Cost-effectiveness analysis of non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation for the treatment of chronic cluster headache

Update on Neuromodulation for Migraine and Other Primary Headache Disorders: Recent Advances and New Indications

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Neuromodulation techniques currently available for headache management are reviewed in this article, with a focus on recent advances in non-invasive devices for migraine and trigeminal autonomic cephalalgias.

RECENT FINDINGS

The currently available FDA-cleared non-invasive devices for migraine include transcutaneous supraorbital and supratrochlear nerve stimulation, single-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation (sTMS), external concurrent occipital and trigeminal neurostimulation (eCOT-NS), remote electrical neuromodulation (REN), and non-invasive vagal nerve stimulation (nVNS) with indications for migraine and trigeminal autonomic cephalalgias. Emerging non-invasive techniques being explored for use in migraine include transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), kinetic oscillation stimulation (KOS), and auricular transcutaneous vagal nerve stimulation (at-VNS). In addition to primary headache, non-invasive neuromodulation is being investigated for comorbid conditions such as depression. Non-invasive neuromodulation devices remain a safe, well-tolerated, and effective therapy for patients with primarily migraine and trigeminal autonomic cephalalgias. Ongoing research is needed to determine efficacy in other headache disorders and comorbid conditions.

Clinical Efficacy of Auricular Vagus Nerve Stimulation in the Treatment of Chronic and Acute Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Current guidelines for pain treatment recommend a personalized, multimodal and interdisciplinary approach as well as the use of a combination of drug and non-drug therapies. Risk factors for chronification should already be reduced in patients with acute pain, e.g., after surgery or trauma. Auricular vagus nerve stimulation (aVNS) could be an effective non-drug therapy in the multimodal treatment of chronic and acute pain. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of aVNS in treating chronic and acute pain conditions.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed regarding the application of auricular electrical stimulation in chronic and acute pain. Studies were classified according to their level of evidence (Jadad scale), scientific validity and risk of bias (RoB 2 tool) and analyzed regarding indication, method, stimulation parameters, duration of treatment and efficacy and safety. A meta-analysis on (randomized) controlled trials (using different comparators) was performed for chronic and acute pain conditions, respectively, including subgroup analysis for percutaneous (pVNS-needle electrodes) and transcutaneous (tVNS-surface electrodes) aVNS. The visual analog pain scale (VAS) was defined as primary efficacy endpoint.

RESULTS

A total of n = 1496 patients were treated with aVNS in 23 identified and analyzed studies in chronic pain, 12 studies in acute postoperative pain and 7 studies in experimental acute pain. Of these, seven studies for chronic pain and six studies for acute postoperative pain were included in the meta-analysis. In chronic pain conditions, including back pain, migraine and abdominal pain, a statistically significant reduction in VAS pain intensity for active compared to sham aVNS or control treatment with an effect size Hedges' g/mean difference of - 1.95 (95% confidence interval [CI]: - 3.94 to 0.04, p = 0.008) could be shown and a more favorable effect in pVNS compared to tVNS (- 5.40 [- 8.94; - 1.85] vs. - 1.00 [- 1.55; - 0.44]; p = 0.015). In acute pain conditions, single studies showed significant improvements with aVNS, e.g., in kidney donor surgery or tonsillectomy but, overall, a non-statistically significant reduction in VAS pain intensity for active compared to sham aVNS or control with - 0.70 [- 2.34; 0.93] (p = 0.15) could be observed in the meta-analysis. In acute pain results vary greatly between studies depending especially on co-medication and timepoints of assessment after surgery. A significant reduction in analgesics or opiate intake was documented in most studies evaluating this effect in chronic and acute pain. In 3 of the 12 randomized controlled trials in patients with chronic pain, a sustainable pain reduction over a period of up to 12 months was shown. Overall, aVNS was very well tolerated.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review and meta-analysis indicate that aVNS can be an effective and safe non-drug treatment in patients with specific chronic and acute postoperative pain conditions. Further research is needed to identify the influence of simulation parameters and find optimal and standardized treatment protocols while considering quality-of-life outcome parameters and prolonged follow-up periods. A more standardized approach and harmonization in study designs would improve comparability and robustness of outcomes.

