International Headache Society global practice recommendations for the acute pharmacological treatment of migraine.

BACKGROUND: In an effort to improve migraine management around the world, the International Headache Society (IHS) has here developed a list of practical recommendations for the acute pharmacological treatment of migraine. The recommendations are categorized into optimal and essential, in order to provide treatment options for all possible settings, including those with limited access to migraine medications. METHODS: An IHS steering committee developed a list of clinical questions based on practical issues in the management of migraine. A selected group of international senior and junior headache experts developed the recommendations, following expert consensus and the review of available national and international headache guidelines and guidance documents. Following the initial search, a bibliography of twenty-one national and international guidelines was created and reviewed by the working group. RESULTS: A total of seventeen questions addressing different aspects of acute migraine treatment have been outlined. For each of them we provide an optimal recommendation, to be used whenever possible, and an essential recommendation to be used when the optimal level cannot be attained. CONCLUSION: Adoption of these international recommendations will improve the quality of acute migraine treatment around the world, even where pharmacological options remain limited.

Non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation for prevention of migraine: The multicenter, randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled PREMIUM II trial.

AIM: Evaluate the efficacy and safety of non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation for migraine prevention. METHODS: After completing a 4-week diary run-in period, adults who had migraine with or without aura were randomly assigned to receive active non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation or sham therapy during a 12-week double-blind period. RESULTS: Of 336 enrolled participants, 113 (active, n = 56; sham, n = 57) completed ≥70 days of the double-blind period and were ≥66% adherent with treatment, comprising the prespecified modified intention-to-treat population. The COVID-19 pandemic led to early trial termination, and the population was ∼60% smaller than the statistical target for full power. Mean reduction in monthly migraine days (primary endpoint) was 3.12 for the active group and 2.29 days for the sham group (difference, -0.83; p = 0.2329). Responder rate (i.e. the percentage of participants with a ≥50% reduction in migraine days) was greater in the active group (44.87%) than the sham group (26.81%; p = 0.0481). Prespecified subgroup analysis suggested that participants with aura responded preferentially. No serious device-related adverse events were reported. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest clinical utility of non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation for migraine prevention, particularly for patients who have migraine with aura, and reinforce the well-established safety and tolerability profile of this therapy.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03716505).

Non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation for primary headache: A clinical update.

BACKGROUND: Non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation (nVNS) is a proven treatment for cluster headache and migraine. Several possible mechanisms of action by which nVNS mitigates headache have been identified. METHODS: We conducted a narrative review of recent scientific and clinical research into nVNS for headache, including findings from mechanistic studies and their possible relationships to the clinical effects of nVNS. RESULTS: Findings from animal and human studies have provided possible mechanistic explanations for nVNS efficacy in headache involving four core areas: Autonomic nervous system functions; cortical spreading depression inhibition; neurotransmitter regulation; and nociceptive modulation. We discuss how overlap and interplay among these areas may underlie the utility of nVNS in the context of clinical evidence supporting its safety and efficacy as acute and preventive therapy for both cluster headache and migraine. Possible future nVNS applications are also discussed. CONCLUSION: Significant progress over the past several years has yielded valuable mechanistic and clinical evidence that, combined with the excellent safety and tolerability profile of nVNS, suggests that it should be considered a first-line treatment for both acute and preventive treatment of cluster headache, an effective option for acute treatment of migraine, and a highly relevant, practical option for migraine prevention.

