Characterizing Cannabis Use and Perceived Benefit in a Tertiary Headache Center Patient Sample.

Background and Objectives: Research suggests a potential role for cannabinoids in the etiology and treatment of migraine. However, there is a paucity of research on usage patterns and perceived benefits of cannabis use in clinical headache patient populations. Methods: Patients from a tertiary headache center completed a 1-time online survey regarding cannabis use patterns and perceived benefits of cannabis-based products in treating migraine symptoms, clinical features, and risk factors (e.g., depression, sleep disturbance). Descriptive analyses were performed. Results: Data were collected from 1373 patients (response rate 25.4% [1,373/5,400]), with 55.7% reporting cannabis-based product use in the past 3 years and 32.5% indicating current use. The most frequently cited reasons for cannabis-based product use were treating headache (65.8%) and sleep concerns (50.8%). Inhaled products (i.e., smoked/vaped) and edibles were the most commonly reported delivery methods, with THC/CBD (∆9 tetrahydrocannabinol/cannabidiol) blends as the most-cited product composition. A majority of participants reported cannabis-related improvements in migraine headache characteristics (i.e., intensity: 78.1%; duration: 73.4%; frequency: 62.4%), nausea (56.3%), and risk factors (sleep disturbance: 81.2%; anxiety: 71.4%; depression: 57.0%). Over half (58.0%) of the respondents reported only using cannabis products when experiencing a headache, while 42.0% used cannabis most days/daily for prevention. Nearly half (48.9%) of the respondents reported that cannabis use contributed to a reduction in medication amount for headache treatment, and 14.5% reported an elimination of other medications. A minority (20.9%) of participants reported experiencing side effects when using cannabis products for headache, most commonly fatigue/lethargy. For those participants who reported no use of cannabis-based products in the previous 3 years, approximately half indicated not knowing what cannabis product to take or the appropriate dosage. Discussion: This is the largest study to date to document cannabis product usage patterns and perceived benefits for migraine management in a clinical headache patient sample. A majority of patients surveyed reported using cannabis products for migraine management and cited perceived improvements in migraine characteristics, clinical features, and associated risk factors. The findings warrant experimental trials to confirm the perceived benefits of cannabis products for migraine prevention and treatment.

Retinal migraine.

Retinal migraine is usually characterized by attacks of fully reversible monocular visual loss associated with migraine headache. Retinal migraine is most common in women of child-bearing age who have a history of migraine with aura. In the typical attack, monocular visual features consist of partial or complete visual loss lasting less than 1h. Although the current diagnostic criteria for retinal migraine require fully reversible visual loss, our findings suggest that irreversible visual loss is part of the retinal migraine spectrum. Nearly half of reported cases with recurrent transient monocular visual loss subsequently experienced permanent monocular visual loss.

Remote electrical neuromodulation for migraine prevention: A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the clinical efficacy of remote electrical neuromodulation (REN), used every other day, for the prevention of migraine. BACKGROUND: Preventive treatment is key to managing migraine, but it is often underutilized. REN, a non-pharmacological acute treatment for migraine, was evaluated as a method of migraine prevention in patients with episodic and chronic migraine. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multi-center trial, with 1:1 ratio. The study consisted of a 4-week baseline observation phase, and an 8-week double-blind intervention phase in which participants used either REN or a placebo stimulation every other day. Throughout the study, participants reported their symptoms daily, via an electronic diary. RESULTS: Two hundred forty-eight participants were randomized (128 active, 120 placebo), of which 179 qualified for the modified intention-to-treat (mITT) analysis (95 active; 84 placebo). REN was superior to placebo in the primary endpoint, change in mean number of migraine days per month from baseline, with mean reduction of 4.0 ± SD of 4.0 days (1.3 ± 4.0 in placebo, therapeutic gain = 2.7 [confidence interval -3.9 to -1.5], p < 0.001). The significance was maintained when analyzing the episodic (-3.2 ± 3.4 vs. -1.0 ± 3.6, p = 0.003) and chronic (-4.7 ± 4.4 vs. -1.6 ± 4.4, p = 0.001) migraine subgroups separately. REN was also superior to placebo in reduction of moderate/severe headache days (3.8 ± 3.9 vs. 2.2 ± 3.6, p = 0.005), reduction of headache days of all severities (4.5 ± 4.1 vs. 1.8 ± 4.6, p < 0.001), percentage of patients achieving 50% reduction in moderate/severe headache days (51.6% [49/95] vs. 35.7% [30/84], p = 0.033), and reduction in days of acute medication intake (3.5 ± 4.1 vs. 1.4 ± 4.3, p = 0.001). Similar results were obtained in the ITT analysis. No serious device-related adverse events were reported in any group. CONCLUSION: Applied every other day, REN is effective and safe for the prevention of migraine.