Non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation in anti-inflammatory therapy: mechanistic insights and future perspectives

Non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) represents a transformative approach for managing a broad spectrum of inflammatory and autoimmune conditions, including rheumatoid arthritis and inflammatory bowel disease. This comprehensive review delineates the mechanisms underlying VNS, emphasizing the cholinergic anti-inflammatory pathway, and explores interactions within the neuro-immune and vagus-gut axes based on both clinical outcomes and pre-clinical models. Clinical applications have confirmed the efficacy of VNS in managing specific autoimmune diseases, such as rheumatoid arthritis, and chronic inflammatory conditions like inflammatory bowel disease, showcasing the variability in stimulation parameters and patient responses. Concurrently, pre-clinical studies have provided insights into the potential of VNS in modulating cardiovascular and broader inflammatory responses, paving the way for its translational application in clinical settings. Innovations in non-invasive VNS technology and precision neuromodulation are enhancing its therapeutic potential, making it a viable option for patients who are unresponsive to conventional treatments. Nonetheless, the widespread adoption of this promising therapy is impeded by regulatory challenges, patient compliance issues, and the need for extensive studies on long-term efficacy and safety. Future research directions will focus on refining VNS technology, optimizing treatment parameters, and exploring synergistic effects with other therapeutic modalities, which could revolutionize the management of chronic inflammatory and autoimmune disorders.

[Clinical efficacy of auricular vagus nerve stimulation in the treatment of chronic and acute pain : A systematic review]

BACKGROUND

Current guidelines recommend a personalized, multimodal, and interdisciplinary approach for the treatment of chronic pain. Already in the acute treatment of postoperative pain, it can be useful to minimize risk factors for chronification. Auricular vagus nerve stimulation (aVNS) could be an effective non-drug therapy for the treatment of chronic and acute pain.

AIM OF THE WORK

The aim of this systematic review is to evaluate the clinical efficacy of aVNS in chronic and acute pain as well as its effect on medication intake.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic literature search was carried out on the application of auricular electrical stimulation in chronic and acute pain. Studies were classified according to their level of evidence and evaluated via the Jadad scale as well as their scientific validity, and then analyzed in terms of indication, method, stimulation parameters, duration of treatment, efficacy, and safety.

RESULTS

Twenty studies on chronic pain indications, ten studies on acute postoperative pain, as well as seven studies on experimental acute pain were identified and analyzed. The search revealed a total of n = 1105 aVNS-treated patients. The best evidence on the efficacy of aVNS is available for the indications chronic low back pain, chronic cervical syndrome, chronic abdominal pain, and chronic migraine as well as acute postoperative pain in oocyte aspiration, laparoscopic nephrectomy, and open colorectal surgery. Additionally a significant reduction in analgesic or opiate intake was evident in most studies. In three randomized controlled trials in chronic pain patients, a sustainable pain reduction over a period of up to 12 months was shown. Overall, aVNS was very well tolerated.

CONCLUSION

This review indicates that aVNS can be a complementary and effective non-drug treatment for patients with chronic and acute postoperative pain. Future studies in these indications should focus on standardizing and optimizing treatment parameters, inclusion of quality-of-life outcome parameters, and longer follow-up periods to better understand the sustainable therapeutic effect of aVNS.

An Analysis of the Determinants of the Health-Related Quality of Life in Asian Patients With Cluster Headaches During Cluster Periods Using the Time Trade-Off Method

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Patients with cluster headache (CH) exhibit impaired health-related quality of life (HRQoL). However, there have been few studies related to the HRQoL of patients with CH from Asian backgrounds. This study aimed to determine the impact of CH on HRQoL and to identify the factors affecting HRQoL in patients with CH during cluster periods.

