Acute migraine therapy with external trigeminal neurostimulation (ACME): A randomized controlled trial.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Chou DE
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6348457 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jan
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Acute migraine therapy with external trigeminal neurostimulation (ACME): A randomized controlled trial.
Chou Denise E DE Shnayderman Yugrakh Marianna M Winegarner Dana D Rowe Vernon V Kuruvilla Deena D Schoenen Jean J
Cephalalgia : an international journal of headache 20181117 1
<h4>Objective</h4>To assess the safety and efficacy of external trigeminal nerve stimulation for acute pain relief during migraine attacks with or without aura via a sham-controlled trial.<h4>Methods</h4>This was a double-blind, randomized, sham-controlled study conducted across three headache centers in the United States. Adult patients who were experiencing an acute migraine attack with or without aura were recruited on site and randomly assigned 1:1 to receive either verum or sham external tr ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:IntroductionCurrent external peripheral nerve stimulation devices stimulate only one nerve. This prospective, randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled trial assessed efficacy, safety, and tolerability of a novel external combined occipital and trigeminal neurostimulation (eCOT-NS) device as a self-administered home treatment for migraine (Relivion®MG, Neurolief Ltd; Netanya, Israel).MethodsEpisodic and chronic migraine subjects (N = 55) were randomized to receive active (n = 27) or sham (n = 28) treatment. Subjects received eCOT-NS devices and performed 60 ± 20-min home treatments within 45 min of migraine episode onset. The primary endpoint was relative (percent) change in mean baseline VAS pain scores 1 h after treatment initiation. Treatment outcomes assessed at 1-, 2-, and 24-h post-treatment initiation were pain reduction and proportion of pain-free subjects and treatment responders, defined as ≥ 50% pain reduction. Categorical pain ratings (none, mild, moderate, and severe pain) were also analyzed.ResultsActive stimulation was significantly more effective than sham stimulation for decreasing pain intensity at 1 h (53% vs. 10%), 2 h (52% vs. 17%), and 24 h (71% vs. 34%). Pain-free ratings were greater for the active treatment arm at 1 h (29.2% vs. 16%), 2 h (41.7% vs. 20%), and 24 h (65.2% vs. 40%). The number of subjects with baseline moderate or severe migraine pain who were pain-free at 2 h was significantly greater among active treatment subjects (43% vs. 10.5%). The responder rate was significantly higher among the active treatment group at 1 h (67% vs. 20%), 2 h (66.7% vs. 32%,), and 24 h (78.3% vs. 48%). Overall headache relief was significantly higher in the active treatment group at 1 h (67% vs. 26%) and 2 h (76% vs. 31.6%). Mild adverse events, reported by a minority of subjects, resolved spontaneously.ConclusionseCOT-NS provides superior clinically meaningful relief and freedom from migraine pain, offering an effective and safe therapy for acute treatment of migraine.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT03398668.
| S-EPMC9314547 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPreclinical and retrospective studies suggest cannabinoids may be effective in migraine treatment. However, there have been no randomized clinical trials examining the efficacy of cannabinoids for acute migraine.MethodsIn this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover trial, adults with migraine treated up to 4 separate migraine attacks, 1 each with vaporized 1) 6% Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC-dominant); 2) 11% cannabidiol (CBD-dominant); 3) 6% THC+11% CBD; and 4) placebo cannabis flower in a randomized order. Washout period between treated attack was ≥1 week. The primary endpoint was pain relief and secondary endpoints were pain freedom and most bothersome symptom (MBS) freedom, all assessed at 2 hours post-vaporization.ResultsNinety-two participants were enrolled and randomized, and 247 migraine attacks were treated. THC+CBD was superior to placebo at achieving pain relief (67.2% vs 46.6%, Odds Ratio [95% Confidence Interval] 2.85 [1.22, 6.65], p=0.016), pain freedom (34.5% vs. 15.5%, 3.30 [1.24, 8.80], p=0.017) and MBS freedom (60.3% vs. 34.5%, 3.32 [1.45, 7.64], p=0.005) at 2 hours, as well as sustained pain freedom at 24 hours and sustained MBS freedom at 24 and 48 hours. THC-dominant was superior to placebo for pain relief (68.9% vs. 46.6%, 3.14 [1.35, 7.30], p=0.008) but not pain freedom or MBS freedom at 2 hours. CBD-dominant was not superior to placebo for pain relief, pain freedom or MBS freedom at 2 hours. There were no serious adverse events.ConclusionsAcute migraine treatment with 6% THC+11% CBD was superior to placebo at 2 hours post-treatment with sustained benefits at 24 and 48 hours.