A Randomized Sham-Controlled Cross-Over Study on the Short-Term Effect of Non-Invasive Cervical Vagus Nerve Stimulation on Spinal and Supraspinal Nociception in Healthy Subjects.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present study was to test the effects of vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) on the descending pain inhibition, quantified by the nociceptive flexor (RIII) reflex and the conditioned pain modulation (CPM) paradigm, and on supraspinal nociceptive responses, assessed by pain intensity and unpleasantness ratings and late somatosensory evoked potentials (SEPs), in healthy subjects. BACKGROUND: Non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation (nVNS) showed promising effects on headache and pain treatment. Underlying mechanisms are only incompletely understood but may include the activation of the descending pain inhibitory system and/or the modification of emotional responses to pain. METHODS: Twenty-seven adult, healthy, and pain-free subjects participated in this double-blind cross-over study conducted at a university research center. They received 4 minutes of cervical nVNS or sham stimulation in randomized order. RIII reflexes, pain ratings, and SEPs were assessed before, during, and 5, 15, 30, and 60 minutes after nVNS/sham stimulation, followed by CPM testing. The primary outcome was the nVNS effect on the RIII reflex size. Three subjects were excluded after the preparatory session (before randomization), 1 subject was excluded after outlier analysis, leaving 23 for analysis. RESULTS: RIII reflex areas were 917.1 ± 563.8 µV × ms (mean ± SD) before, 952.4 ± 467.4 µV × ms during and 929.2 ± 484.0 µV × ms immediately after nVNS and 858.4 ± 489.2 µV × ms before, 913.9 ± 539.7 µV × ms during and 862.4 ± 476.0 µV × ms after sham stimulation, revealing no differences between the immediate effects of nVNS and sham stimulation (F [3,66]  = 0.67, P = .574). There also were no effects of nVNS over sham on RIII reflex areas up to 60 minutes after nVNS (F [1.7,37.4]  = 1.29, P = .283). Similarly, there was no statistically significant effect of nVNS on pain intensity ratings and thresholds, RIII reflex thresholds, late SEP amplitudes, and the CPM effect, compared to sham. Pain unpleasantness ratings statistically significantly decreased from 4.4 ± 2.4 (NRS 0-10) to 4.1 ± 2.5 during nVNS compared to sham stimulation (F [1,22]  = 8.74, P = .007), but there were no longer lasting effects (5-60 minutes after stimulation). CONCLUSIONS: The present study does not support an acute effect of nVNS on descending pain inhibition, pain intensity perception or supraspinal nociception in healthy adults. However, there was a small effect on pain unpleasantness during nVNS, suggesting that nVNS may preferentially act on affective, not somatosensory pain components.

The Use of Non-invasive Vagus Nerve Stimulation to Treat Respiratory Symptoms Associated With COVID-19: A Theoretical Hypothesis and Early Clinical Experience.

OBJECTIVES: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), is a pandemic with no specific therapeutic agents and substantial mortality, and finding new treatments is critical. Most cases are mild, but a significant minority of patients develop moderate to severe respiratory symptoms, with the most severe cases requiring intensive care and/or ventilator support. This respiratory compromise appears to be due to a hyperimmune reaction, often called a cytokine storm. Vagus nerve stimulation has been demonstrated to block production of cytokines in sepsis and other medical conditions. We hypothesize that non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation (nVNS) might provide clinical benefits in patients with respiratory symptoms similar to those associated with COVID-19. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Information on two case reports was obtained via email correspondence and phone interviews with the patients. RESULTS: Both patients reported clinically meaningful benefits from nVNS therapy. In case 1, the patient used nVNS to expedite symptomatic recovery at home after hospital discharge and was able to discontinue use of opioid and cough suppressant medications. In case 2, the patient experienced immediate and consistent relief from symptoms of chest tightness and shortness of breath, as well as an improved ability to clear his lungs. CONCLUSIONS: Preliminary observations and a strong scientific foundation suggest that nVNS might provide clinical benefits in patients with COVID-19 via multiple mechanisms.

Non-invasive neuromodulation for migraine and cluster headache: a systematic review of clinical trials.

Non-invasive neuromodulation therapies for migraine and cluster headache are a practical and safe alternative to pharmacologics. Comparisons of these therapies are difficult because of the heterogeneity in study designs. In this systematic review of clinical trials, the scientific rigour and clinical relevance of the available data were assessed to inform clinical decisions about non-invasive neuromodulation. PubMed, Cochrane Library and ClinicalTrials.gov databases and the WHO's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for relevant clinical studies of non-invasive neuromodulation devices for migraine and cluster headache (1 January 1990 to 31 January 2018), and 71 were identified. This analysis compared study designs using recommendations of the International Headache Society for pharmacological clinical trials, the only available guidelines for migraine and cluster headache. Non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation (nVNS), single-transcranial magnetic stimulation and external trigeminal nerve stimulation (all with regulatory clearance) were well studied compared with the other devices, for which studies frequently lacked proper blinding, sham controls and sufficient population sizes. nVNS studies demonstrated the most consistent adherence to available guidelines. Studies of all neuromodulation devices should strive to achieve the same high level of scientific rigour to allow for proper comparison across devices. Device-specific guidelines for migraine and cluster headache will be soon available, but adherence to current guidelines for pharmacological trials will remain a key consideration for investigators and clinicians.

