-
bined by using AND with ‘‘pain.’’ Articles were restricted to the
English language and human participants. Clinical trials of sauna
for chronic pain conditions were restricted to randomized con-
trolled trials (RCTs); however, because of the search yielded no
RCTs, prospective case series were included if there were more
1
Musculoskeletal Pain Specialist, Wellington Pain and Headache Clinic, Southern Cross Hospital, Wellington, New Zealand.
2
Department of Medicine, University of Otago Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand.
3
School of Communication and Journalism, Massey University, Wellington, New Zealand.
4
Biostatistical Services, University of Otago Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand.
5
Institute of Food, Nutrition and Human Health, Massey University, Wellington, New Zealand.
THE JOURNAL OF ALTERNATIVE AND COMPLEMENTARY MEDICINE
Volume 21, Number 2, 2015, pp. 103–109
ªMary Ann Liebert, Inc.
DOI: 10.1089/acm.2013.0466
103
than 10 participants. This search identified one RCT
12
and three
case series.
13–15
The RCT showed greater improvement in pain
score and depression in the sauna group, although these did not
reach statistical significance; it also showed a reduction in anger
scores, which was statistically significant. The treatment was
ratedverysatisfactoryby18(82%)ofthepatientswithchronic
pain in the sauna group. Overall, the three case series showed a
positive effect of regular sauna bathing on chronic pain. The
sauna was well tolerated by the participants, and no significant
adverse effects were observed.
Sauna may represent a novel treatment option for CTTH
and may appeal to many patients who prefer not to take
medications because of problems with tolerance and adverse
effects. The purpose of this study was to investigate the
efficacy of regular sauna bathing on reducing headache pain
intensity and duration.
Materials and Methods
Study design
This was a 12-week, parallel-group RCT. The control group
received education and self-directed soft tissue massage, while
the intervention group received education and self-directed soft
tissue massage and attended a sauna three times a week for 20
minutes for 8 weeks. The soft tissue massage prescribed to both
groups was based on acupressure massage techniques. This
was self-directed to be performed daily over tender muscles in
the neck region. Participants were given a handout on the
technique. Sauna cards were given to those attending saunas
associated with local public swimming pools in several loca-
tions within Wellington, New Zealand. Before participants
provided consent to enter into the study, they were given an
information sheet outlining the study design. The participants
were aware that there were two arms to the trial but unaware of
what the treatment arm of the trial consisted.
Participants
Volunteers were recruited from Wellington, New Zeal-
and, between September 2008 and March 2009 by adver-
tising in local newspapers. The study was carried out at
Southern Cross Hospital, a private hospital in Newtown,
Wellington. The Upper South A Regional Ethics Committee
approved the study. The trial was registered with the Aus-
tralian New Zealand Control Trial Registry (registration
number 12609000746235).
Inclusion criteria were age 20 to 70 years and CTTH,
defined by the International Headache Society classifica-
tion
16
as headaches present for more than 15 days per
month. The pain is typically bilateral, pressing or tightening
in quality, and of mild to moderate intensity, and it does not
worsen with routine physical activity. Mild nausea, photo-
phobia, or phonophobia may be present. Exclusion criteria
were a known cause of symptoms, such as acute sinusitis,
eyesight, head injury or ear problems, cancer, acute infec-
tions (including viral illness), previous spinal surgery, can-
cer, and pregnancy or intended pregnancy.
Study procedures
A randomization schedule was created from random-
number tables obtained from an investigator not involved
with the clinical trial. The allocation list was administered
by the principal investigator at the initial appointment once
patients met the criteria for CTTH.
Figure 1 shows the timeline for the study. Potential par-
ticipants for the trial were called and screened for eligibility.
All eligible participants were given a 4-week headache
diary. Participants kept a daily record of worst pain expe-
rienced that day and daily duration of headache in hours.
Once participants completed their 4-week diary, they were
seen at an initial consultation that lasted 30 minutes.
FIG. 1. Timeline for the study. F, fortnight in the study; F0, weeks 1 and 2; F1, weeks 3 and 4; F2, weeks 5 and 6; F3,
weeks 7 and 8; F4, weeks 9 and 10; F5, weeks 11 and 12.