Migraine treatment in pregnancy: A survey of comfort and treatment practices of women's healthcare providers.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess women's healthcare providers' treatment practices for pregnant women with migraine. BACKGROUND: Migraine is associated with several maternal and fetal complications during pregnancy, including preeclampsia and preterm birth. Migraine treatment during pregnancy can present significant challenges due to lack of controlled clinical trials and risks associated with specific medications. METHODS: Women's healthcare providers were queried regarding practice patterns and comfort with use of acute and preventive migraine treatments during pregnancy. The survey was distributed online. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 92 women's healthcare providers (response rate 22.9% [92/402]), with most specializing in general obstetrics and gynecology (91% [83/92]). Approximately one-fourth (26% [24/92]) of respondents indicated they counseled women on migraine treatment in pregnancy as early as before pregnancy contemplation, while over one-third (35% [32/92]) counseled on migraine treatment once the patient became pregnant. The majority of respondents reported feeling somewhat or very comfortable with recommending (63% [58/92]) or continuing (64% [59/92]) acute treatments for pregnant patients with migraine, with highest comfort levels for acetaminophen (100% [92/92] for prescribing or continuing) and caffeine (94% [85/90] prescribing, 91% [82/90] continuing). Higher levels of discomfort were reported with triptans (88% [80/91] rarely or never prescribe during pregnancy). Survey respondents felt less comfortable with recommending preventive migraine treatments to pregnant patients (40% [37/92] somewhat or very comfortable), compared with a higher comfort level with continuing preventive medications (63% [58/92] somewhat or very comfortable). Highest comfort levels were reported with use of magnesium (69% [63/91] comfortable prescribing, 82% [75/92] comfortable continuing) and non-pharmacologic approaches (70% [62/89] comfortable prescribing, 84% [75/89] comfortable continuing). Nearly 40% (35/92) of respondents reported that they typically refer to neurologists or headache specialists for migraine treatment during pregnancy. CONCLUSION: This survey of women's healthcare providers revealed varying levels of comfort regarding migraine management during pregnancy, and highlights the need for additional education regarding migraine treatment safety data during pregnancy.

Effectiveness comparison of remote electrical neuromodulation and standard-care medications for acute treatment of chronic migraine: a post-hoc analysis.

Aim: The current study compared the effectiveness of remote electrical neuromodulation (REN) to that of standard-care medications for acute treatments of migraine, using a within-subjects design. Materials & methods: Post-hoc within-subject analysis was performed on data from 78 adult chronic migraine patients who participated in a clinical trial with REN, on four end points: single-treatment pain relief, single-treatment pain freedom, consistency of pain relief and consistency of pain freedom. Results: No statistical differences were found between REN and the tested medications, in any of the effectiveness outcomes: single-treatment pain relief p = 0.056, single-treatment pain freedom p = 0.532, consistency of pain relief p = 0.369, consistency of pain freedom p = 1.00. Conclusion: The results suggest that REN may provide an effective non-pharmacological alternative for standard care abortive medications in individuals impacted by chronic migraine.