Differential efficacy of non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation for the acute treatment of episodic and chronic cluster headache: A meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Two randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled trials (ACT1, ACT2) evaluated non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation (nVNS) as acute treatment for cluster headache. We analyzed pooled ACT1/ACT2 data to increase statistical power and gain insight into the differential efficacy of nVNS in episodic and chronic cluster headache. METHODS: Data extracted from ACT1 and ACT2 were pooled using a fixed-effects model. Main outcome measures were the primary endpoints of each study. This was the proportion of participants whose first treated attack improved from moderate (2), severe (3), or very severe (4) pain intensity to mild (1) or nil (0) for ACT1 and the proportion of treated attacks whose pain intensity improved from 2-4 to 0 for ACT2. RESULTS: The pooled population included 225 participants (episodic: n = 112; chronic: n = 113) from ACT1 (n = 133) and ACT2 (n = 92) in the nVNS (n = 108) and sham (n = 117) groups. Interaction was shown between treatment group and cluster headache subtype (p < 0.05). nVNS was superior to sham in episodic but not chronic cluster headache (both endpoints p < 0.01). Only four patients discontinued the studies due to adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: nVNS is a well-tolerated and effective acute treatment for episodic cluster headache. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The studies were registered at clinicaltrials.gov (ACT1: NCT01792817; ACT2: NCT01958125).

Non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation (nVNS) for the preventive treatment of episodic migraine: The multicentre, double-blind, randomised, sham-controlled PREMIUM trial.

INTRODUCTION: Non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation (nVNS; gammaCore®) has the potential to prevent migraine days in patients with migraine on the basis of mechanistic rationale and pilot clinical data. METHODS: This multicentre study included a 4-week run-in period, a 12-week double-blind period of randomised treatment with nVNS or sham, and a 24-week open-label period of nVNS. Patients were to administer two 120-second stimulations bilaterally to the neck three times daily (6-8 hours apart). RESULTS: Of 477 enrolled patients, 332 comprised the intent-to-treat (ITT) population. Mean reductions in migraine days per month (primary outcome) were 2.26 for nVNS (n = 165; baseline, 7.9 days) and 1.80 for sham (n = 167; baseline, 8.1 days) (p = 0.15). Results were similar across other outcomes. Upon observation of suboptimal adherence rates, post hoc analysis of patients with ≥ 67% adherence per month demonstrated significant differences between nVNS (n = 138) and sham (n = 140) for outcomes including reduction in migraine days (2.27 vs. 1.53; p = 0.043); therapeutic gains were greater in patients with aura than in those without aura. Most nVNS device-related adverse events were mild and transient, with application site discomfort being the most common. CONCLUSIONS: Preventive nVNS treatment in episodic migraine was not superior to sham stimulation in the ITT population. The "sham" device inadvertently provided a level of active vagus nerve stimulation. Post hoc analysis showed significant effects of nVNS in treatment-adherent patients. Study identification and registration: PREMIUM; NCT02378844; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02378844.

Correction to: Practical and clinical utility of non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation (nVNS) for the acute treatment of migraine: a post hoc analysis of the randomized, sham-controlled, double-blind PRESTO trial.

Following publication of the original article [1], the authors notified us that a part of the Figure 3 legend was omitted during proofing stage.

Peripheral vagal nerve stimulation modulates the nociceptive withdrawal reflex in healthy subjects: A randomized, cross-over, sham-controlled study.

Introduction The mechanism of action of non-invasive vagal nerve stimulation in the treatment of migraine is elusive. We studied its effect in a human model of pain, the nociceptive withdrawal reflex. Methods We enrolled 10 healthy subjects who underwent active non-invasive vagal nerve stimulation and sham treatment in a randomized, cross-over, sham-controlled study. Non-invasive vagal nerve stimulation was delivered with gammaCore®. The assessment of the nociceptive withdrawal reflex was performed at baseline (T0) and at 5 (T5) and 30 (T30) minutes after stimulation. Results Non-invasive vagal nerve stimulation significantly increased the reflex threshold to single stimulus at both T5 and T30 and the temporal summation threshold at T30. Sham treatment did not modify any parameters. Discussion These findings are consistent with a modulation of central descending pathways for pain control. An altered spinal and supraspinal control of pain has been described in primary headache, so this effect may partially explain the therapeutic effect of non-invasive vagal nerve stimulation.

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

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.

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.

Correction to: Consistent effects of non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation (nVNS) for the acute treatment of migraine: additional findings from the randomized, sham-controlled, double-blind PRESTO trial.