| S-EPMC10889030 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe neuropeptide calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) plays a key role in migraine pathophysiology. In this large phase 3 clinical trial, we sought to confirm the efficacy of telcagepant, the first orally bioavailable CGRP receptor antagonist.MethodsAdults with migraine with or without aura (International Headache Society criteria) treated a moderate or severe attack with oral telcagepant 50 mg (n = 177), 150 mg (n = 381), 300 mg (n = 371), or placebo (n = 365) in a randomized, double-blind trial. The 5 co-primary endpoints were pain freedom, pain relief, and absence of photophobia, absence of phonophobia, and absence of nausea, all at 2 hours postdose. The key secondary endpoint was 2-24 hour sustained pain freedom. The prespecified primary efficacy analyses evaluated the 150 mg and 300 mg groups; the 50-mg group was included on an exploratory basis to further characterize the dose response but was not prespecified for analysis. Tolerability was assessed by adverse experience reports.ResultsTelcagepant 300 mg was more effective (p <or= 0.001) than placebo on all primary endpoints and the key secondary endpoint, as was telcagepant 150 mg (p <or= 0.05). Telcagepant 300 mg showed a slight numeric advantage over telcagepant 150 mg on most measures. Telcagepant 50 mg values were numerically intermediate between placebo and telcagepant 150 mg and 300 mg. The percentages of patients with adverse experiences were 32.2% for telcagepant 50 mg, 32.0% for telcagepant 150 mg, 36.2% for telcagepant 300 mg, and 32.2% for placebo.ConclusionsThis study confirmed previous findings that telcagepant 300 mg was effective at relieving pain and other migraine symptoms at 2 hours and providing sustained pain freedom up to 24 hours. In this study, telcagepant 150 mg was also effective. Telcagepant was generally well tolerated.
| S-EPMC2754336 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Study objectiveMore than 1 million patients present to US emergency departments (EDs) annually seeking care for acute migraine. Parenteral antihistamines have long been used in combination with antidopaminergics such as metoclopramide to treat acute migraine in the ED. High-quality data supporting this practice do not exist. We determine whether administration of diphenhydramine 50 mg intravenously+metoclopramide 10 mg intravenously results in greater rates of sustained headache relief than placebo+metoclopramide 10 mg intravenously.MethodsThis was a randomized, double-blind, clinical trial comparing 2 active treatments for acute migraine in an ED. Eligible patients were adults younger than 65 years presenting with an acute moderate or severe headache meeting International Classification of Headache Disorders-2 migraine criteria. Patients were stratified according to presence or absence of allergic symptoms. The primary outcome was sustained headache relief, defined as achieving a headache level of mild or none within 2 hours of medication administration and maintaining this level of relief without use of any additional headache medication for 48 hours. Secondary efficacy outcomes included mean improvement on a 0 to 10 verbal scale between baseline and 1 hour, the frequency with which subjects indicated they would want the same medication the next time they present to the ED with migraine, and the ED throughput time. Sample size calculation using a 2-sided α of .05, a β of .20, and a 15% difference between study arms determined the need for 374 patients. An interim analysis was conducted when data were available for 200 subjects.ResultsFour hundred twenty patients were approached for participation. Two hundred eight eligible patients consented to participate and were randomized. At the planned interim analysis, the data and safety monitoring board recommended that the study be halted for futility. Baseline characteristics were comparable between the groups. Fourteen percent (29/208) of the sample reported allergic symptoms. Of patients randomized to diphenhydramine, 40% (40/100) reported sustained relief at 48 hours, as did 37% (38/103) of patients randomized to placebo (95% confidence interval [CI] for difference of 3%: -10% to 16%). One hour after medication administration, patients randomized to diphenhydramine improved by a mean of 5.1 on the 0 to 10 scale versus 4.8 for those randomized to placebo (95% CI for difference of 0.3: -0.6 to 1.1). Eighty-five percent (84/99) of the patients in the diphenhydramine arm reported they would want the same medication combination during a subsequent ED visit, as did 76% (77/102) of those who received placebo (95% CI for difference of 9%: -2% to 20%). Median ED length of stay was 122 minutes (interquartile range 84 to 180 minutes) in the diphenhydramine group and 139 minutes (interquartile range 90 to 235 minutes) in the placebo arm. Rates of adverse effects, including akathisia, were comparable between the groups.ConclusionIntravenous diphenhydramine, when administered as adjuvant therapy with metoclopramide, does not improve migraine outcomes.
