Long-term efficacy of a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized study for repetitive sphenopalatine blockade with bupivacaine vs. saline with the Tx360 device for treatment of chronic migraine

Roger K Cady, Joel Saper, Kent Dexter, Ryan J Cady, Heather R Manley, Roger K Cady, Joel Saper, Kent Dexter, Ryan J Cady, Heather R Manley

Abstract

Background: This study aims to determine if repetitive sphenopalatine ganglion (SPG) blockades with 0.5% bupivacaine delivered with the Tx360 device results in long-term improvement in chronic migraine (CM). The SPG is a small concentrated structure of neuronal tissue that resides within the pterygopalatine fossa in close proximity to the sphenopalatine foramen and is innervated by the maxillary division of the trigeminal nerve. In a previous article, these authors reported repetitive SPG blockades with 0.5% bupivacaine delivered by the Tx360 device, which was an effective and well-tolerated intervention to incrementally decrease baseline headache intensity of subjects with CM.

Methods: This was a double-blind, parallel-arm, placebo-controlled, randomized pilot study using a novel intervention for acute treatment in CM. A total of 41 subjects were enrolled at two headache specialty clinics in the USA. Eligible subjects were between 18 and 80 years of age and had a history of CM defined by International Classification of Headache Disorders-II definition. Subjects were allowed a stable dose of migraine preventive medications that was maintained throughout the study. Following a 28-day baseline period, subjects were randomized by computer-generated lists 2:1 to receive 0.3 cc of 0.5% bupivacaine or saline, respectively, delivered with the Tx360 twice a week for 6 weeks. Secondary end-points reported in this manuscript include post-treatment measures including number of headache days and quality of life measures.

Results: The final data set included 38 subjects: 26 in the bupivacaine group and 12 in the saline group. Our primary end-point for the study, difference in numeric pain rating scale scores, was met and reported in a previous article. The supplemental secondary end-points reported in this manuscript did not reach statistical significance. When looking collectively at these end-points, trends were noticed and worthy of reporting. Subjects receiving bupivacaine reported a decrease in the number of headache days 1 month post-treatment (Mdiff = -5.71), whereas those receiving saline only saw a slight improvement (Mdiff = -1.93). Headache Impact Test 6 scores were decreased in the bupivacaine group at 1 month (Mdiff = -5.13) and 6 months (Mdiff = -4.78) post-treatment, but only a modest reduction was seen for those receiving saline at 1 and 6 months, respectively (Mdiff = -2.08, Mdiff = -1.58). Furthermore, subjects receiving bupivacaine reported a reduction in acute medication usage and improved quality of life measures (average pain in the previous 24 hours, mood, normal work, and general activity) up to 6 months post-treatment. The changes in these measures for the saline group were minimal.

Conclusions: Data from this exploratory pilot study suggest that there may be long-term clinical benefits with the use of repetitive SPG blockades with bupivacaine delivered with the simple to use Tx360 device. These include a sustained reduction of headache days and improvement in several important quality of life assessments. The SPG blockades were not associated with any significant or lasting adverse events. Further research on SPG blockade is warranted.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01709708.

Keywords: Tx360®; chronic migraine; episodic migraine; sphenopalatine ganglion block.

© 2015 The Authors. Headache published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Headache Society.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Study timeline. HIT‐6, Headache Impact Test‐6; QoL, quality of life.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Study flow diagram.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Headache days. The number of headache days were consistently lower at the end of treatment and 1 month post‐treatment for the bupivacaine group compared to the saline group.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Average pain last 24 hours. Average pain scores were lower for the bupivacaine group compared with the saline group at treatment 12, 1 month post‐treatment, and 6 months post‐treatment.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Headache Impact Test‐6 (HIT‐6 scores). HIT‐6 scores subjects receiving bupivacaine were decreased throughout the study and were found to be consistently lower than saline scores.
Figure 6
Figure 6
Acute medication usage. Although acute medication usage did not significantly differ between groups at any time point, subjects receiving bupivacaine generally reported lower usage of acute medication than those treated with saline.