Following publication of the original article [1], the authors notified us o that the Table 1 citation within the legend was not presented as initially requested.

Consistent effects of non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation (nVNS) for the acute treatment of migraine: additional findings from the randomized, sham-controlled, double-blind PRESTO trial.

BACKGROUND: Non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation (nVNS) has been shown to be practical, safe, and well tolerated for treating primary headache disorders. The recent multicenter, randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled PRESTO trial provided Class I evidence that for patients with episodic migraine, nVNS significantly increases the probability of having mild pain or being pain-free 2 h post stimulation. We report additional pre-defined secondary and other end points from PRESTO that demonstrate the consistency and durability of nVNS efficacy across a broad range of outcomes. METHODS: After a 4-week observation period, 248 patients with episodic migraine with/without aura were randomly assigned to acute treatment of migraine attacks with nVNS (n = 122) or a sham device (n = 126) during a double-blind period lasting 4 weeks (or until the patient had treated 5 attacks). All patients received nVNS therapy during the subsequent 4-week/5-attack open-label period. RESULTS: The intent-to-treat population consisted of 243 patients. The nVNS group (n = 120) had a significantly greater percentage of attacks treated during the double-blind period that were pain-free at 60 (P = 0.005) and 120 min (P = 0.026) than the sham group (n = 123) did. Similar results were seen for attacks with pain relief at 60 (P = 0.025) and 120 min (P = 0.018). For the first attack and all attacks, the nVNS group had significantly greater decreases (vs sham) in pain score from baseline to 60 min (P = 0.029); the decrease was also significantly greater for nVNS at 120 min for the first attack (P = 0.011). Results during the open-label period were consistent with those of the nVNS group during the double-blind period. The incidence of adverse events (AEs) and adverse device effects was low across all study periods, and no serious AEs occurred. CONCLUSIONS: These results further demonstrate that nVNS is an effective and reliable acute treatment for multiple migraine attacks, which can be used safely while preserving the patient's option to use traditional acute medications as rescue therapy, possibly decreasing the risk of medication overuse. Together with its practicality and optimal tolerability profile, these findings suggest nVNS has value as a front-line option for acute treatment of migraine. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02686034 .

Practical and clinical utility of non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation (nVNS) for the acute treatment of migraine: a post hoc analysis of the randomized, sham-controlled, double-blind PRESTO trial.

BACKGROUND: The PRESTO study of non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation (nVNS; gammaCore®) featured key primary and secondary end points recommended by the International Headache Society to provide Class I evidence that for patients with an episodic migraine, nVNS significantly increases the probability of having mild pain or being pain-free 2 h post stimulation. Here, we examined additional data from PRESTO to provide further insights into the practical utility of nVNS by evaluating its ability to consistently deliver clinically meaningful improvements in pain intensity while reducing the need for rescue medication. METHODS: Patients recorded pain intensity for treated migraine attacks on a 4-point scale. Data were examined to compare nVNS and sham with regard to the percentage of patients who benefited by at least 1 point in pain intensity. We also assessed the percentage of attacks that required rescue medication and pain-free rates stratified by pain intensity at treatment initiation. RESULTS: A significantly higher percentage of patients who used acute nVNS treatment (n = 120) vs sham (n = 123) reported a ≥ 1-point decrease in pain intensity at 30 min (nVNS, 32.2%; sham, 18.5%; P = 0.020), 60 min (nVNS, 38.8%; sham, 24.0%; P = 0.017), and 120 min (nVNS, 46.8%; sham, 26.2%; P = 0.002) after the first attack. Similar significant results were seen when assessing the benefit in all attacks. The proportion of patients who did not require rescue medication was significantly higher with nVNS than with sham for the first attack (nVNS, 59.3%; sham, 41.9%; P = 0.013) and all attacks (nVNS, 52.3%; sham, 37.3%; P = 0.008). When initial pain intensity was mild, the percentage of patients with no pain after treatment was significantly higher with nVNS than with sham at 60 min (all attacks: nVNS, 37.0%; sham, 21.2%; P = 0.025) and 120 min (first attack: nVNS, 50.0%; sham, 25.0%; P = 0.018; all attacks: nVNS, 46.7%; sham, 30.1%; P = 0.037). CONCLUSIONS: This post hoc analysis demonstrated that acute nVNS treatment quickly and consistently reduced pain intensity while decreasing rescue medication use. These clinical benefits provide guidance in the optimal use of nVNS in everyday practice, which can potentially reduce use of acute pharmacologic medications and their associated adverse events. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02686034 .