104 KANJI ET AL.
Before the initial consultation, reception staff blinded
to the intervention administered a questionnaire to obtain
baseline data, including demographic information, numeri-
cal sleep disturbance score (0 =no sleep disturbance; 10 =
extreme sleep disturbance), Beck Depression Inventory
(BDI) score,
17
and Headache Disability Index (HDI)
score.
18
At the initial consultation (T
0
) a brief history and
examination were performed. Both groups were educated on
a model of headache causation and given instruction on self-
directed soft tissue massage. The intervention group was
given a sauna card and information on the safe use of sauna.
These participants were advised to attend the sauna for 20
minutes three times per week. Both groups received hand-
outs with the model of headache causation and instructions
on their respective treatments. Patients were advised to
continue with their usual medical care. The participants
were not told whether the sauna treatment was the control
arm of the trial; however, allocation to sauna treatment was
not masked.
Participants continued their allocated treatment for 8
weeks. At the second week a telephone follow-up was
performed to ensure compliance and assist with any diffi-
culties. At the end of 8 weeks, participants were seen at a
final consultation (T
1
). Before the final consultation, par-
ticipants completed the same questionnaire administered
prior to the initial consultation.
Outcome measures
The primary outcome measure in this study was the
change in the numeric pain rating scale (NPRS) for head-
ache intensity from the fortnight at baseline to the last
fortnight. The NPRS is an 11-point scale on which 0 =no
pain and 10 =worst pain imaginable. Secondary outcomes
were reductions in daily duration of headache measured
from the fortnight at baseline before the intervention and the
last fortnight. Depression as determined by the BDI II
questionnaire,
17
HDI score as determined using the HDI
questionnaire,
18
and sleep disturbance as measured by a
numeric rating scale were obtained at T
0
and T
1
. All mea-
surements were self-reported.
Sample size
Previous research
19
on headache found a mean value for
pain intensity on a visual analogue scale at presentation of 8
of 10 with a standard deviation of 1.5. To have 80% power,
at an avalue of 0.05 to detect a difference of 1.5 units
between two randomized groups, 17 participants had to be
randomly assigned to each of two groups, with a total of 34
participants for the study. We aimed at recruiting 40 par-
ticipants to allow for dropouts.
Statistical analysis
SAS software, version 9.3 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary,
NC), was used for the statistical analysis. Data were ana-
lyzed on a per protocol basis. All participants who un-
derwent random allocation were analyzed according to
the group assignment. Data entry was blinded to treatment
allocation. Data were analyzed by using average fort-
nightly NPRS and headache duration data immediately
before treatment and for the last fortnight. For all the
outcome variables, change from the baseline to the end of
the treatment period was calculated.
To investigate the main effects of treatment group and
time and their interaction, an analysis of the headache in-
tensity and duration using a mixed model analysis of vari-
ance was performed. The fixed effects were group and time
and their interaction. The random effect was the participant,
with a compound symmetry covariance structure for re-
peated measurements. Group main effects for change from
baseline in pain intensity and duration were estimated with a
contrast for the difference between control group and in-
tervention group in the mean change from baseline. The
difference between the sauna and control group in the final
measures for the dependent variables of sleep disturbance,
BDI scores, and HDI scores before and after the trial were
analyzed by using analysis of variance to explore differ-
ences between the groups, adjusting for the levels before
treatment. Histograms were examined to assess whether the
data were normally distributed. These showed that the data
were reasonably consistent with normal distribution.
Results
Figure 2 shows the flowchart for recruitment of partici-
pants for the trial. Ninety-four potential participants were
reviewed, and 47% were eligible for the study. Eligible
participants for this study began a baseline observation pe-
riod of 4 weeks, which was then followed by an intervention
period of 8 weeks (Fig. 1).
Table 1 shows the baseline characteristics of the 37 par-
ticipants who completed the initial diary in the first 4 weeks
FIG. 2. Flowchart for recruitment and participation. TTH,
tension-type headache.