| S-EPMC4695376 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:People with migraine often experience disability with serious consequences for their social life and work productivity. The pharmacological prophylactic management of migraine is effective in reducing migraine attacks. However, many people are reluctant to use daily prophylactic medication, leading to a demand for non-pharmacological treatment options. We present the design for and discuss the feasibility of a pragmatic, randomized controlled trial on the effectiveness of a multimodal manual therapy (MT) treatment compared to usual care by the general practitioner (GP) for the prophylactic treatment of migraine. METHODS:Eligible participants will be recruited in primary care using the International Classification of Headache Disorders III criteria for migraine of the International Headache Society. Participants will be randomized to either multimodal MT treatment or usual care provided by the GP. GPs will be asked to treat the usual care group according to the Dutch GP guideline for headache. The multimodal MT intervention will include manual pressure techniques, neck muscle-strength exercises and mobilization of the cervical and thoracic spine. The trial will consist of a 12-week treatment period and follow-up measurements at 12, 26 and 52 weeks. The primary outcome measure is the number of migraine days per 4 weeks, assessed with a headache diary. Secondary outcome measures are the number of migraine attacks, medication use, disability due to headache, headache intensity, number of participants reporting a 50% migraine reduction, measurement of cervical pressure pain thresholds, presence of allodynia, endurance of cervical flexor muscles, days of absence of work and global perceived effect. DISCUSSION:The results of the trial will show whether a multimodal MT intervention is an effective non-pharmacological treatment option for people with migraine. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Dutch Trial Register, NL7504. Registered on 7 February 2019.
| S-EPMC6935086 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAcupuncture is commonly used to treat migraine. We assessed the efficacy of acupuncture at migraine-specific acupuncture points compared with other acupuncture points and sham acupuncture.MethodsWe performed a multicentre, single-blind randomized controlled trial. In total, 480 patients with migraine were randomly assigned to one of four groups (Shaoyang-specific acupuncture, Shaoyang-nonspecific acupuncture, Yangming-specific acupuncture or sham acupuncture [control]). All groups received 20 treatments, which included electrical stimulation, over a period of four weeks. The primary outcome was the number of days with a migraine experienced during weeks 5-8 after randomization. Our secondary outcomes included the frequency of migraine attack, migraine intensity and migraine-specific quality of life.ResultsCompared with patients in the control group, patients in the acupuncture groups reported fewer days with a migraine during weeks 5-8, however the differences between treatments were not significant (p > 0.05). There was a significant reduction in the number of days with a migraine during weeks 13-16 in all acupuncture groups compared with control (Shaoyang-specific acupuncture v. control: difference -1.06 [95% confidence interval (CI) -1.77 to -0.5], p = 0.003; Shaoyang-nonspecific acupuncture v. control: difference -1.22 [95% CI -1.92 to -0.52], p < 0.001; Yangming-specific acupuncture v. control: difference -0.91 [95% CI -1.61 to -0.21], p = 0.011). We found that there was a significant, but not clinically relevant, benefit for almost all secondary outcomes in the three acupuncture groups compared with the control group. We found no relevant differences between the three acupuncture groups.InterpretationAcupuncture tested appeared to have a clinically minor effect on migraine prophylaxis compared with sham acupuncture.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov NCT00599586.