Non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation (nVNS) as symptomatic treatment of migraine in young patients: a preliminary safety study.

Recent clinical experiences and clinical trials have demonstrated the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation (nVNS; gammaCore®) for the acute and prophylactic treatment of migraine. nVNS has a favorable adverse event profile, making it an attractive option for sensitive patient populations. We explored the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of nVNS as acute migraine treatment in adolescents. A group of adolescent patients suffering from migraine without aura were trained to use gammaCore to manage their migraine attacks. 46.8% of the treated migraine attacks (22/47) were considered successfully treated and did not require any rescue medication. No device-related adverse events were recorded. This preliminary study suggests that nVNS may represent a safe, well-tolerated, and effective for acute migraine treatment in adolescents.

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.

Non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation for PREVention and Acute treatment of chronic cluster headache (PREVA): A randomised controlled study.

BACKGROUND: Chronic cluster headache (CH) is a debilitating disorder for which few well-controlled studies demon.strate effectiveness of available therapies. Non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation (nVNS) was examined as adjunctive prophylactic treatment of chronic CH. METHODS: PREVA was a prospective, open-label, randomised study that compared adjunctive prophylactic nVNS (n = 48) with standard of care (SoC) alone (control (n = 49)). A two-week baseline phase was followed by a four-week randomised phase (SoC plus nVNS vs control) and a four-week extension phase (SoC plus nVNS). The primary end point was the reduction in the mean number of CH attacks per week. Response rate, abortive medication use and safety/tolerability were also assessed. RESULTS: During the randomised phase, individuals in the intent-to-treat population treated with SoC plus nVNS (n = 45) had a significantly greater reduction in the number of attacks per week vs controls (n = 48) (-5.9 vs -2.1, respectively) for a mean therapeutic gain of 3.9 fewer attacks per week (95% CI: 0.5, 7.2; p = 0.02). Higher ≥50% response rates were also observed with SoC plus nVNS (40% (18/45)) vs controls (8.3% (4/48); p < 0.001). No serious treatment-related adverse events occurred. CONCLUSION: Adjunctive prophylactic nVNS is a well-tolerated novel treatment for chronic CH, offering clinical benefits beyond those with SoC.

Non-Invasive Vagus Nerve Stimulation for the ACute Treatment of Cluster Headache: Findings From the Randomized, Double-Blind, Sham-Controlled ACT1 Study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation (nVNS) as an acute cluster headache (CH) treatment. BACKGROUND: Many patients with CH experience excruciating attacks at a frequency that is not sufficiently addressed by current symptomatic treatments. METHODS: One hundred fifty subjects were enrolled and randomized (1:1) to receive nVNS or sham treatment for ≤1 month during a double-blind phase; completers could enter a 3-month nVNS open-label phase. The primary end point was response rate, defined as the proportion of subjects who achieved pain relief (pain intensity of 0 or 1) at 15 minutes after treatment initiation for the first CH attack without rescue medication use through 60 minutes. Secondary end points included the sustained response rate (15-60 minutes). Subanalyses of episodic cluster headache (eCH) and chronic cluster headache (cCH) cohorts were prespecified. RESULTS: The intent-to-treat population comprised 133 subjects: 60 nVNS-treated (eCH, n = 38; cCH, n = 22) and 73 sham-treated (eCH, n = 47; cCH, n = 26). A response was achieved in 26.7% of nVNS-treated subjects and 15.1% of sham-treated subjects (P = .1). Response rates were significantly higher with nVNS than with sham for the eCH cohort (nVNS, 34.2%; sham, 10.6%; P = .008) but not the cCH cohort (nVNS, 13.6%; sham, 23.1%; P = .48). Sustained response rates were significantly higher with nVNS for the eCH cohort (P = .008) and total population (P = .04). Adverse device effects (ADEs) were reported by 35/150 (nVNS, 11; sham, 24) subjects in the double-blind phase and 18/128 subjects in the open-label phase. No serious ADEs occurred. CONCLUSIONS: In one of the largest randomized sham-controlled studies for acute CH treatment, the response rate was not significantly different (vs sham) for the total population; nVNS provided significant, clinically meaningful, rapid, and sustained benefits for eCH but not for cCH, which affected results in the total population. This safe and well-tolerated treatment represents a novel and promising option for eCH. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01792817.