[Non-pharmacological treatment of migraine and tension-type headache].

Migraine and tension-type headache are among the most frequent diseases of the world. As pharmacological treatment often is associated with distinct side effects, there is an increasing need for non-pharmacological treatment options. However, there has been a striking lack of evidence with regards to the efficacy of the huge variety of non-pharmacological interventions. In this review, we present the available evidence for the most common non-pharmacological treatment options with focus on the national clinical guideline for non-pharmacological treatment of headache disorders published in 2021.

Manual joint mobilisation techniques, supervised physical activity, psychological treatment, acupuncture and patient education in migraine treatment. A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Many people suffering from migraine combine pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments. The purpose of this systematic review is to provide an updated guideline for some widely used non-pharmacological treatment options for migraine. METHODS: We conducted a systematic literature review of randomized studies of adults with migraine treated with manual joint mobilisation techniques, supervised physical activity, psychological treatment, acupuncture and patient education. The main outcomes measured were days with headache and quality of life. Recommendations were formulated based on the Grade of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach including patient preferences based on expert opinion and questionnaire data. RESULTS: The overall level of certainty of the evidence was low to very low. Manual therapy techniques and psychological treatment did not change the studied outcomes. Supervised physical activity might have a positive impact on quality of life, acupuncture on headache frequency, intensity, quality of life and the use of attack-medicine. Patient education might improve self-rated health and quality of life and increase the number of well-informed patients. CONCLUSION: Based on observed effects, the lack of serious adverse events, and patients' preferences, we make weak recommendations for considering the investigated interventions as a supplement to standard treatment.Protocol registration: Prospero CRD42020220132.

Pain distribution in primary care patients with hip osteoarthritis.

BACKGROUND: Hip osteoarthritis (OA) is the most common diagnosis in primary care adult patients presenting with hip pain but pain location and pain distribution in primary care patients with hip OA have been reported inadequately. OBJECTIVE: To describe pain location and pain distribution in primary care patients with clinical and radiographic confirmed hip OA. METHODS: Primary care patients with unilateral clinical and radiographic hip OA living on the island of Funen, Denmark were recruited from primary care to participate in a randomized clinical trial. At baseline, patients recorded pain intensity using an 11-box numeric rating scale and the distribution of hip pain using a manikin displaying three separate views: front, back and lateral. Pain drawings were analysed using a template to determine the most frequent pain locations and distribution of pain. RESULTS: Pain drawings were completed by 109 patients of which 108 (99%) were valid. The mean age of patients was 65 (SD 9) years and 44% were females. The mean pain intensity was 5.4 (SD 2.0). A total of 77% had marked the greater trochanter area, 53% the groin area, 42% the anterior/lateral thigh area, 38% the buttock area, 17% the knee and 15% the lower leg area. No patients marked pain exclusively in the areas of the knee, posterior thigh or lower leg. CONCLUSION: The most common pain locations of patients with hip OA presenting to primary care are the greater trochanter, groin, thigh and buttock areas. No patients recorded pain exclusively in the knee or lower leg.

A randomized clinical trial of chiropractic treatment and self-management in patients with acute musculoskeletal chest pain: 1-year follow-up.

OBJECTIVE: We have previously reported short-term follow-up from a pragmatic randomized clinical trial comparing 2 treatments for acute musculoskeletal chest pain: (1) chiropractic treatment and (2) self-management. Results indicated a positive effect in favor of the chiropractic treatment after 4 and 12 weeks. The current article investigates the hypothesis that the advantage observed at 4 and 12 weeks would be sustained after 1 year. In addition, we describe self-reported consequences of acute musculoskeletal chest pain at 1-year follow-up. METHODS: In a nonblinded, randomized controlled trial undertaken at an emergency cardiology department and 4 outpatient chiropractic clinics, 115 consecutive patients with acute chest pain of musculoskeletal origin were included. After the baseline evaluation, patients were randomized to 4 weeks of either chiropractic treatment or self-management, with posttreatment questionnaire follow-up 52 weeks later. The primary outcome measures were change in pain intensity (11-point box numerical rating scale) and self-perceived change in pain (7-point ordinal scale). RESULTS: Both groups experienced decreases in pain, positive global, self-perceived treatment effect, and increases in the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey scores. No statistically significant differences were observed between groups at the 1-year follow-up, and we could not deduce a common trend in favor of either intervention. CONCLUSIONS: At the 1-year follow-up, we found no difference between groups in terms of pain intensity and self-perceived change in chest pain in the first randomized clinical trial assessing chiropractic treatment vs minimal intervention for patients with acute musculoskeletal chest pain. Further research into health care utilization and use of prescriptive medication is warranted.

