Preliminary results, methodological considerations and recruitment difficulties of a randomised clinical trial comparing two treatment regimens for patients with headache and neck pain

Willem De Hertogh, Peter Vaes, Dirk Devroey, Paul Louis, Hans Carpay, Steven Truijen, William Duquet, Rob Oostendorp, Willem De Hertogh, Peter Vaes, Dirk Devroey, Paul Louis, Hans Carpay, Steven Truijen, William Duquet, Rob Oostendorp

Abstract

Background: Headache is a highly prevalent disorder. Irrespective of the headache diagnosis it is often accompanied with neck pain and -stiffness. Due to this common combination of headache and neck pain, physical treatments of the cervical spine are often considered. The additional value of these treatments to standard medical care or usual care (UC) is insufficiently documented.We therefore wanted to compare the treatment effects of UC alone and in combination with manual therapy (MT) in patients with a combination of headache and neck pain. UC consisted of a stepped treatment approach according to the Dutch General Practitioners Guideline for headache, the additional MT consisted of articular mobilisations and low load exercises.Due to insufficient enrolment the study was terminated prematurely. We aim to report not only our preliminary clinical findings but also to discuss the encountered difficulties and to formulate recommendations for future research.

Methods: A randomised clinical trial was conducted. Thirty-seven patients were included and randomly allocated to one of both treatment groups. The treatment period was 6 weeks, with follow-up measurements at weeks 7, 12 and 26. Primary outcome measures were global perceived effect (GPE) and the impact of the headache using the Headache Impact Test (HIT-6). Reduction in headache frequency, pain intensity, medication intake, absenteeism and the use of additional professional help were secondary outcome measures

Results: Significant improvements on primary and secondary outcome measures were recorded in both treatment groups. No significant differences between both treatment groups were found. The number of recruited patients remained low despite various strategies.

Conclusion: It appears that both treatment strategies can have equivalent positive influences on headache complaints. Additional studies with larger study populations are needed to draw firm conclusions. Recommendations to increase patient inflow in primary care trials, such as the use of an extended network of participating physicians and of clinical alert software applications, are discussed.

Trial registration number: NCT00298142.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flow chart of subjects participation throughout trial. PT: Physiotherapy; MT: Manual therapy, HIT: Headache Impact Test; UC: Usual Care; UCMT: Usual Care plus Manual Therapy.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Comparison of medication intake at baseline, week 7, week 12 and week 26. No significant differences between both treatment groups were found (Chi-square statistics). Combi: Combined preparation, e.g. of paracetamol and caffeine, NSAIDs: Non Steroidal Anti-inflammatory Drugs. UC: Usual Care, UCMT: Usual Care plus Manual Therapy.