EFFICACY OF REGULAR SAUNA BATHING FOR CHRONIC TENSION-TYPE HEADACHE 105
and were randomly assigned to a control or intervention
(sauna) group. There were no statistically significant dif-
ferences ( p<0.05) in mean age, headache intensity, head-
ache duration, number of headaches experienced per month,
sleep disturbance score, BDI score, or HDI score between
control or intervention group. Overall the mean (standard
deviation) age was 42.9 (13.3) years, and mean (standard
deviation) duration of headaches was 16.7 (13.5) years for
the 37 participants. Eight participants were taking tricyclic
antidepressants for their headaches: three participants in the
control group and five in the intervention group.
Six participants lost or did not complete their diary after
the 8 weeks: four in the control group and two in the in-
tervention group (Fig. 1). All participants with complete
data were analyzed according to their group allocation.
The mean headache intensity and the duration and number
of days headache was present in the control group and in-
tervention group over the trial period are shown in Table 2.
At all fortnightly time points (F0–F5 in Table 2), the mean
scores for all variables in the intervention group diminished
each fortnight. However, this was not observed within the
control group.
There were significant differences between times for the
sauna group for headache intensity (F=8.54; df =4, 117;
p£0.0001) and duration (F=5.10; df =4, 118; p=0.0008)
(Table 2). Headache intensity was significantly different from
baseline at F2 ( p=0.034), F3 (p =0.0002), F4 ( p<0.0001),
and F5 ( p<0.0001) and between F2 and F4 (p=0.017) and
F5 ( p=0.013). Headache duration was significantly different
from baseline at F3 (p=0.003), F4 ( p=0.0001), and F5
(p=0.0008) and between F2 and F4 (p=0.032). There were
no significant differences between times for the control group
for headache intensity (F=0.95; df =4,117; p=0.44) or du-
ration (F=0.76; df =4, 118; p=0.55).
For pain intensity, the interaction of group times time was
significant (F=2.95; df =4 117; p=0.023). There were
significant differences between the sauna and control groups
at F3, F4, and F5 (Table 3). There was a significant differ-
ence in mean change of 1.27 points (95% confidence in-
terval [CI], 0.48–2.07; F=10.17; df =1 117; p=0.002) for
headache pain intensity.
For headache duration, the interaction of group with time
was not significant (F=1.66; df =4119; p=0.16). The
headache duration was significantly different between the
sauna and control groups at F3 (Table 4) with a significant
difference in mean change of 2.10 points (95% CI, 0.27–
3.93; F=5.16; df =1, 117; p=0.025).
There was no statistically significant difference in the
change in sleep disturbance in the sauna group compared
with the control group (0.3; 95% CI, -1.8 to 2.5; F=0.09;
df =1, 29; p=0.77). There were no significant differences
between times for the sauna group (F=1.89; df =1, 29;
p=0.18) or the control group (F=0.61; df =1, 29; p=0.44).
There was no statistically significant difference in the
change in BDI score in the sauna group compared with the
control group (1.8; 95% CI, -3.4 to 6.9; F=0.48; df =1, 30;
p=0.49). There was a significant difference between times
for the sauna group (F=10.20; df =1, 30; p=0.004), but not
for the control group (F=3.19; df =1, 30; p=0.085).
There was a statistically significant difference in the
change in HDI score in the sauna group compared with the
control group (10.8; 95% CI, -7.0% to 28.5%; F=1.55;
Table 1. Baseline Characteristics for the Control
Group and Intervention Group Participants
Characteristic
Control
group
(n=20)
Sauna
group
(n=17)
Mean age (yr) 44.3 (10.5) 40.7 (16.8)
Mean duration of headaches (yr) 17.3 (13.3) 15.7 (13.3)
Mean days of headache
per month
23.6 (8.3) 23.6 (8.3)
Women, n(%) 17 (85.0) 12 (70.6)
Men, n(%) 3 (15.0) 5 (29.4)
Taking preventative
medication, n(%)
3 (15) 5 (29)
Mean headache intensity (NPRS
score out of 10)
3.5 (1.8) 4.3 (1.7)
Mean duration headache (hr/d) 6.6 (5.5) 8.3 (5.5)
Sleep disturbance 3.2 (2.2) 3.3 (2.5)
BDI score 11.1 (9.3) 13.0 (10.2)
HDI score 48.7 (22.1) 48.0 (27.9)
Mean values are expressed with standard deviations in parenthe-
ses. To test for differences between groups at baseline, independent
sample t-test was performed. There were no statistically significant
differences ( p<0.05) between groups.