Prevalence of hip osteoarthritis in chiropractic practice in Denmark: a descriptive cross-sectional and prospective study.

OBJECTIVE: The purposes of this study were to measure the prevalence of clinical and radiographic hip osteoarthritis (OA) and first-time diagnosis of hip OA in consecutive patients presenting to chiropractic practices in Denmark and to report the components of the initial treatment rendered by the chiropractic practitioner. METHODS: A total of 2000 patient records and 1000 radiographs were reviewed retrospectively in 20 chiropractic clinics throughout Denmark. Information obtained included patients' primary complaint, physical examination and radiographic findings of hip OA, and treatment. Subsequently, the 20 clinics participated in a prospective survey where they collected equivalent information over a 2-week period. RESULTS: Retrospective review of records revealed that 1.4% of patients in Danish chiropractic practice had signs of clinical hip OA. Of these, 59% demonstrated radiographic signs of hip OA. Prospective data collection revealed that 3.4% of new patients had signs of clinical hip OA. Fifty-four percent of these demonstrated radiographic signs of hip OA, and of these 70% were diagnosed as having OA of the hip for the first time. Initial treatment involved manual treatment and advice on over-the-counter pain medication and/or supplements. Of all 1000 retrospectively reviewed radiographs in patients 40 years or older, 19.2% demonstrated radiographic signs of hip OA. CONCLUSION: Osteoarthritis of the hip is diagnosed and managed in primary care chiropractic practice in Denmark; however, it is likely underdiagnosed. In those newly presenting to chiropractic practitioners, first-time diagnosis with clinical and radiographic signs of hip OA appears to be common.

Reconstruction of the decision-making process in assessing musculoskeletal chest pain: an exploratory study using recursive partitioning.

OBJECTIVE: The purposes of this study were to identify the most important determinants from the patient history and clinical examination in diagnosing musculoskeletal chest pain (MSCP) in patients with acute noncardiac chest pain when supported by a structured protocol and to construct a decision tree for identification of MSCP in acute noncardiac chest pain. METHODS: Consecutive patients with noncardiac chest pain (n = 302) recruited from an emergency cardiology department were assessed. Using data from self-report questionnaires, interviews, and clinical assessment, patient characteristics were associated with the MSCP diagnosis, and the decision-making process of the clinician was reconstructed using recursive procedures in the tradition of constructing Classification and Regression Trees. RESULTS: Thirty-eight percent of patients had MSCP. There was no single determinant that predicted the condition completely. However, many items with high associations could be identified, mainly with high negative predictive value. The decision-making process was reconstructed giving rise to a 5-step, linear decision tree without branches. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians use a combination of indicators including systematic palpation of the spine and chest wall and items from the case history to diagnose MSCP. However, the high negative predictive values of the main determinants suggest that the MSCP diagnosis may be a diagnosis by exclusion.

Chiropractic treatment vs self-management in patients with acute chest pain: a randomized controlled trial of patients without acute coronary syndrome.