METHODS

This prospective study enrolled patients with CH from 17 headache clinics in South Korea between September 2016 and February 2021. The study aimed to determine HRQoL in patients with CH using the EuroQol 5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) index and the time trade-off (TTO) method. Age- and sex-matched headache-free participants were recruited as a control group.

RESULTS

The study included 423 patients with CH who experienced a cluster period at the time. EQ-5D scores were lower in patients with CH (0.88±0.43, mean±standard deviation) than in the controls (0.99±0.33, p<0.001). The TTO method indicated that 58 (13.6%) patients with CH exhibited moderate-to-severe HRQoL deterioration. The HRQoL states in patients with CH were associated with current smoking patterns, headache severity, frequency, and duration, and scores on the Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-item scale (GAD-7), Patient Health Questionnaire 9-item scale (PHQ-9), 6-item Headache Impact Test, and 12-item Allodynia Symptom Checklist. Multivariable logistic regression analyses demonstrated that the HRQoL states in patients with CH were negatively correlated with the daily frequency of headaches, cluster period duration, and GAD-7 and PHQ-9 scores.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with CH experienced a worse quality of life during cluster periods compared with the headache-free controls, but the degree of HRQoL deterioration varied among them. The daily frequency of headaches, cluster period duration, anxiety, and depression were factors associated with HRQoL deterioration severity in patients with CH.

An open-label observational study and meta-analysis of non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation in medically refractory chronic cluster headache

Background

Many patients with cluster headache (CH) are inadequately controlled by current treatment options. Non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation (nVNS) is reported to be effective in the management of CH though some studies suggest that it is ineffective.

Objective

To assess the safety and efficacy of nVNS in chronic cluster headache (CCH) patients.

Method

We prospectively analysed data from 40 patients with refractory CCH in this open-label, observational study. Patients were seen in tertiary headache clinics at the National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery and trained to use nVNS as preventative therapy. Patients were reivewed at one month and then three-monthly from onset. The primary endpoint was number of patients achieving ≥50% reduction in attack frequency at 3  months. A meta-analysis of all published studies evaluating the efficacy of nVNS in CCH was also conducted. We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE for all studies investigating the use of nVNS as a preventive or adjunctive treatment for CCH with five or more participants. Combined mean difference and responder proportions with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated from the included studies.

Results

17/40 patients (43%) achieved ≥50% reduction in attack frequency at 3  months. There was a significant reduction in monthly attack frequency from a baseline of 124 (±67) attacks to 79 (±63) attacks in month 3 (mean difference 44.7; 95% CI 25.1 to 64.3; p &lt; 0.001). In month 3, there was also a 1.2-point reduction in average severity from a baseline Verbal Rating Scale of 8/10 (95% CI 0.5 to 1.9; p = 0.001). Four studies, along with the present study, were deemed eligible for meta-analysis, which showed a responder proportion of 0.35 (95% CI 0.07 to 0.69, n = 137) and a mean reduction in headache frequency of 35.3 attacks per month (95% CI 11.0 to 59.6, n = 108), from a baseline of 105 (±22.7) attacks per month.

Conclusion

This study highlights the potential benefit of nVNS in CCH, with significant reductions in headache frequency and severity. To better characterise the effect, randomised sham-controlled trials are needed to confirm the beneficial response of VNS reported in some, but not all, open-label studies.

Non-invasive neuromodulation of the cervical vagus nerve in rare primary headaches

Primary headache disorders can be remarkably disabling and the therapeutic options available are usually limited to medication with a high rate of adverse events. Here, we discuss the mechanism of action of non-invasive vagal nerve stimulation, as well as the findings of the main studies involving patients with primary headaches other than migraine or cluster headache, such as hemicrania continua, paroxysmal hemicrania, cough headache, or short-lasting neuralgiform headache attacks (SUNCT/SUNA), in a narrative analysis. A bibliographical search of low-prevalence disorders such as rare primary headaches retrieves a moderate number of studies, usually underpowered. Headache intensity, severity, and duration showed a clinically significant reduction in the majority, especially those involving indomethacin-responsive headaches. The lack of response of some patients with a similar diagnosis could be due to a different stimulation pattern, technique, or total dose. The use of non-invasive vagal nerve stimulation for the treatment of primary headache disorders represents an excellent option for patients with these debilitating and otherwise refractory conditions, or that cannot tolerate several lines of preventive medication, and should always be considered before contemplating invasive, non-reversible stimulation techniques.