Due to the high frequency of headaches, patients impacted by chronic migraine are struggling with poor quality of life, as well as elevated risk of medication overuse headache (which might cause migraine chronification). Thus, there is a need for non-pharmacological migraine treatments that are both effective and well tolerated. Remote electrical neuromodulation (REN) is a non-pharmacological abortive migraine treatment, which is US FDA cleared for adults and adolescents with episodic or chronic migraine. The current study compared the effectiveness of REN to that of standard-care medications (i.e., over-the-counter medications and triptans), using data from 78 individuals with chronic migraine who participated in a clinical trial. During the study, each participant treated their attacks with their preferred medication for the first 4 weeks, and then treated their attacks with REN (only) for the following four weeks. The participants rated their pain level prior to each treatment, and 2 h after the beginning of the treatment. The results indicate no statistical difference between the effectiveness of REN and standard care medications and suggest that REN may provide an effective non-pharmacological alternative for standard care abortive medications, for individuals with chronic migraine.

Migraine treatment with external concurrent occipital and trigeminal neurostimulation-A randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of concurrent non-invasive stimulation of occipital and trigeminal nerves in acute treatment of migraine with or without aura. BACKGROUND: Non-invasive neuromodulation devices stimulating a single peripheral nerve or anatomic distribution are routinely used by patients with migraine refractory to the first-line drugs or those who opt out of pharmaceutical treatment. Concurrent occipital and trigeminal stimulation was described in an invasive setting, and its safety cost outweighed its efficacy gain. This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of an external concurrent occipital and trigeminal device in acute treatment of migraine. DESIGN AND METHODS: This was a randomized, sham-controlled, double-blind, multi-center trial. Patients 18 years of age or older who met the International Classification of Headache Disorders (2018) diagnostic criteria for migraine with or without aura, reported 1-6 migraine attacks per month, and other headaches no more than 6 days per month were enrolled. Of 131 intention-to-treat participants (67 and 64 in the active and sham groups, respectively), 109 (50 and 59 in the active and sham groups, respectively) treated at least one migraine episode. Reduction of migraine headache (pain relief) 2 h after treatment initiation was the primary efficacy endpoint. Pain relief at 1 h, and pain freedom and relief in most bothersome symptom at 2 h after treatment initiation were the secondary endpoints. Freedom from most bothersome symptom at 2 h and sustained pain freedom 24 h after treatment initiation were among the exploratory endpoints. RESULTS: Sixty percent of participants (30/50) in the active arm reported pain relief at 2 h after initiation of the first eligible treatment (primary outcome) compared to 37% (22/59) in the control arm (difference, 23%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2%-41%; p = 0.018). Pain freedom at 2 h without rescue medication was reported by 46% (23/50) of participants in the active arm and by 12% (7/59) of participants in the sham arm (p < 0.001). Pain freedom 2 h after the treatment and, subsequently, at 24 h, was reported by 4.25 times more participants in the active arm (36%; 18/50) than in the sham arm (8%; 5/59). The 28% difference was statistically significant (95% CI, 1%-43%; p < 0.001). A 4.25-fold difference was also observed comparing the proportion of participants free from pain and most bothersome symptom 2 h after the stimulation (47% [17/36] and 11% [5/45] in the active and sham arms, respectively; 95% CI, 14%-54%; p < 0.001). Adverse events were not serious or severe. All study-related events resolved without treatment. CONCLUSION: External concurrent occipital and trigeminal neurostimulation is a well-tolerated, safe, and effective migraine treatment that provided a fast and durable relief and freedom from migraine pain and associated symptoms in a randomized setting. The observed safety and performance suggest external concurrent occipital and trigeminal neurostimulation is a viable alternative to the currently available acute migraine treatments. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT03631550.

Safety and efficacy of remote electrical neuromodulation for the acute treatment of chronic migraine: an open-label study.

