Non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation for the acute treatment of episodic and chronic cluster headache: A randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled ACT2 study

Author:

Goadsby Peter J1ORCID,de Coo Ilse F2,Silver Nicholas3,Tyagi Alok4,Ahmed Fayyaz5,Gaul Charly6,Jensen Rigmor H7,Diener Hans-Christoph8,Solbach Kasia8,Straube Andreas9ORCID,Liebler Eric10,Marin Juana CA1,Ferrari Michel D2

Affiliation:

1. NIHR-Wellcome Trust King’s Clinical Research Facility, King’s College Hospital, London, UK

2. Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, the Netherlands

3. The Walton Centre for Neurology and Neurosurgery, Liverpool, UK

4. Queen Elizabeth University Hospital Glasgow, Glasgow, UK

5. Hull Royal Infirmary, Hull, UK

6. Migraine and Headache Clinic, Königstein, Germany

7. Danish Headache Center, Rigshospitalet, Glostrup, Denmark

8. West German Headache Centre, Essen, Germany

9. Department of Neurology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany

10. electroCore, LLC, Basking Ridge, NJ, USA

Abstract

Background Clinical observations and results from recent studies support the use of non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation (nVNS) for treating cluster headache (CH) attacks. This study compared nVNS with a sham device for acute treatment in patients with episodic or chronic CH (eCH, cCH). Methods After completing a 1-week run-in period, subjects were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive nVNS or sham therapy during a 2-week double-blind period. The primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of all treated attacks that achieved pain-free status within 15 minutes after treatment initiation, without rescue treatment. Results The Full Analysis Set comprised 48 nVNS-treated (14 eCH, 34 cCH) and 44 sham-treated (13 eCH, 31 cCH) subjects. For the primary endpoint, nVNS (14%) and sham (12%) treatments were not significantly different for the total cohort. In the eCH subgroup, nVNS (48%) was superior to sham (6%; p < 0.01). No significant differences between nVNS (5%) and sham (13%) were seen in the cCH subgroup. Conclusions Combing both eCH and cCH patients, nVNS was no different to sham. For the treatment of CH attacks, nVNS was superior to sham therapy in eCH but not in cCH. These results confirm and extend previous findings regarding the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of nVNS for the acute treatment of eCH.

Publisher

SAGE Publications

Subject

Clinical Neurology,General Medicine

Cited by 155 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3