Neurostimulation Treatment in Chronic Cluster Headache-a Narrative Review

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

In this narrative review, the current literature on neurostimulation methods in the treatment of chronic cluster headache is evaluated. These neurostimulation methods include deep brain stimulation, vagus nerve stimulation, greater occipital nerve stimulation, sphenopalatine ganglion stimulation, transcranial magnetic stimulation, transcranial direct current stimulation, supraorbital nerve stimulation, and cervical spinal cord stimulation.

RECENT FINDINGS

Altogether, only nVNS and SPG stimulation are supported by at least one positive sham-controlled clinical trial for preventive and acute attack (only SPG stimulation) treatment. Other clinical trials either did not control at all or controlled by differences in the stimulation technique itself but not by a sham-control. Case series report higher responder rates. The evidence for these neurostimulation methods in the treatment of chronic cluster headache is poor and in part contradictive. However, except deep brain stimulation, tolerability and safety of these methods are good so that in refractory situations application might be justified in individual cases.

gammaCore for Cluster Headaches: A NICE Medical Technologies Guidance

Cluster headaches are excruciating attacks of pain that can last between 15 min and 3 h. Cluster headaches can be episodic, where patients have long pain-free intervals between attacks, or chronic, where they do not. As part of the Medical Technologies Evaluation Programme, the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) considered the clinical effectiveness and cost impact of gammaCore (electroCore), a handheld, patient-controlled device used to treat and prevent cluster headache. gammaCore is a non-invasive vagus nerve stimulator, the aim of which is to modify pain signals by stimulating the vagus nerve through the skin of the neck. Evidence suggests that gammaCore reduces the intensity and frequency of cluster headaches and that the addition of gammaCore to standard care is cost saving. Therefore, the guidance published by NICE in December 2019 recommends routine adoption of gammaCore into the UK national health service. However, the guidance noted that gammaCore does not work for everyone and recommended that treatment with gammaCore should stop after 3 months in patients whose symptoms do not improve.

International Consensus Based Review and Recommendations for Minimum Reporting Standards in Research on Transcutaneous Vagus Nerve Stimulation (Version 2020)

Given its non-invasive nature, there is increasing interest in the use of transcutaneous vagus nerve stimulation (tVNS) across basic, translational and clinical research. Contemporaneously, tVNS can be achieved by stimulating either the auricular branch or the cervical bundle of the vagus nerve, referred to as transcutaneous auricular vagus nerve stimulation(VNS) and transcutaneous cervical VNS, respectively. In order to advance the field in a systematic manner, studies using these technologies need to adequately report sufficient methodological detail to enable comparison of results between studies, replication of studies, as well as enhancing study participant safety. We systematically reviewed the existing tVNS literature to evaluate current reporting practices. Based on this review, and consensus among participating authors, we propose a set of minimal reporting items to guide future tVNS studies. The suggested items address specific technical aspects of the device and stimulation parameters. We also cover general recommendations including inclusion and exclusion criteria for participants, outcome parameters and the detailed reporting of side effects. Furthermore, we review strategies used to identify the optimal stimulation parameters for a given research setting and summarize ongoing developments in animal research with potential implications for the application of tVNS in humans. Finally, we discuss the potential of tVNS in future research as well as the associated challenges across several disciplines in research and clinical practice.