INTRODUCTION: Remote electrical neuromodulation (REN) is an acute treatment of migraine. The results from several studies in patients with episodic migraine suggest that REN is an effective and safe acute treatment of migraine. A recent pilot study provided initial support that REN is effective in patients with chronic migraine as well. OBJECTIVES: The current study aimed to validate and provide further evidence for the safety and efficacy of REN in a large sample of patients impacted by chronic migraine. METHODS: In this open-label, single-arm study, patients with chronic migraine treated their headaches with the REN device (Nerivio, Theranica Bio-Electronics Ltd, Israel) for 4 weeks. Participants used an electronic diary to record their symptoms at treatment initiation, 2 hours after treatment, and 24 hours after treatment. The primary end point was the percentage of subjects who achieved pain relief at 2 hours posttreatment. Secondary end points included pain freedom and improvement of associated symptoms and functional disability. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-six subjects were enrolled into the study, of which 91 subjects had an evaluable treatment with REN. Pain relief and pain disappearance at 2 hours were achieved by 59.3% (54/91) and 20.9% (19/91) of modified intent-to-treat subjects, respectively (with worst-case sensitivity analysis indicating 54.5% and 19.2%, respectively). Sustained pain relief at 24 hours was observed in 64.4% (29/45) of those who achieved pain relief at 2 hours (with worst-case sensitivity analysis indicating 45.6%). The findings of the study show that REN has a favorable effect on nausea, photophobia, and phonophobia and improves functional ability. One device-related adverse event was reported. CONCLUSIONS: Remote electrical neuromodulation treatments results in the relief of migraine headaches and associated symptoms, thus offering a drug-free acute treatment option for people with chronic migraine. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04194008.

Elective Hospitalizations for Intractable Headache: Outcomes and Response Predictors.

OBJECTIVE: To review our inpatient experience treating a variety of headache disorders with heterogeneous therapies and to determine outcomes and predictors of response. METHODS: We conducted an institutional review board-approved retrospective chart review of elective inpatient headache admissions from the Montefiore Headache Center from 2014 to 2018. We examined factors associated with response and outcomes at discharge and posthospitalization follow-up in an intractable population. Patients received different classes of IV medications including antiemetics, neuroleptics, dihydroergotamine, lidocaine, steroids, valproic acid, and nerve blocks, and home preventive medications were either continued or changed before discharge. Improvements were defined at discharge by headache intensity compared with before hospitalization. RESULTS: Among the 83 admissions, pain improvement at discharge occurred in 90.4% (n = 75) of the overall sample, 89.5% (n = 60) of those with chronic migraine, 75.0% (n = 9) of patients with new daily persistent headache, and 89.5% (n = 34) of all those with acute medication overuse. Fifty-six patients (67.5%) reported improvement of a 3-or-more-point reduction in headache intensity at discharge, with a mean reduction of 4.84 ± SD 2.51 (range 1-10). Of the 66 patients who received IV dihydroergotamine, 59 (89.4%) of them improved at discharge. Of the 11 (13.2%) patients who received IV lidocaine, 7 (63.6%) improved. Of the 14 (16.9%) patients who received nerve blocks, all 14 (100%) improved at discharge. Of the 75 patients who had improved at discharge, 63 (84%) followed up and 50 (79.4%) of those patients remained improved. At the second follow-up, 68 (81.9%) patients returned for follow-up on average of 71 days (range 10-283) after discharge. CONCLUSIONS: Our inpatient headache experience featured numerous treatments with high rates of improvement in the short and intermediate term for all headache disorders. These results may suggest that stratified hospitalized care including polytherapy may be useful for many patients.

Migraine diagnosis and treatment: A knowledge and needs assessment of women's healthcare providers.