OBJECTIVE: The musculoskeletal system is a common but often overlooked cause of chest pain. The purpose of the present study is to evaluate the relative effectiveness of 2 treatment approaches for acute musculoskeletal chest pain: (1) chiropractic treatment that included spinal manipulation and (2) self-management as an example of minimal intervention. METHODS: In a nonblinded, randomized, controlled trial set at an emergency cardiology department and 4 outpatient chiropractic clinics, 115 consecutive patients with acute chest pain and no clear medical diagnosis at initial presentation were included. After a baseline evaluation, patients with musculoskeletal chest pain were randomized to 4 weeks of chiropractic treatment or self-management, with posttreatment questionnaire follow-up 4 and 12 weeks later. Primary outcome measures were numeric change in pain intensity (11-point box numerical rating scale) and self-perceived change in pain (7-point ordinal scale). RESULTS: Both groups experienced decreases in pain, self-perceived positive changes, and increases in Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 36-Item Health Survey scores. Observed between-group significant differences were in favor of chiropractic treatment at 4 weeks regarding the primary outcome of self-perceived change in chest pain and at 12 weeks with respect to the primary outcome of numeric change in pain intensity. CONCLUSIONS: To the best of our knowledge, this is the first randomized trial assessing chiropractic treatment vs minimal intervention in patients without acute coronary syndrome but with musculoskeletal chest pain. Results suggest that chiropractic treatment might be useful; but further research in relation to patient selection, standardization of interventions, and identification of potentially active ingredients is needed.

Non-surgical treatment of hip osteoarthritis. Hip school, with or without the addition of manual therapy, in comparison to a minimal control intervention: protocol for a three-armed randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Hip osteoarthritis is a common and chronic condition resulting in pain, functional disability and reduced quality of life. In the early stages of the disease, a combination of non-pharmacological and pharmacological treatment is recommended. There is evidence from several trials that exercise therapy is effective. In addition, single trials suggest that patient education in the form of a hip school is a promising intervention and that manual therapy is superior to exercise. METHODS/DESIGN: This is a randomized clinical trial. Patients with clinical and radiological hip osteoarthritis, 40-80 years of age, and without indication for hip surgery were randomized into 3 groups. The active intervention groups A and B received six weeks of hip school, taught by a physiotherapist, for a total of 5 sessions. In addition, group B received manual therapy consisting of joint manipulation and soft-tissue therapy twice a week for six weeks. Group C received a self-care information leaflet containing advice on "live as usual" and stretching exercises from the hip school. The primary time point for assessing relative effectiveness is at the end of the six weeks intervention period with follow-ups after three and 12 months.Primary outcome measure is pain measured on an eleven-point numeric rating scale. Secondary outcome measures are the hip dysfunction and osteoarthritis outcome score, patient's global perceived effect, patient specific functional scale, general quality of life and hip range of motion. DISCUSSION: To our knowledge this is the first randomized clinical trial comparing a patient education program with or without the addition of manual therapy to a minimal intervention for patients with hip osteoarthritis. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials NCT01039337.

Diagnosis and treatment of musculoskeletal chest pain: design of a multi-purpose trial.