Development and Evaluation of a Screening Tool to Aid the Diagnosis of a Cluster Headache

Cluster headache (CH), a severe primary headache, is often misdiagnosed and mismanaged. The aim of this study was to develop and evaluate a screening tool to aid the diagnosis of CH. We developed a novel 12-item screening tool. This was comprised of four components: (1) images depicting headache pain; (2) pain descriptors; (3) key questions that could differentiate between CH and migraine; and (4) a visual analogue pain scale. The total possible questionnaire score ranged from 3-32. Patients with CH and migraines (control group) were recruited prospectively from a headache centre in the North of England, UK. Two-hundred and ninety-six patients were included in the study: 81 CH patients, 36 of which suffer with episodic CH and 45 with chronic CH; 215 migraine patients, 92 of which suffer with episodic migraine and 123 with chronic migraine. The mean questionnaire score was higher in CH patients versus migraine patients (28.4 versus 19.5). At a cut-off score of >25 out of 32, the screening tool had a sensitivity of 86.4% and a specificity of 92.0% in differentiating between CH and migraine. The screening tool could be a useful instrument to aid the diagnosis of a CH. The images depicting headache pain do not clearly discriminate between CH and migraine.

[Peripheral neurostimulation in headache treatment]

According to rough estimates, at least one third of the population in developed countries suffers, to varying degrees, from certain forms of primary headache, the modern pharmacotherapy of which is not always effective and has a number of limitations. The non-pharmacological treatment of headache can be an alternative to the prescription of pharmacological agents and the only possible assistance option for patients developing drug-resistant cephalalgias. This review describes various methods of electrical neuromodulation that are used for the management of primary headaches. The authors provide information on current stages in implementation of implantable and non-invasive equipment into clinical practice, which makes possible electrical stimulations of peripheral nerves and of the sphenopalatine ganglion, as well as allows transcranial magnetic stimulation. Also the appearance and usage of portable electrical devices available on the world market are described, and mechanisms that can underlie anticephalgic action of neuromodulation therapy are discussed. Special attention is paid to the methods that are applied for electrostimulation of the vagus nerve and occipital nerves.

Current Directions in the Auricular Vagus Nerve Stimulation II - An Engineering Perspective

Electrical stimulation of the auricular vagus nerve (aVNS) is an emerging electroceutical technology in the field of bioelectronic medicine with applications in therapy. Artificial modulation of the afferent vagus nerve - a powerful entrance to the brain - affects a large number of physiological processes implicating interactions between the brain and body. Engineering aspects of aVNS determine its efficiency in application. The relevant safety and regulatory issues need to be appropriately addressed. In particular, in silico modeling acts as a tool for aVNS optimization. The evolution of personalized electroceuticals using novel architectures of the closed-loop aVNS paradigms with biofeedback can be expected to optimally meet therapy needs. For the first time, two international workshops on aVNS have been held in Warsaw and Vienna in 2017 within the scope of EU COST Action "European network for innovative uses of EMFs in biomedical applications (BM1309)." Both workshops focused critically on the driving physiological mechanisms of aVNS, its experimental and clinical studies in animals and humans, in silico aVNS studies, technological advancements, and regulatory barriers. The results of the workshops are covered in two reviews, covering physiological and engineering aspects. The present review summarizes on engineering aspects - a discussion of physiological aspects is provided by our accompanying article (Kaniusas et al., 2019). Both reviews build a reasonable bridge from the rationale of aVNS as a therapeutic tool to current research lines, all of them being highly relevant for the promising aVNS technology to reach the patient.

Non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation for treatment of cluster headache: early UK clinical experience

Background

Evidence supports the use of non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation (nVNS; gammaCore®) as a promising therapeutic option for patients with cluster headache (CH). We conducted this audit of real-world data from patients with CH, the majority of whom were treatment refractory, to explore early UK clinical experience with nVNS used acutely, preventively, or both.