NPRS, numerical pain rating scale; BDI, Beck Depression
Inventory; HDI, Headache Disability Index.
Table 2. Fortnightly Mean Measures of Headache Intensity, Headache Duration,
and Number of Days Headache Present
Outcome measures per group F0 F1 F2 F3 F4 F5
Headache intensity (NPRS)
Control 3.5 (1.8) 3.5 (2.0) 3.4 (1.6) 3.3 (1.9) 3.0 (1.6) 3.1 (1.9)
Intervention 4.5 (1.7) 4.3 (1.7) 3.5 (1.7) 2.8 (1.5) 2.5 (1.6) 2.6 (1.9)
Headache duration (hr/d)
Control 7.0 (5.3) 6.6 (5.5) 6.2 (5.1) 6.1 (5.5) 5.6 (4.6) 6.1 (4.8)
Intervention 8.4 (5.3) 8.3 (5.5) 7.4 (5.5) 6.2 (5.5) 5.3 (5.3) 5.7 (5.9)
Days with headache present
Control 11.7 (2.4) 11.1 (3.0) 11.6 (3.0) 11.7 (3.4) 10.7 (4.2) 10.7 (4.2)
Intervention 12.9 (2.0) 12.8 (1.7) 11.2 (4.2) 10.6 (3.7) 9.9 (4.4) 9.6 (4.8)
Data are expressed as mean (standard deviation). Fortnights are designated as F0, F1, F2, F3, F4, and F5, with F1 representing the initial
score (weeks 3 and 4) and F5 representing the final score (weeks 11 and 12). Data were taken from the daily headache diary.
F, fortnight.
106 KANJI ET AL.
df =1, 23; p=0.22). There was a significant difference be-
tween times for the sauna group (F=15.85; df =1, 23;
p=0.0006), but not for the control group (F=1.85; df =1,
23; p =0.19).
Adverse effects
Potential adverse effects of attending a sauna include
fainting and feelings of claustrophobia. All participants were
contacted 2 weeks after entering the treatment phase to
enquire about adverse effects and whether they experienced
any difficulties or problems with respect to the sauna or soft
tissue massage. Participants were also asked about adverse
effects at the final consultation. No participants in either
group reported adverse effects.
Discussion
This RCT appears to be the first study to use sauna as an
intervention for CTTH. Headache intensity decreased 44%
in the intervention group. Previous treatment trials on CTTH
have shown a reduction in headache intensity ranging from
13% for mitrazapine
20
to 83% for autogenic relaxation.
21
The highest percentage reduction by a medication has been
59% with the combination of amitriptyline and tizanidine.
22
The 44% reduction in headache intensity by sauna is a result
similar to those seen with several medications studied for
CTTH, including sodium valproate (40% reduction),
23
am-
itriptyline (33% reduction),
24
tizanidine (approximately
50% reduction),
25,26
and desipramine and fluoxetine (33%
reduction).
27
Medications that showed a lesser reduction in
headache intensity include sertraline (20%),
24
mitrazapine
(13%),
20
and alprazolam (18%).
21
The sauna group showed
a favorable reduction in headache intensity when compared
with botulinum toxin (23% and 16% reductions),
28,29
acu-
puncture (33% reduction),
11
and physical therapy (33% re-
duction).
11
Relaxation therapy produced a 42% reduction in
headache intensity,
11
which is also similar to the reduction
achieved with the use of sauna.
This trial ran for 12 weeks; the treatment protocol (at-
tending the sauna for 20 minutes three times a week) lasted
8 weeks. Clinically and statistically significant changes in
headache intensity were present by week 6 of the inter-
vention. Preventive medication seems to take a similar
period of time to reach effectiveness, as shown by Holroyd
and colleagues.