| S-EPMC3291669 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo assess the efficacy and safety of a remote electrical neuromodulation (REN) device for the acute treatment of migraine.BackgroundThere is a significant unmet need for novel effective well-tolerated acute migraine treatments. REN is a novel acute migraine treatment that stimulates upper arm peripheral nerves to induce conditioned pain modulation - an endogenous analgesic mechanism in which conditioning stimulation inhibits pain in remote body regions. A recent pilot study showed that REN can significantly reduce headache. We have conducted a randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled study to further evaluate the efficacy and safety of REN for the acute treatment of migraine.MethodsThis was a randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled, multicenter study conducted at 7 sites in the United States and 5 sites in Israel. Two hundred and fifty-two adults meeting the International Classification of Headache Disorders criteria for migraine with 2-8 migraine headaches per month were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to active or sham stimulation. A smartphone-controlled wireless device was applied for 30-45 minutes on the upper arm within 1 hour of attack onset; electrical stimulation was at a perceptible but non-painful intensity level. Migraine pain levels were recorded at baseline, 2, and 48 hours post-treatment. Most bothersome symptoms (MBS) were also recorded. The primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of participants achieving pain relief at 2 hours post-treatment (improvement from severe or moderate pain to mild or none, or from mild pain to none). Relief of MBS and pain-free at 2 hours were key secondary endpoints.ResultsActive stimulation was more effective than sham stimulation in achieving pain relief (66.7% [66/99] vs 38.8% [40/103]; therapeutic gain of 27.9% [CI95% , 15.6-40.2]; P < .0001), pain-free (37.4% vs 18.4%, P = .003), and MBS relief (46.3% vs 22.2%, P = .0008) at 2 hours post-treatment. The pain relief and pain-free superiority of the active treatment was sustained 48 hours post-treatment. The incidence of device-related adverse events was low and similar between treatment groups (4.8% [6/126] vs 2.4% [3/126], P = .499).ConclusionsREN provides superior clinically meaningful relief of migraine pain and MBS compared to placebo, offering a safe and effective non-pharmacological alternative for acute migraine treatment.
| S-EPMC6767146 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and purposeTo investigate the efficacy of chiropractic spinal manipulative therapy (CSMT) for migraineurs.MethodsThis was a prospective three-armed, single-blinded, placebo, randomized controlled trial (RCT) of 17 months duration including 104 migraineurs with at least one migraine attack per month. The RCT was conducted at Akershus University Hospital, Oslo, Norway. Active treatment consisted of CSMT, whereas placebo was a sham push manoeuvre of the lateral edge of the scapula and/or the gluteal region. The control group continued their usual pharmacological management. The RCT consisted of a 1-month run-in, 3 months intervention and outcome measures at the end of the intervention and at 3, 6 and 12 months follow-up. The primary end-point was the number of migraine days per month, whereas secondary end-points were migraine duration, migraine intensity and headache index, and medicine consumption.ResultsMigraine days were significantly reduced within all three groups from baseline to post-treatment (P < 0.001). The effect continued in the CSMT and placebo group at all follow-up time points, whereas the control group returned to baseline. The reduction in migraine days was not significantly different between the groups (P > 0.025 for interaction). Migraine duration and headache index were reduced significantly more in the CSMT than the control group towards the end of follow-up (P = 0.02 and P = 0.04 for interaction, respectively). Adverse events were few, mild and transient. Blinding was strongly sustained throughout the RCT.ConclusionsIt is possible to conduct a manual-therapy RCT with concealed placebo. The effect of CSMT observed in our study is probably due to a placebo response.