Methods

We retrospectively analysed data from 30 patients with CH (29 chronic, 1 episodic) who submitted individual funding requests for nVNS to the National Health Service. All patients had responded to adjunctive nVNS therapy during an evaluation period (typical duration, 3–6 months). Data collected from patient interviews, treatment diaries, and physician notes were summarised with descriptive statistics. Paired t tests were used to examine statistical significance.

Results

The mean (SD) CH attack frequency decreased from 26.6 (17.1) attacks/wk. before initiation of nVNS therapy to 9.5 (11.0) attacks/wk. (P < 0.01) afterward. Mean (SD) attack duration decreased from 51.9 (36.7) minutes to 29.4 (28.5) minutes (P < 0.01), and mean (SD) attack severity (rated on a 10-point scale) decreased from 7.8 (2.3) to 6.0 (2.6) (P < 0.01). Use of abortive treatments also decreased. Favourable changes in the use of preventive medication were also observed. No serious device-related adverse events were reported.

Conclusions

Significant decreases in attack frequency, severity, and duration were observed in these patients with CH who did not respond to or were intolerant of multiple preventive and/or acute treatments. These real-world findings complement evidence from clinical trials demonstrating the efficacy and safety of nVNS in CH.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s10194-018-0936-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Migraine and cluster headache - the common link

Although clinically distinguishable, migraine and cluster headache share prominent features such as unilateral pain, common pharmacological triggers such glyceryl trinitrate, histamine, calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) and response to triptans and neuromodulation. Recent data also suggest efficacy of anti CGRP monoclonal antibodies in both migraine and cluster headache. While exact mechanisms behind both disorders remain to be fully understood, the trigeminovascular system represents one possible common pathophysiological pathway and network of both disorders. Here, we review past and current literature shedding light on similarities and differences in phenotype, heritability, pathophysiology, imaging findings and treatment options of migraine and cluster headache. A continued focus on their shared pathophysiological pathways may be important in paving future treatment avenues that could benefit both migraine and cluster headache patients.

Spotlight on cervical vagus nerve stimulation for the treatment of primary headache disorders: a review

Objectives

Cervical noninvasive vagus nerve stimulation (nVNS) emerged as an adjunctive neuromodulation approach for primary headache disorders with limited responsiveness to pharmacologic and behavioral treatment. This narrative review evaluates the safety and efficacy of invasive and noninvasive peripheral nerve stimulation of the cervical branch of the vagal nerve (afferent properties) for primary headache disorders (episodic/chronic migraine [EM/CM] and cluster headache [ECH/CCH]) and provides a brief summary of the preclinical data on the possible mechanism of action of cervical vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) and trigemino-nociceptive head pain transmission.

Materials and methods

A systematic search of published data was performed in PubMed for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective cohort clinical studies assessing the efficacy/safety and cost-effectiveness of cervical VNS in primary headache disorders and related preclinical studies.

Results

Three RCTs were identified for ECH/CCH (ACT-1, ACT-2 and PREVA), one RCT for migraine (EVENT) and several prospective cohort studies and retrospective analyses for both headache disorders. In ACT-1, a significantly higher response rate, a higher pain-free rate and a decrease in mean attack duration were found in nVNS-treated ECH/CCH patients compared to sham stimulation. ACT-2 confirmed these findings (e.g., significantly higher pain-free attacks, pain severity decline and increased responder-rate [defined as ≥50% reduction]). The PREVA study demonstrated the superiority of adjunctive nVNS to standard care alone and observed a significantly higher attack reduction (p=0.02) and responder rate (defined as ≥50% reduction). For CM, the EVENT study assessed a significantly higher frequency of decline in the open-label phase. Mostly transient mild/moderate adverse events were recorded, and no severe device-related adverse events occurred.

Conclusion

Cervical nVNS represents a novel, safe and efficient adjunctive treatment option for primary headache disorders. In particular, preliminary observations suggest enhanced nVNS responsiveness in favor of episodic subtypes (EM and ECH). However, preclinical studies are urgently warranted to dissect the mechanism of action.