30
Those researchers found that 20 of 53
(38%) patients taking amitriptyline, 34 of 53 (64%) taking
amitriptyline and receiving stress management, 17 of 49
(35%) receiving stress management, and 14 of 48 (29%)
taking placebo medication achieved a greater than 50%
reduction in pain intensity after 1 month. A trial of tiza-
nidine showed reduction in headache intensity after 6
weeks of treatment.
26
The changes in headache intensity may represent a re-
gression to the mean as people may be motivated to join a
clinical trial when the problem is at its worst, making
spontaneous improvement more likely or perhaps reflect
the natural history of a condition. The sauna group had had
headache for an average of 14.4 years, and the control
group had experienced headache for an average of 18.9
years. Thus, both groups had experienced headache for
several years, and regression to the mean or natural history
of improvement is unlikely to explain the effect observed
in this trial.
Sleep disturbance and depression are comorbid with
headache disorders and were secondary outcome measures
in this study. Neither the control nor the intervention group
showed statistically significant changes in sleep disturbance
or depression.
Headache disability measures the limitations of symp-
toms on a patient’s activities. The changes in headache
disability measured by the HDI favored the intervention
group; the HDI score decreased 32% in the control group
and by 40% in the intervention group. An overall reduction
of 29 points is considered a statistically significant reduction
in HDI score that can be attributed to treatment; one par-
ticipant in the control group and three participants in the
intervention group achieved a decrease of 29 points. The
reduction in HDI score in both groups may be attributed to
being involved in a clinical trial. In addition, the education
and advice on stress management may have given both
groups some insight into their symptoms and a measure of
control that may have contributed to improving disability
associated with headache.
Table 3. Difference from Baseline in Headache
Intensity at Different Time Points Between
the Control Group and the Sauna Group
Time
Difference in mean
change (95% CI) p-Value
F2 0.88 ( -0.14 to 1.91) 0.089
F3 1.45 (0.43–2.48) 0.006
a
F4 1.31 (0.29–2.32) 0.012
a
F5 1.45 (0.45–2.45) 0.005
a
Analysis was by mixed linear model analysis with fixed effects
for randomized group, time, and their interaction, and a random
effect was the participant with a compound symmetry covariance
structure for repeated measurements. Group main effects for change
from baseline were with a contrast for the difference between
control group and intervention group in the mean change from
baseline. Degrees of freedom (df) for F2, F3, F4 and F5 is 1,119.
a
p<0.05 indicates statistically significant difference.
CI, confidence interval; F2, weeks 5 and 6 of the trial; F3, weeks
7 and 8 of the trial; F4, weeks 9 and 10 of the trial, F5, weeks 11 and
12 of the trial.
Table 4. Difference from Baseline in Duration
of Headache at Different Time Points Between
the Control Group and the Sauna Group
Time
Difference in mean
change (95% CI) p-Value
F2 1.22 ( -1.11 to 3.56) 0.30
F3 2.60 (0.26–4.93) 0.030
a
F4 2.25 ( -0.10 to 4.61) 0.061
F5 2.34 ( -0.02 to 4.69) 0.052
Analysis was by mixed linear model analysis with fixed effects
for randomized group, time, and their interaction, and a random
effect was the participant with a compound symmetry covariance
structure for repeated measurements. Group main effects for change
from baseline were with a contrast for the difference between
control group and intervention group in the mean change from
baseline. Degrees of freedom (df) for F2, F3, F4 and F5 is 1,121.
a
p<0.05 indicates statistically significant difference.
EFFICACY OF REGULAR SAUNA BATHING FOR CHRONIC TENSION-TYPE HEADACHE 107
The representativeness of the cohort studied and the
effects of participation in a randomized trial will affect the
generalizability of the trial results. Biases in this trial in-
cluded participants wishing to try a nondrug treatment for
CTTH and participants willing to attend the sauna for three
times a week for 8 weeks rather than take a tablet once or
twice a day. Attending the sauna requires substantially
more time and motivation than taking tablets, and the
population of patients with CTTH may not have the time to
carry out sauna treatment, thereby excluding them from
this treatment.
This RCT was designed to examine a noninvasive self-
treatment requiring minimal medical supervision and in this
aim it was successful. A limitation of this clinical trial was
lack of quantification of sauna attendance. Sauna attendance
was enquired about during the telephone follow-up con-
ducted at 2 weeks to address any difficulties in attending.