References

    1. Silberstein SD, Lipton RB, Saper JR. Chronic daily headache including transformed migraine, chronic tension‐type headache, and medication overuse headache In: Silberstein SD, Lipton RB, Dodick DW, eds. Wolff's Headache and Other Head Pain, 8th edn New York: Oxford University Press; 2008:315‐377.
    1. Bigal ME, Lipton RB. The prognosis of migraine. Curr Opin Neurol. 2008;21:301‐308.
    1. Bigal ME, Lipton RB. Concepts and mechanisms of migraine chronification. Headache. 2008;48:7‐15.
    1. Hazard E, Muakata J, Bigal ME, Rupnow MFT, Lipton RB. The burden of migraine in the United States: Current and emerging perspectives on disease management and economic analysis. Value Health. 2009;12:55‐64.
    1. Blumenfeld AM, Varon SF, Wilcox TK, et al. Disability, HRQoL and resource use among chronic and episodic migraineurs: Results from the International Burden of Migraine Study (IBMS). Cephalalgia. 2011;31:301‐315.
    1. Stokes M, Becker WJ, Lipton RB, et al. Cost of health care among patients with chronic and episodic migraine in Canada and the USA: Results from the International Burden of Migraine Study (IBMS). Headache. 2011;51:1058‐1077.
    1. Katsarava Z, Buse DC, Manack AN, Lipton RB. Defining the differences between episodic migraine and chronic migraine. Curr Pain Headache Rep. 2012;16:86‐92.
    1. Lipton RB. Chronic migraine, classification, differential diagnosis, and epidemiology. Headache. 2011;51(Suppl. 2):77‐83.
    1. Lipton RB, Fanning KM, Serrano D, Reed ML, Cady R, Buse DC. Ineffective acute treatment of episodic migraine (EM) is associated with new‐onset chronic migraine (CM): Results of the American Migraine Prevalence and Prevention (AMPP) Study. Neurology. 2015;84:688‐695.
    1. BOTOX® (onabotulinumtoxinA) Prescribing Information. Irvine, CA: Allergan, Inc.; 2011.
    1. Haut SR, Bigal ME, Lipton RB. Chronic disorders with episodic manifestations: Focus on epilepsy and migraine. Lancet Neurol. 2006;5:148‐157.
    1. Bigal ME, Rapoport AM, Lipton RB, et al. Chronic daily headache in a tertiary care population. Correlation between the International Headache Society diagnostic criteria and proposed revisions of criteria for chronic daily headache. Cephalalgia. 2002;22:432‐438.
    1. Cady RK, Schreiber CP. Sinus headache or migraine. Neurology. 2002;58:S10‐S14.
    1. Schreiber CP, Hutchinson S, Webster CJ, Ames M, Richardson MS, Powers C. Prevalence of migraine in patients with a history of self‐reported or physician‐diagnosed “sinus” headache. Arch Intern Med. 2004;164:1769‐1772.
    1. Barbanti P, Fabbrini G, Pesare M, Vanacore N, Cerbo R. Unilateral cranial autonomic symptoms in migraine. Cephalalgia. 2002;22:256‐259.
    1. Maizels M, Geiger AM. Intranasal lidocaine for migraine: A randomized trial and open‐label follow‐up. Headache. 1999;39:543‐551.
    1. Obah C, Fine PG. Intranasal sphenopalatine ganglion block: Minimally invasive pharmacotherapy for refractory facial and headache pain. J Pain Palliat Care Pharmacother. 2006;20:57‐59.
    1. Láinez MJ, Puche M, Garcia A, Gascón F. Sphenopalatine ganglion stimulation for the treatment of cluster headache. Ther Adv Neurol Disord. 2014;7:162‐168.
    1. Cady RK, Saper J. A double‐blind, placebo‐controlled study of repetitive transnasal sphenopalatine ganglion blockade with TX360® as acute treatment for chronic migraine. Headache. 2015;55:101‐116.
    1. Candido KD, Massey ST, Sauer R, Darabad RR, Knezevic NN. A novel revision to the classical transnasal topical sphenopalatine ganglion block for the treatment of headache and facial pain. Pain Physician. 2013;16:E769‐E778.
    1. Buchanan EM, Valentine KD, Cota L, Derringer C, Melia M. Effect sizes should be easy: A Windows program to calculate effect sizes and their confidence intervals. Paper presented at: 54th Annual Meeting Psychonomic Society; 2013; Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
    1. Faul F, Erdfelder E, Buchner A, Lang AG. Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behav Res Methods. 2009;41:1149‐1160.
    1. Aurora SK, Dodick DW, Turkel CC, et al. OnabotulinumtoxinA for treatment of chronic migraine: Results from the double‐blind, randomized placebo‐controlled phase of the PREEMPT 1 trial. Cephalalgia. 2010;30:793‐803.
    1. Diener HC, Dodick DW, Aurora SK, et al. OnabotulinumtoxinA for treatment of chronic migraine: Results from the double‐blind, randomized, placebo‐controlled phase of the PREEMPT 2 trial. Cephalalgia. 2010;30:804‐814.
    1. Malinowski MN, Day MR. Sphenopalatine ganglion block In: Waldman SD, ed. Pain Management. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders Elsevier; 2011:1054‐1061.

Source: PubMed

3
Subscribe