A Short Review of the Non-invasive Transcutaneous Pericranial Electrical Stimulation Techniques and their Application in Headache

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

In this short review, the most common non-invasive neuromodulatory techniques will be described, along with their advantages and disadvantages and their application in headache. Available preventive treatments can be unhelpful or may have unpleasant side effects; moreover, the rate of response to preventive drugs does not exceed 50%, lower in chronic migraine; alternative options would be welcome. Though the concept of neuromodulation was originally developed with invasive methods, newer non-invasive techniques are appearing.

RECENT FINDINGS

The novel neuromodulatory techniques have been developed with encouraging results: compared with traditional pharmacotherapy, advantages of non-invasive neuromodulation include reduced incidence of adverse effects, improved adherence, and safety and ease of use. The results are encouraging for acute or preventive treatment of different kinds of headache. A variety of neuromodulatory approaches is expanding fastly and has opened new possibilities for treatment of patients suffering from many forms of headache, especially those who have failed traditional pharmacotherapy. The non-invasive treatments can be seen as supplementing traditional management in refractory patients. Current study results are encouraging but preliminary and larger and more rigorous trials are needed to clarify benefit and mode of action.

Evidence of activation of vagal afferents by non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation: An electrophysiological study in healthy volunteers

Background Benefits of cervical non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation (nVNS) devices have been shown in episodic cluster headache and preliminarily suggested in migraine, but direct evidence of vagus nerve activation using such devices is lacking. Vagal somatosensory evoked potentials (vSEPs) associated with vagal afferent activation have been reported for invasive vagus nerve stimulation (iVNS) and non-invasive auricular vagal stimulation. Here, we aimed to show and characterise vSEPs for cervical nVNS. Methods vSEPs were recorded for 12 healthy volunteers who received nVNS over the cervical vagus nerve, bipolar electrode/DS7A stimulation over the inner tragus, and nVNS over the sternocleidomastoid (SCM) muscle. We measured peak-to-peak amplitudes (P1-N1), wave latencies, and N1 area under the curve. Results P1-N1 vSEPs were observed for cervical nVNS (11/12) and auricular stimulation (9/12), with latencies similar to those described previously, whereas SCM stimulation revealed only a muscle artefact with a much longer latency. A dose-response analysis showed that cervical nVNS elicited a clear vSEP response in more than 80% of the participants using an intensity of 15 V. Conclusion Cervical nVNS can activate vagal afferent fibres, as evidenced by the recording of far-field vSEPs similar to those seen with iVNS and non-invasive auricular stimulation.

Effects of non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation on attack frequency over time and expanded response rates in patients with chronic cluster headache: a post hoc analysis of the randomised, controlled PREVA study

BACKGROUND

In the PREVention and Acute treatment of chronic cluster headache (PREVA) study, attack frequency reductions from baseline were significantly more pronounced with non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation plus standard of care (nVNS + SoC) than with SoC alone. Given the intensely painful and frequent nature of chronic cluster headache attacks, additional patient-centric outcomes, including the time to and level of therapeutic response, were evaluated in a post hoc analysis of the PREVA study.

FINDINGS

After a 2-week baseline phase, 97 patients with chronic cluster headache entered a 4-week randomised phase to receive nVNS + SoC (n = 48) or SoC alone (n = 49). All 92 patients who continued into a 4-week extension phase received nVNS + SoC. Compared with SoC alone, nVNS + SoC led to a significantly lower mean weekly attack frequency by week 2 of the randomised phase; the attack frequency remained significantly lower in the nVNS + SoC group through week 3 of the extension phase (P < 0.02). Attack frequencies in the nVNS + SoC group were significantly lower at all study time points than they were at baseline (P < 0.05). Response rates were significantly greater with nVNS + SoC than with SoC alone when response was defined as attack frequency reductions of ≥25%, ≥50%, and ≥75% from baseline (≥25% and ≥50%, P < 0.001; ≥75%, P = 0.009). The 100% response rate was 8% with nVNS + SoC and 0% with SoC alone.

