Evaluation of green light exposure on headache frequency and quality of life in migraine patients: A preliminary one-way cross-over clinical trial.
Evaluation of green light exposure on headache frequency and quality of life in migraine patients: A preliminary one-way cross-over clinical trial.
复制标题
绿色光照射对偏头痛患者头痛频率和生活质量的评估：一项初步的单向交叉临床试验
DOI：
10.1177/0333102420956711
复制
发表时间：
2021-03
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Ibrahim MM
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Martin LF;Patwardhan AM;Jain SV;Salloum MM;Freeman J;Khanna R;Gannala P;Goel V;Jones-MacFarland FN;Killgore WD;Porreca F;Ibrahim MM
偏头痛的药物治疗对某些患者无效。我们以前证明，暴露于绿色光导致抗伤害感受和逆转的热和机械过敏的啮齿动物疼痛模型。考虑到绿色发光二极管的安全性，我们评估了绿色光作为发作性或慢性偏头痛患者的潜在治疗方法。我们招募了29名患者，其中7名患有发作性偏头痛（EM），22名患有慢性偏头痛（CM）。我们使用单向交叉设计，包括每天暴露于白色发光二极管（WLED）1-2小时，持续10周，随后是2周的洗脱期，随后每天暴露于绿色发光二极管（GLED）1-2小时，持续10周。允许患者继续目前的治疗，并在医生的指导下开始新的治疗。结局包括患者报告的调查。主要结果指标是每月头痛天数。次要结果指标包括患者报告的两周内头痛强度和频率的变化以及其他生活质量指标，包括入睡和保持睡眠的能力，工作能力。获得止痛药的变化，以评估潜在的减少。当7名EM和22名CM患者作为单独的队列进行分析时，WLED在EM或CM患者中的头痛天数没有显著变化。EM组和CM组的合并数据显示，WLED使头痛天数从（天± SEM）18.2 ± 1.8天减少至16.5 ± 2.01天，减少幅度较小，但具有统计学显著性。GLED使EM和CM患者的头痛天数分别从7.9 ± 1.6天和22.3 ± 1.2天显着减少至2.4 ± 1.1天和9.4 ± 1.6天。虽然观察到WLED的次要结局有所改善，但观察到GLED的次要结局显著更大，包括生活质量评估、简式麦吉尔疼痛问卷、头痛影响测试-6和EuroQol五维调查的五级版本，未报告副作用。关于GLED暴露减少止痛药的结论是不可能的。没有报道光疗法的副作用。研究中没有患者报告开始新的治疗。GLED显著减少了EM或CM患者的头痛天数。此外，GLED显著改善了多个次要结局指标，包括生活质量和头痛发作的强度和持续时间。由于未报告不良事件，GLED可为偏好非药物治疗的患者提供治疗选择，或可考虑作为其他治疗策略的补充。本研究的局限性在于接受评价的患者数量较少。获得的积极数据支持实施更大规模的临床试验，以确定GLED治疗的可能效果。
Pharmacological management of migraine can be ineffective for some patients. We previously demonstrated that exposure to green light resulted in antinociception and reversal of thermal and mechanical hyper-sensitivity in rodent pain models. Given the safety of green light emitting diodes, we evaluated green light as a potential therapy in patients with episodic or chronic migraine. We recruited (29 total) patients of whom 7 had episodic migraine (EM) and 22 had chronic migraine (CM). We used a one-way cross-over design consisting of exposure for 1–2 hours daily to white light emitting diodes (WLED) for 10 weeks followed by a 2 week washout period followed by exposure for 1–2 hours daily to green light emitting diodes (GLED) for 10 weeks. Patients were allowed to continue current therapies and to initiate new treatments as directed by their physicians. Outcomes consisted of patient-reported surveys. The primary outcome measure was the number of headache days per month. Secondary outcome measures included patient reported changes in the intensity and frequency of the headaches over a two week period and other quality of life measures including ability to fall and stay asleep, ability to perform work. Changes in pain medications were obtained to assess potential reduction. When 7 EM and 22 CM patients were analyzed as separate cohorts, WLED produced no significant change in headache days in either EM or CM patients. Combining data from the EM and CM groups showed that WLED produced a small, but statistically significant reduction in headache days from (days ± SEM) 18.2 ± 1.8 to 16.5 ± 2.01 days. GLED resulted in a significant decrease in headache days from 7.9 ± 1.6 to 2.4 ± 1.1 and from 22.3 ± 1.2 to 9.4 ± 1.6 in EM and CM patients, respectively. While some improvement in secondary outcomes was observed with WLED, more secondary outcomes with significantly greater magnitude including assessments of quality of life, Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire, Headache Impact Test-6, and Five-level version of the EuroQol five-dimensional survey without reported side effects were observed with GLED. Conclusions regarding pain medications reduction with GLED exposure were not possible. No side effects of light therapy were reported. None of the patients in the study reported initiation of new therapies. GLED significantly reduced the number of headache days in people with EM or CM. Additionally, GLED significantly improved multiple secondary outcome measures including quality of life and intensity and duration of the headache attacks. As no adverse events were reported, GLED may provide a treatment option for those patients who prefer non-pharmacological therapies or may be considered in complementing other treatment strategies. Limitations of this study are the small number of patients evaluated. The positive data obtained support implementation of larger clinical trials to determine possible effects of GLED therapy.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
5
作者：
Lipton, Richard B.;Munjal, Sagar;Dodick, David W.
通讯作者：
Dodick, David W.
影响因子：
9.9
作者：
Kuca, Bernice;Silberstein, Stephen D.;Wolf, Thomas
通讯作者：
Wolf, Thomas
影响因子：
3.5
作者：
Herdman, M.;Gudex, C.;Lloyd, A.;Janssen, M. F.;Kind, P.;Parkin, D.;Bonsel, G.;Badia, X.
通讯作者：
Badia, X.
影响因子：
7.4
作者：
MELZACK, R
通讯作者：
MELZACK, R
影响因子：
120.7
作者：
Lipton, Richard B.;Dodick, David W.;Trugman, Joel M.
通讯作者：
Trugman, Joel M.