Remote Electrical Neuromodulation (REN) Relieves Acute Migraine: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Multicenter Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and safety of a remote electrical neuromodulation (REN) device for the acute treatment of migraine. BACKGROUND: There 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. METHODS: This 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. RESULTS: Active 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). CONCLUSIONS: REN 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.

Trigger point injections for headache disorders: expert consensus methodology and narrative review.

OBJECTIVE/BACKGROUND: To review the existing literature and describe a standardized methodology by expert consensus for the performance of trigger point injections (TPIs) in the treatment of headache disorders. Despite their widespread use, the efficacy, safety, and methodology of TPIs have not been reviewed specifically for headache disorders by expert consensus. METHODS: The Peripheral Nerve Blocks and Other Interventional Procedures Special Interest Section of the American Headache Society over a series of meetings reached a consensus for nomenclature, indications, contraindications, precautions, procedural details, outcomes, and adverse effects for the use of TPIs for headache disorders. A subcommittee of the Section also reviewed the literature. RESULTS: Indications for TPIs may include many types of episodic and chronic primary and secondary headache disorders, with the presence of active trigger points (TPs) on physical examination. Contraindications may include infection, a local open skull defect, or an anesthetic allergy, and precautions are necessary in the setting of anticoagulant use, pregnancy, and obesity with unclear anatomical landmarks. The most common muscles selected for TPIs include the trapezius, sternocleidomastoid, and temporalis, with bupivacaine and lidocaine the agents used most frequently. Adverse effects are typically mild with careful patient and procedural selection, though pneumothorax and other serious adverse events have been infrequently reported. CONCLUSIONS: When performed in the appropriate setting and with the proper expertise, TPIs seem to have a role in the adjunctive treatment of the most common headache disorders. We hope our effort to characterize the methodology of TPIs by expert opinion in the context of published data motivates the performance of evidence-based and standardized treatment protocols.