LoPinto C, Young W B, Ashkenazi A
New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA.
Cephalalgia. 2006 Jul;26(7):852-6. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2982.2006.01121.x.
Allodynia has been described in migraine but has not been fully investigated for the different sensory modalities. The aim of this study was to compare the prevalence of dynamic (brush) and static (pressure) mechanical allodynia in migraine patients and to suggest a practical method of testing them in a clinical setting. Patients with International Headache Society-defined episodic migraine (EM) or with transformed migraine (TM) as defined by Silberstein and Lipton were prospectively recruited from the Jefferson Headache Center out-patient clinic. A questionnaire of migraine features and symptoms of allodynia was administered. Brush allodynia (BA) was tested by cutaneous stimulation with a gauze pad and pressure allodynia (PA) was tested using von Frey hairs (VFH). The prevalence of BA and PA in all patients and in the different subgroups was calculated and correlated with migraine features. We recruited 55 migraine patients. Twenty-five had EM and 30 had TM. BA was present in 18 (32.7%) patients and PA in 18-24 (32.7-43.6%). Allodynia to both brush and pressure was found in 13-17 (23.6-30.9%) patients. If a patient had allodynia to one modality only, it was more likely to be PA than BA. Both BA and PA were more common in patients with TM compared with those with EM [BA 46.7% vs. 16.0%; PA (differences significant for the medium and thick VFHs) 50% vs. 20% and 50% vs. 12%, respectively]. Both types of allodynia were also more common in patients with migraine with aura compared with those with migraine without aura (BA 57.1% vs. 17.6%; PA 57.1-61.9% vs. 17.6-32.7%). There was a positive correlation between allodynia score (as obtained by examination) and allodynia index (as obtained by history) for both BA and PA. The incomplete, although considerable, overlap between BA and PA suggests that allodynia to different sensory modalities is associated with sensitization of different neuronal populations. Because PA was more common than BA, it may be a more sensitive indicator of allodynia in migraine. PA can be tested clinically in a practical and systematic manner.
偏头痛中已描述有痛觉过敏现象,但尚未针对不同感觉模态进行充分研究。本研究旨在比较偏头痛患者中动态(刷擦)和静态(按压)机械性痛觉过敏的患病率,并提出一种在临床环境中测试它们的实用方法。从杰斐逊头痛中心门诊前瞻性招募符合国际头痛协会定义的发作性偏头痛(EM)患者或符合西尔伯斯坦和利普顿定义的转化型偏头痛(TM)患者。发放了一份关于偏头痛特征和痛觉过敏症状的问卷。用纱布垫进行皮肤刺激测试刷擦性痛觉过敏(BA),使用von Frey毛发(VFH)测试按压性痛觉过敏(PA)。计算所有患者及不同亚组中BA和PA的患病率,并将其与偏头痛特征相关联。我们招募了55名偏头痛患者。其中25名患有EM,30名患有TM。18名(32.7%)患者存在BA,18 - 24名(32.7 - 43.6%)患者存在PA。13 - 17名(23.6 - 30.9%)患者对刷擦和按压均有痛觉过敏。如果患者仅对一种模态有痛觉过敏,更可能是PA而非BA。与EM患者相比,TM患者中BA和PA更常见[BA分别为46.7%和16.0%;PA(对中等和粗VFH差异有统计学意义)分别为50%和20%以及50%和12%]。与无先兆偏头痛患者相比,有先兆偏头痛患者中两种类型的痛觉过敏也更常见(BA分别为57.1%和17.6%;PA分别为57.1 - 61.9%和17.6 - 32.7%)。BA和PA的痛觉过敏评分(通过检查获得)与痛觉过敏指数(通过病史获得)之间均呈正相关。BA和PA之间虽有相当程度但不完全的重叠表明,对不同感觉模态的痛觉过敏与不同神经元群体的致敏有关。由于PA比BA更常见,它可能是偏头痛中痛觉过敏更敏感的指标。PA可在临床中以实用且系统的方式进行测试。