BACKGROUND: Acute chest pain is a major health problem all over the western world. Active approaches are directed towards diagnosis and treatment of potentially life threatening conditions, especially acute coronary syndrome/ischemic heart disease. However, according to the literature, chest pain may also be due to a variety of extra-cardiac disorders including dysfunction of muscles and joints of the chest wall or the cervical and thoracic part of the spine. The diagnostic approaches and treatment options for this group of patients are scarce and formal clinical studies addressing the effect of various treatments are lacking. METHODS/DESIGN: We present an ongoing trial on the potential usefulness of chiropractic diagnosis and treatment in patients dismissed from an acute chest pain clinic without a diagnosis of acute coronary syndrome. The aims are to determine the proportion of patients in whom chest pain may be of musculoskeletal rather than cardiac origin and to investigate the decision process of a chiropractor in diagnosing these patients; further, to examine whether chiropractic treatment can reduce pain and improve physical function when compared to advice directed towards promoting self-management, and, finally, to estimate the cost-effectiveness of these procedures. This study will include 300 patients discharged from a university hospital acute chest pain clinic without a diagnosis of acute coronary syndrome or any other obvious cardiac or non-cardiac disease. After completion of the clinic's standard cardiovascular diagnostic procedures, trial patients will be examined according to a standardized protocol including a) a self-report questionnaire; b) a semi-structured interview; c) a general health examination; and d) a specific manual examination of the muscles and joints of the neck, thoracic spine, and thorax in order to determine whether the pain is likely to be of musculoskeletal origin. To describe the patients status with regards to ischemic heart disease, and to compare and indirectly validate the musculoskeletal diagnosis, myocardial perfusion scintigraphy is performed in all patients 2-4 weeks following discharge. Descriptive statistics including parametric and non-parametric methods will be applied in order to compare patients with and without musculoskeletal chest pain in relation to their scintigraphic findings. The decision making process of the chiropractor will be elucidated and reconstructed using the CART method. Out of the 300 patients 120 intended patients with suspected musculoskeletal chest pain will be randomized into one of two groups: a) a course of chiropractic treatment (therapy group) of up to ten treatment sessions focusing on high velocity, low amplitude manipulation of the cervical and thoracic spine, mobilisation, and soft tissue techniques. b) Advice promoting self-management and individual instructions focusing on posture and muscle stretch (advice group). Outcome measures are pain, physical function, overall health, self-perceived treatment effect, and cost-effectiveness. DISCUSSION: This study may potentially demonstrate that a chiropractor is able to identify a subset of patients suffering from chest pain predominantly of musculoskeletal origin among patients discharged from an acute chest pain clinic with no apparent cardiac condition. Furthermore knowledge about the benefits of manual treatment of patients with musculoskeletal chest pain will inform clinical decision and policy development in relation to clinical practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT00462241 and NCT00373828.

To what degree is amelioration of angina following coronary revascularization associated with improvement in myocardial perfusion?

OBJECTIVE: To examine the association between changes in chest pain and changes in perfusion following revascularization as assessed by clinical evaluation and myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) in patients with stable angina. DESIGN: In a prospective series of 380 patients (58.8 +/- 8.8 years) referred to angiography because of known or suspected stable angina, changes in chest discomfort and changes in perfusion after 2 years were assessed in 144 patients, who underwent revascularization, and 236, who did not. The decision to treat invasively was made without knowledge of the result of MPI. RESULTS: In revascularized patients, the presence of typical/atypical angina was reduced from 93% to 36% and the improvement was associated with improvement in perfusion. A small improvement in perfusion induced a high frequency of change from angina to no pain, whereas a further reduction caused little extra change. In non-revascularized patients the change in chest discomfort was not related to changes in perfusion, which were rarely present. CONCLUSION: Alleviation of chest discomfort 2 years after revascularization is associated with improvements in perfusion. This association appeared to be an all-or-nothing phenomenon. Non-revascularized patients also exhibited improvements in chest discomfort despite insignificant changes in perfusion.

Prognostic value of myocardial perfusion imaging in patients with known or suspected stable angina pectoris: evaluation in a setting in which myocardial perfusion imaging did not influence the choice of treatment.

OBJECTIVE: Previous investigations on the prognostic value of myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) were performed under circumstances in which the test result was known to the patient's physician. We wanted to examine the prognostic value of MPI in patients with known or suspected stable angina in a setting in which MPI could not influence the diagnostic and therapeutic strategy. DESIGN: A prospective series of 507 patients referred to coronary angiography for this condition were examined by MPI before angiography. Management was based on symptoms and angiographic findings, as the results of MPI were not communicated. Patients were followed for a mean of 45.3 +/- 7.7 months. RESULTS: During follow-up, 20 patients (3.9%) suffered from myocardial infarction, 19 (3.8%) died and eight (1.6%) were revascularized >1 year after MPI resulting in a combined annual event rate of 2.5%. Patients with normal MPI had a low annual event rate of 1.6% (or 1.1% with regard to myocardial infarction or death only). In contrast, event rates in patients with reversible or mixed ischaemia were 4.0% per year. MPI added independent prognostic value to standard clinical data in a multivariate Cox model. CONCLUSION: We could confirm that in patients with known or suspected stable angina, MPI is a valuable risk stratifying tool.

Manual therapy for patients with stable angina pectoris: a nonrandomized open prospective trial.