During discussion with participants in the final assessment
consultation, participants in the sauna group readily vo-
lunteered their experiences of attending the sauna, describ-
ing the sauna facilities at the different venues they attended,
the experience of attending a sauna, and some of the effects
they experienced (such as profound relaxation or feeling
uncomfortably hot to begin with). It was apparent that most
participants in the sauna group tried the intervention, but
how often and for how long are not known. For future
studies, an attendance record for the sauna could be re-
corded with the headache diary or an attendance register at
the sauna facility.
The information provided to the participants in this trial
did not disclose which group was the intervention group and
which the control group. At the initial assessment, several
participants questioned whether the sauna was the control or
intervention. From responses in the sauna group many
considered this an unlikely form of intervention in a clinical
trial run by a medical doctor (principal investigator). Al-
though they were not blind to the intervention they were to
receive, they were blind to whether it was the active treat-
ment of the trial. If participants in the sauna group were
advised that they were in the active treatment group, their
expectations may have been heightened, thereby increasing
the placebo effect.
After their education with regard to headaches, both the
sauna group and the control group may have sought to re-
duce their stressors or started to exercise regularly in the
knowledge that exercise may reduce headache. Participants
in the sauna group may have gone for a swim as the com-
plimentary entry card to the pools also gave entry to the
swimming pool (the sauna is situated next to the pool but
within the same entrance). Therefore, participants may have
performed more regular exercise than the control group.
Social factors of talking to receptionists at the pool and other
occupants of the swimming pool and or sauna may have a
beneficial effect on participants. The experience of taking
time out of their normal routine to attend the sauna may have
created a feeling that they were doing something positive
about their health, creating a placebo response in itself.
In conclusion, this randomized control trial examined the
efficacy of heat in the form of sauna in patients with CTTH.
Sauna produced a 44% reduction in headache intensity
within 6 weeks of treatment. These results show that regular
sauna bathing may provide a promising nonpharmaceutical,
self-directed management option that requires minimal
medical input.
Author Disclosure Statement
No competing financial interests exist.
References
1. Schwartz BS, Stewart WF, Simon D, Lipton, RB. Epide-
miology of tension-type headache. JAMA 1998;279:381–
383.
2. Berg J, Stovner LJ. Cost of migraine and other headaches in
Europe. Eur J Neurol 2005;12(Suppl 1):59–62.
3. Mannix LK. Epidemiology and impact of primary headache
disorders. Med Clin North Am 2001;85:887–895.
4. Stovner LJ, Hagen, K. Prevalence, burden, and cost of
headache disorders. Curr Opin Neurol 2006;19:281–285.
5. Vinding GR, Zeeberg P, Lyngberg A, et al. The burden of
headache in a patient population from a specialized head-
ache centre. Cephalalgia 2007;27:263–270.
6. Rasmussen BK, Jensen R, Olesen J. Impact of headache on
sickness absence and utilisation of medical services: a
Danish population study. J Epidemiol Community Health
1992;46:443–446.
7. Rasmussen BK, Jensen R, Schroll M, Olesen J. Epide-
miology of headache in a general population—a prevalence
study. J Clin Epidemiol 1991;44:1147–1157.
8. Lucini D, Covacci G, Milani R, et al. A controlled study of
the effects of mental relaxation on autonomic excitatory
responses in healthy subjects. Psychosom Med 1997;59:
541–552.
9. Yagiz On A, Colakoglu Z, Hepguler S, Asit R. Local heat
effect on sympathetic skin responses after pain of electrical
stimulus. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1997;78:1196–1199.
10. Mueller P. Exercise training and sympathetic nervous system
activity: evidence for physical activity dependent neural
plascticity. Clin Exp Pharmacol Physiol 2007;34:377–384.
11. Sodoberg E, Carlsson J, Victorian ES, et al. Chronic ten-
sion-type headache treated with acupuncture, physical
training and relaxation training. Between group differences.
Cephalalgia 2006;26:1320–1329.
12. Masuda A, Koga Y, Hattanmaru M, et al. The effects of
repeated thermal therapy for patients with chronic pain.
