Forty-one recurrent tension headache sufferers were randomly assigned to either cognitive-behavioral therapy (administered in a primarily home-based treatment protocol) or to amitriptyline therapy (with dosage individualized at 25, 50, or 75 mg/day). Cognitive-behavioral therapy and amitriptyline each yielded clinically significant improvements in headache activity, both when improvement was assessed with patient daily recordings (56% and 27% reduction in headache index, respectively), and when improvement was assessed with neurologist ratings of clinical improvement (94% and 69% of patients rated at least moderately improved, respectively). In instances where differences in treatment effectiveness were observed (headache index, somatic complaints, perceptions of control of headache activity), cognitive-behavioral therapy yielded somewhat more positive outcomes than did amitriptyline. Neither treatment, however, eliminated headache problems.

Research suggests that approximately one half of recurrent headache sufferers fail to adhere properly to drug treatment regimens with as many as two thirds of patients failing to make optimal use of abortive medications such as ergotamine. In spite of these findings there are no controlled studies that have attempted to evaluate methods for improving adherence to drug regimens for the treatment of chronic headache disorders. In an initial effort to address this adherence problem thirty-four recurrent migraine sufferers were randomized to abortive therapy with ergotamine tartrate plus caffeine (standard abortive therapy) or to standard abortive therapy accompanied by a brief educational intervention designed to facilitate the migraine sufferer's effective use of ergotamine. Patients who received the adjunctive educational intervention attempted to abort a greater percentage of their migraine attacks (70% vs 40%) and showed larger reduction in headache activity (e.g., 40% vs 26% reduction in month two of treatment). However, patients in both treatment groups used similar amounts of abortive medication when attempting to abort a migraine attack and showed similar reductions in analgesic medication use with abortive therapy. There results suggest that brief educational interventions designed to address the problem of patient adherence may yield significant improvements in standard therapies. We argue that such educational interventions deserve more attention in the headache treatment literature than they have received to date.

A multitrait-multimethod design was used to examine the convergent and discriminant validity of seven pain measures from three widely used self-report instruments designed to assess the sensory, affective and intensity dimensions of pain. The instruments were the McGill Pain Questionnaire, the Pain Perception Profile and Numerical Ratings. Three distinct factor models, each corresponding to a different hypothesis about how these pain measures are related, were tested using confirmatory factor analysis in a sample of 419 headache sufferers. A three-factor model, postulating three correlated factors defined by the three assessment instruments best explained the correlations between the pain measures. Measures of sensory, affective and intensity dimensions from the three instruments failed to exhibit convergent or discriminant validity. Rather, instrument variance obscured the pain qualities the three pain instruments were designed to assess. These findings suggest that greater attention needs to be paid to how formal characteristics of pain assessment instruments influence patients' descriptions of their pain.

We compared cluster headache pain and other vascular (migraine and mixed) headache pain on pain intensity ratings and the McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ). Cluster headache sufferers reported not only more intense pain and more affective distress, but also different pain qualities than did migraine and mixed headache sufferers. The pain qualities that best distinguished cluster headaches from other vascular headaches were the presence of punctate pressure and thermal sensations and the absence of dull pain. Although cluster headache sufferers and other vascular headache sufferers endorsed different sensory pain qualities, MPQ subscales proved no better than pain intensity ratings at distinguishing these two groups. This finding may have occurred because MPQ subscale scores include an intensity component and do not provide information about specific pain qualities such as that provided by MPQ sensory items. These findings provide evidence that cluster headaches are characterized by distinct pain qualities and are not simply a more intense version of the same vascular headache pain experienced by migraine and mixed headache sufferers. They further suggest than when the MPQ is used to assess specific pain qualities, sensory items and not the sensory subscale are the preferred units for analysis.