CONCLUSIONS

Prophylactic nVNS led to rapid, significant, and sustained reductions in chronic cluster headache attack frequency within 2 weeks after its addition to SoC and was associated with significantly higher ≥25%, ≥50%, and ≥75% response rates than SoC alone. The rapid decrease in weekly attack frequency justifies a 4-week trial period to identify responders to nVNS, with a high degree of confidence, among patients with chronic cluster headache.

Cost impact of a non-invasive, portable device for patient self-administration of chronic migraine in a UK National Health Service setting

BACKGROUND

Chronic migraine (CM) is a neurological disorder associated with substantial disability. Botulinum toxin type A (Botox) is an approved and effective preventive treatment option for adult patients with CM. Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) is an alternative treatment device delivering a brief pre-set magnetic pulse used for self-administration by the patient at home. Despite being available in a risk share scheme TMS is perceived to be more costly in the UK. The objective of this study was to analyse the incremental costs of TMS compared to Botox in refractory CM patients both for a UK individual funding request setting as well as for an average UK specialist center setting.

METHODS

Cost impact results were derived from a decision-tree model simulating treatment pathways over 1 year. Costs were applied from the most recently available UK data sources. Sensitivity analysis was performed for all variables.

RESULTS

Based on published utilisation data 45.5 % of CM patients would continuously receive Botox over 1 year, whereas 53.7 % of TMS patients would be still on treatment at the end of year one. Total costs of Botox treatment accrue to £2923 in an individual funding request NHS cost setting, whereas TMS treatment results in £1466 in the first year. Applying a time-based NHS cost setting expenditures accrue to £1747 for the Botox treatment and to £1361 for the TMS treatment. In both cost settings variation of cost assumptions did have a minor impact on the cost increment from Botox to TMS.

CONCLUSION

The current risk share based remuneration model of TMS allows the UK NHS to reimburse only the cost of those patients experiencing reduction in migraine days resulting in lower costs for treating migraine attacks. Treatment of chronic refractory migraine using TMS implies a substantial cost reduction potential for the management of chronic treatment of refractory migraine patients compared to conventional Botox treatment.

Chronic migraine headache prevention with noninvasive vagus nerve stimulation: The EVENT study

Objective:

To evaluate the feasibility, safety, and tolerability of noninvasive vagus nerve stimulation (nVNS) for the prevention of chronic migraine (CM) attacks.

Methods:

In this first prospective, multicenter, double-blind, sham-controlled pilot study of nVNS in CM prophylaxis, adults with CM (≥15 headache d/mo) entered the baseline phase (1 month) and were subsequently randomized to nVNS or sham treatment (2 months) before receiving open-label nVNS treatment (6 months). The primary endpoints were safety and tolerability. Efficacy endpoints in the intent-to-treat population included change in the number of headache days per 28 days and acute medication use.

Results:

Fifty-nine participants (mean age, 39.2 years; mean headache frequency, 21.5 d/mo) were enrolled. During the randomized phase, tolerability was similar for nVNS (n = 30) and sham treatment (n = 29). Most adverse events were mild/moderate and transient. Mean changes in the number of headache days were −1.4 (nVNS) and −0.2 (sham) (Δ = 1.2; p = 0.56). Twenty-seven participants completed the open-label phase. For the 15 completers initially assigned to nVNS, the mean change from baseline in headache days after 8 months of treatment was −7.9 (95% confidence interval −11.9 to −3.8; p < 0.01).

Conclusions:

Therapy with nVNS was well-tolerated with no safety issues. Persistent prophylactic use may reduce the number of headache days in CM; larger sham-controlled studies are needed.

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier:

NCT01667250.

Classification of evidence:

This study provides Class II evidence that for patients with CM, nVNS is safe, is well-tolerated, and did not significantly change the number of headache days. This pilot study lacked the precision to exclude important safety issues or benefits of nVNS.