References

    1. Stovner L, Hagen K, Jensen R, Katsarava Z, Lipton R, Scher A, Steiner T, Zwart JA. The global burden of headache: a documentation of headache prevalence and disability worldwide. Cephalalgia. 2007;27:193–210. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2982.2007.01288.x.
    1. Hagen K, Einarsen C, Zwart JA, Svebak S, Bovim G. The co-occurrence of headache and musculoskeletal symptoms amongst 51 050 adults in Norway. Eur J Neurol. 2002;9:527–533. doi: 10.1046/j.1468-1331.2002.00451.x.
    1. Sjaastad O, Bakketeig LS. Prevalence of cervicogenic headache: Vaga study of headache epidemiology. Acta Neurol Scand. 2008;117:173–180. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0404.2007.00962.x.
    1. Steiner TJ, Paemeleire K, Jensen R, Valade D, Savi L, Lainez MJ, Diener HC, Martelletti P, Couturier EG. European principles of management of common headache disorders in primary care. J Headache Pain. 2007;8:S3–47.
    1. Dowson AJ, Bradford S, Lipscombe S, Rees T, Sender J, Watson D, Wells C. Managing chronic headaches in the clinic. Int J Clin Pract. 2004;58:1142–1151. doi: 10.1111/j.1742-1241.2004.00341.x.
    1. Jull G, Trott P, Potter H, Zito G, Niere K, Shirley D, Emberson J, Marschner I, Richardson C. A randomized controlled trial of exercise and manipulative therapy for cervicogenic headache. Spine. 2002;27:1835–1843. doi: 10.1097/00007632-200209010-00004. discussion 1843.
    1. van Ettekoven H, Lucas C. Efficacy of physiotherapy including a craniocervical training programme for tension-type headache; a randomized clinical trial. Cephalalgia. 2006;26:983–991. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2982.2006.01163.x.
    1. Astin JA, Ernst E. The effectiveness of spinal manipulation for the treatment of headache disorders: a systematic review of randomized clinical trials. Cephalalgia. 2002;22:617–623. doi: 10.1046/j.1468-2982.2002.00423.x.
    1. Biondi DM. Physical treatments for headache: a structured review. Headache. 2005;45:738–746. doi: 10.1111/j.1526-4610.2005.05141.x.
    1. Knuistingh Neven A, Bartelink M, De Jongh T, Ongering J, Oosterhuis W, Weerd P Van der, Pijnenborg L, Grol M. NHG-standaard Hoofdpijn. Huisarts Wet. 2004;46:411–422.
    1. Dowson AJ, Lipscombe S, Sender J, Rees T, Watson D. New guidelines for the management of migraine in primary care. Curr Med Res Opin. 2002;18:414–439. doi: 10.1185/030079902125001164.
    1. De Hertogh W, Vaes P, Devroey D, Truijen S, Duquet W, Oostendorp RAB. Management of Headache Disorders: Design of a Randomized Clinical Trial Screening for Prognostic Patient Characteristics. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders. 2007;8:38. doi: 10.1186/1471-2474-8-38.
    1. Hoofdpijn Trial, informatie voor artsen
    1. Hoofdpijn trial, informatie voor hoofdpijnpatiënten
    1. Cephalalgia. 2. Vol. 24. 2004. The International Classification of Headache Disorders; pp. 9–160.
    1. Sjaastad O, Fredriksen TA, Pfaffenrath V. Cervicogenic headache: diagnostic criteria. The Cervicogenic Headache International Study Group. Headache. 1998;38:442–445. doi: 10.1046/j.1526-4610.1998.3806442.x.
    1. Stolk-Hornsveld C, Gijsberts TJ, Duquet W, Kleinrensink GJ, Oostendorp RAB. Internal consistency and reliability of a cervicogenic headache questionnaire [abstract] Cephalalgia. 1999;19:436.
    1. Beurskens AJ, de Vet HC, Koke AJ. Responsiveness of functional status in low back pain: a comparison of different instruments. Pain. 1996;65:71–76. doi: 10.1016/0304-3959(95)00149-2.
    1. Clinical Trial: Management of Headache Disorders
    1. Godwin M, Ruhland L, Casson I, MacDonald S, Delva D, Birtwhistle R, Lam M, Seguin R. Pragmatic controlled clinical trials in primary care: the struggle between external and internal validity. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2003;3:28. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-3-28.
    1. Roland M, Torgerson DJ. What are pragmatic trials? Bmj. 1998;316:285.
    1. Linden M Van der, Westert G, de Bakker D, Schellevis F. Klachten en aandoeningen in de bevolking en in de huisartsenpraktijk. Utrecht: NIVEL; 2004.
    1. Bronfort G, Assendelft WJJ, Evans R, Haas M, Bouter L. Efficacy of spinal manipulation for chronic headache: a systematic review. Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics. 2001;24:457–466.
    1. Rasmussen BK. Epidemiology and socio-economic impact of headache. Cephalalgia. 1999;19:20–23.
    1. Rasmussen BK. Epidemiology of headache. Cephalalgia. 2001;21:774–777. doi: 10.1046/j.1468-2982.2001.00248.x.
    1. Vernon H, Jansz G, Goldsmith CH, McDermaid C. A randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial of chiropractic and medical prophylactic treatment of adults with tension-type headache: results from a stopped trial. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2009;32:344–351. doi: 10.1016/j.jmpt.2009.04.004.
    1. Embi PJ, Jain A, Harris CM. Physician perceptions of an Electronic Health Record-based Clinical Trial Alert system: a survey of study participants. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2005:949.
    1. Embi PJ, Jain A, Clark J, Bizjack S, Hornung R, Harris CM. Effect of a clinical trial alert system on physician participation in trial recruitment. Arch Intern Med. 2005;165:2272–2277. doi: 10.1001/archinte.165.19.2272.
    1. Fukui T, Rahman M, Shimbo T, Morita S, Sakamoto J. Recruitment of patients for a clinical trial: factors on the physician side and reasons on the patient side. Intern Med. 2006;45:511–514. doi: 10.2169/internalmedicine.45.1269.
    1. Bell-Syer SE, Moffett JA. Recruiting patients to randomized trials in primary care: principles and case study. Fam Pract. 2000;17:187–191. doi: 10.1093/fampra/17.2.187.
    1. Wouden JC van der, Blankenstein AH, Huibers MJ, Windt DA van der, Stalman WA, Verhagen AP. Survey among 78 studies showed that Lasagna's law holds in Dutch primary care research. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60:819–824. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.11.010.
    1. Embi PJ, Jain A, Clark J, Harris CM. Development of an electronic health record-based Clinical Trial Alert system to enhance recruitment at the point of care. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2005:231–235.
    1. Pfeiffer BM, Nubling M, Siebert HR, Schadel-Hopfner M. A prospective multi-center cohort study of acute non-displaced fractures of the scaphoid: operative versus non-operative treatment [NCT00205985] BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2006;7:41. doi: 10.1186/1471-2474-7-41.

Source: PubMed

3
Se inscrever