Psychother Psychosom 2005;74:288–294.
13. Matsushita K, Masuda A, Tei C. Efficacy of Waon therapy
for fibromyalgia. Intern Med 2008;47:1473–1476.
14. Matsumoto S, Shimodozono M, Etoh S, et al. Effects of
thermal therapy combining sauna therapy and underwater
exercise in patients with fibromyalgia. Complement Ther
Clin Pract 2011;17:162–166.
15. Oosterveld FG, Rasker JJ, Floors M, et al. Infrared sauna in
patients with rheumatoid arthritis and ankylosing spondy-
litis. Clin Rheumatol 2009;28:29–34.
16. Lenaerts ME, Newman LC. Tension-type headache. In:
Silberstein SD, Lipton RB, Dodick DW, eds. Wolff’s
Headache and Other Head Pain 8th ed. New York: Oxford
University Press, 2008:293–314.
17. Steer RA, Cavalieri TA, Leonard DM, Beck AT. Use of the
Beck Depression Inventory for Primary Care to screen for
major depression disorders. Gen Hosp Psychiatry 1999;21:
106–111.
18. Jacobsen GP, Ramadan NM, Aggarwal SK, Newman CW.
The Henry Ford Hospital Headache Disability Inventory
(HDI). Neurology 1994;44:837–842.
108 KANJI ET AL.
19. Frank LR, Olson CM, Shuler KB, Gharib SF. Intravenous
magnesium for acute benign headache in the emergency
department: a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled
trial. CJEM 2004;6:327–332.
20. Bendtsen L, Jensen R. Mirtazapine is effective in the pro-
phylactic treatment of chronic tension-type headache. Neu-
rology 2004;62:1706–1711.
21. Kiran U, Behari M, Venugopal P, et al. The effect of au-
togenic relaxation on chronic tension headache and in
modulating cortisol response. Indian J Anaesth 2005;49:
474–478.
22. Bettucci D, Testa L, Calzoni S, et al. Combination of ti-
zanidine and amitriptyline in the prophylaxis of chronic
tension-type headache: evaluation of efficacy and impact
on quality of life. J Headache Pain 2006;7:34–36.
23. Yurekli VA, Akhan G, Kutluhan S, et al. The effect of
sodium valproate on chronic daily headache and its sub-
groups. J Headache Pain 2008;9:37–41.
24. Boz C, AltunayogluV, Velioglu S, Ozmenoglu M. Sertra-
line versus amitriptyline in the prophylactic therapy of non
depressed chronic tension type headache patients. J Head-
ache Pain 2003;4:72–78.
25. Fogelholm R, Murros K. Tizanidine in chronic tension-type
headache: a placebo controlled double-blind cross-over
study. Headache 1992;32:509–513.
26. Murros K, Kataja M, Hedman C, et al. Modified-release
formulation of tizanidine in chronic tension-type headache.
Headache 2000;40:633–637.
27. Walker Z, Walker RW, Robertson MM, Stansfeld S. An-
tidepressant treatment of chronic tension-type headache: a
comparison between fluoxetine and desipramine. Headache
1998;38:523–528.
28. Schmitt WJ, Slowey E, Fravi N, et al. Effect of botulinum
toxin A injections in the treatment of chronic tension-type
headache: a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Head-
ache 2001;41:658–664.
29. Padberg M, de Bruijn SFTM, de Haan RJ, Tavy DL.
Treatment of chronic tension-type headache with botuli-
num toxin: a double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial.
Cephalalgia 2004;24:675–680.
30. Holroyd KA, O’Donnell FJ, Stensland M, et al. Manage-
ment of chronic tension-type headache with tricyclic anti-
depressant medication, stress management therapy, and
their combination: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA
2001;285:2208–2215.
Address correspondence to:
Rachel Page, PhD
Institute of Food, Nutrition
and Human Health
Massey University
Private Bag 76,
Wellington 6140
New Zealand
E-mail: R.A.Page@massey.ac.nz
EFFICACY OF REGULAR SAUNA BATHING FOR CHRONIC TENSION-TYPE HEADACHE 109