OBJECTIVE: To examine if participants with chest pain originating from the spine would benefit from manual therapy. METHODS: A nonrandomized, open, prospective trial was performed at a tertiary hospital. Patients who were referred for coronary angiography because of known or suspected stable angina pectoris were invited to participate in this study. A total of 275 took part, 50 were diagnosed as cervicothoracic angina (CTA)-positive (chest pain from the cervicothoracic spine) and 225 as CTA-negative. The intervention performed was manual therapy according to chiropractic standards. Patient self reported questionnaires at baseline and 4-week follow-up, including pain measured with an 11-point box scale, Short Form 36 (quality of life), and perceived improvement. RESULTS: Approximately 75% of CTA-positive patients reported improvement of pain and of general health after treatment, compared with 22% to 25% of CTA-negative patients (P < .0001). Pain intensity decreased in both groups with consistently larger decreases for all measures of pain among CTA-positive patients. Short Form 36 scores increased in the CTA-positive group in 5 of 8 scales and remained unchanged in the CTA-negative group. CONCLUSION: This study suggested that patients with known or suspected angina pectoris and a diagnosis of CTA may benefit from chiropractic manual therapy. Methodologically, sound randomized clinical trials are needed to corroborate our results.

Is cervical spinal manipulation dangerous?

OBJECTIVE: Concern about cerebrovascular accidents after cervical manipulation is common. We report a case of cerebrovascular infarction without sequelae. CLINICAL FEATURES: A 39-year-old man with nonspecific neck pain was treated by his general practitioner with cervical manipulation. INTERVENTION AND OUTCOME: This immediately elicited severe headache and neurologic symptoms that disappeared completely within 3 months despite permanent signs of a complete left-sided cerebellar infarction on computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging. At 7-year follow-up the patient was fully employed, and repeated magnetic resonance imaging still showed infarction of the left cerebellar hemisphere. However, the patient remained completely free of neurologic symptoms, and color duplex ultrasonography showed normal cervical vessels, including patent vertebral arteries. CONCLUSION: It appears that the risk of cerebrovascular accidents after cervical manipulation is low, considering the enormous number of treatments given each year, and very much lower than the risk of serious complications associated with generally accepted surgery. Provided there is a solid indication for cervical manipulation, we believe that the risk involved is acceptably low and that the fear of serious complications is greatly exaggerated.

Carotid artery blood flow during premanipulative testing.

BACKGROUND: Cervical manipulation is used millions of times every year. Concern about cerebrovascular accidents (CVAs) is common, but actual cases are rarely reported. Premanipulative tests are presumed to identify patients at risk of CVA. In an earlier study we found no significant changes in the vertebral artery blood flow of patients with a positive premanipulative test with different head positions. Consequently, we questioned whether there is a role for premanipulative testing to identify patients at risk of CVAs. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to examine whether instead, blood flow velocity in the internal carotid arteries changes with head position in patients with a positive premanipulative test, potentially giving contraindication to cervical manipulation. METHODS: In a prospective study private practicing chiropractors from 3 Danish counties referred patients with a positive premanipulative test for an examination of cervical artery blood flow. Premanipulative testing was performed by an experienced chiropractor, and flow velocities were measured in both vertebral and internal carotid arteries by color duplex sonography at a university hospital vascular laboratory. RESULTS: A total of 11 consecutive patients with a positive premanipulative test were referred. Two of these were excluded because we could not reproduce any symptoms at repeat premanipulative testing before the vascular examination. In the remaining 9 patients we found no significant difference with different head positions in peak flow velocity or time-averaged mean flow velocity in the internal carotid arteries. Blood flow did not cease in 1 single patient despite a positive premanipulative test in all. CONCLUSION: It appears that a positive premanipulative test is not associated with a change in peak flow velocity or time-averaged mean flow velocity in either the carotid or the vertebral arteries. If premanipulative testing is used solely for the detection of vascular insufficiency as a potential substrate for CVAs after cervical manipulation, we believe that premanipulative testing is of little clinical value.