| S-EPMC5214068 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo explore the safety and efficacy of external trigeminal nerve stimulation (eTNS) in patients with drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE) using a double-blind randomized controlled trial design, and to test the suitability of treatment and control parameters in preparation for a phase III multicenter clinical trial.MethodsThis is a double-blind randomized active-control trial in DRE. Fifty subjects with 2 or more partial onset seizures per month (complex partial or tonic-clonic) entered a 6-week baseline period, and then were evaluated at 6, 12, and 18 weeks during the acute treatment period. Subjects were randomized to treatment (eTNS 120 Hz) or control (eTNS 2 Hz) parameters.ResultsAt entry, subjects were highly drug-resistant, averaging 8.7 seizures per month (treatment group) and 4.8 seizures per month (active controls). On average, subjects failed 3.35 antiepileptic drugs prior to enrollment, with an average duration of epilepsy of 21.5 years (treatment group) and 23.7 years (active control group), respectively. eTNS was well-tolerated. Side effects included anxiety (4%), headache (4%), and skin irritation (14%). The responder rate, defined as >50% reduction in seizure frequency, was 30.2% for the treatment group vs 21.1% for the active control group for the 18-week treatment period (not significant, p = 0.31, generalized estimating equation [GEE] model). The treatment group experienced a significant within-group improvement in responder rate over the 18-week treatment period (from 17.8% at 6 weeks to 40.5% at 18 weeks, p = 0.01, GEE). Subjects in the treatment group were more likely to respond than patients randomized to control (odds ratio 1.73, confidence interval 0.59-0.51). eTNS was associated with reductions in seizure frequency as measured by the response ratio (p = 0.04, analysis of variance [ANOVA]), and improvements in mood on the Beck Depression Inventory (p = 0.02, ANOVA).ConclusionsThis study provides preliminary evidence that eTNS is safe and may be effective in subjects with DRE. Side effects were primarily limited to anxiety, headache, and skin irritation. These results will serve as a basis to inform and power a larger multicenter phase III clinical trial.Classification of evidenceThis phase II study provides Class II evidence that trigeminal nerve stimulation may be safe and effective in reducing seizures in people with DRE.
| S-EPMC3598453 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Objective: Assessing the effects of caffeine withdrawal on migraine. Background: The effects of caffeine withdrawal on migraineurs are at large unknown. Methods: This was a randomized, double-blind, crossover study (NCT03022838), designed to enroll 80 adults with episodic migraine and a daily consumption of 300-800 mg caffeine. Participants substituted their estimated dietary caffeine with either placebo capsules or capsulated caffeine tablets for 5 weeks before switching the comparators for 5 more weeks. Results: The study was terminated due to low recruitment. Ten subjects with a mean age of 46.3 ± 9.9 years, BMI of 24.9 ± 3.7, and a mean blood pressure of 134/83 ± 17/12 mmHg were enrolled. The average consumption of caffeine per day was 539 ± 196.3 mg. The average monthly headache days and migraine attack frequency at baseline was 11.5 ± 4.9 and 5.2 ± 1.2, respectively. At baseline Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index was 5.8 ± 2.5 and HIT-6 was 62.8 ± 3.9. There were no differences in these or in parameters from actigraphy during the caffeine period compared with the placebo period. One subject withdrew just after entering the study. In the remaining nine, withdrawal triggered severe migraine attacks in seven, causing one more drop-out, and a typical caffeine withdrawal syndrome in two. Caffeine continuation did not trigger migraines, but one attack occurred in the wake of caffeine reintroduction. Conclusions: The study failed to answer how caffeine withdrawal affects migraineurs over time, but showed that abrupt withdrawal of caffeine is a potent trigger for migraine attacks.
| S-EPMC7512113 | biostudies-literature