BACKGROUND: Studies suggest that migraine is often underdiagnosed and inadequately treated in the primary care setting, despite many patients relying on their primary care provider (PCP) to manage their migraine. Many women consider their women's healthcare provider to be their PCP, yet very little is known about migraine knowledge and practice patterns in the women's healthcare setting. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess women's healthcare providers' knowledge and needs regarding migraine diagnosis and treatment. METHODS: The comprehensive survey assessing migraine knowledge originally developed for PCPs was used in this study, with the addition of a section regarding the use of hormonal medications in patients impacted by migraine. Surveys were distributed online, and primarily descriptive analyses were performed. RESULTS: The online survey was completed by 115 women's healthcare providers (response rate 28.6%; 115/402), who estimated that they serve as PCPs for approximately one-third of their patients. Results suggest that women's healthcare providers generally recognize the prevalence of migraine, but experience some knowledge gaps regarding migraine management. Despite 82.6% (95/115) of survey respondents feeling very comfortable or somewhat comfortable with diagnosing migraine, only 57.9% (66/114) reported routinely asking patients about headaches during annual visits. Very few were familiar with the American Academy of Neurology guidelines on preventative treatment (6.3%; 7/111) and the Choosing Wisely Campaign recommendations on migraine treatment (17.3%; 19/110), and many prescribed medications known to contribute to medication overuse headache. In addition, only 24.3% (28/115) would order imaging for a new type of headache, 35.7% (41/115) for worsening headache, and 47.8% (55/115) for headache with neurologic symptoms; respondents cited greater tendency with sending patients to an emergency department for the same symptoms. Respondents had limited knowledge of evidence-based, non-pharmacological treatments for migraine (i.e., biofeedback or cognitive behavioral therapy), with nearly none placing referrals for these services. Most providers were comfortable prescribing hormonal contraception (mainly progesterone only) to women with migraine without aura (80.9%; 89/110) and with aura (72.5%; 79/109), and followed American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) guidelines to limit combination hormonal contraception for patients with aura. When queried, 6.3% or less (5/79) of providers would prescribe estrogen-containing contraception for women with migraine with aura. Only 37.3% (41/110) of respondents reported having headache/migraine education. Providers indicated interest in education pertaining to migraine prevention and treatment (96.3%; 105/109), migraine-associated disability (74.3%; 81/109), and diagnostic testing (59.6%; 65/109). CONCLUSION: Women's healthcare providers appear to have several knowledge gaps regarding the management of migraine in their patients. These providers would likely benefit from access to a headache-specific educational curriculum to improve provider performance and patient outcomes.

Gluten-Free Diet and Migraine.

Migraine is common in celiac disease (CD) and usually improves on a gluten-free diet (GFD). The benefit for people impacted by migraine without CD is poorly evidenced. A GFD may have adverse health consequences and is expensive.

Primary Empty Sella.

Primary empty sella (PES) syndrome is a misnomer as it is not a syndrome but a radiological finding with possible endocrine abnormalities. No specific headache type has been shown to be caused by PES. Endocrine screening may be considered for asymptomatic persons with PES.

Unrecognized challenges of treating status migrainosus: An observational study.

BACKGROUND: Status migrainosus is a condition with limited epidemiological knowledge, and no evidence-based treatment guideline or rational-driven assessment of successful treatment outcome. To fill this gap, we performed a prospective observational study in which we documented effectiveness of treatment approaches commonly used in a tertiary headache clinic. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Patients with episodic and chronic migraine who experienced continuous and prolonged attacks for more than 72 hours were treated with dexamethasone (4 mg orally twice daily for 3 days), ketorolac (60 mg intramuscularly), bilateral nerve blocks (1-2% lidocaine, 0.1-0.2 ml for both supraorbital and supratrochlear nerves, 1 ml for both auriculotemporal nerves, and 1 ml for both greater occipital nerves), or naratriptan (2.5 mg twice daily for 5 days). Hourly (for the first 24 hours) and daily (for first 30 days) change in headache intensity was documented using appropriate headache diaries. RESULTS: Fifty-four patients provided eligible data for 60 treatment attempts. The success rate of rendering patients pain free within 24 hours and maintaining the pain-free status for 48 hours was 4/13 (31%) for dexamethasone, 7/29 (24%) for nerve blocks, 1/9 (11%) for ketorolac and 1/9 (11%) for naratriptan. These success rates depended on time to remission, as the longer we allowed the treatments to begin to work and patients to become pain free (i.e. 2, 12, 24, 48, 72, or 96 hours), the more likely patients were to achieve and maintain a pain-free status for at least 48 hours. DISCUSSION: These findings suggest that current treatment approaches to terminating status migrainosus are not satisfactory and call attention to the need to develop a more scientific approach to define a treatment response for status migrainosus.

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.

Psychological Factors Associated With Chronic Migraine and Severe Migraine-Related Disability: An Observational Study in a Tertiary Headache Center.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the relationships among modifiable psychological factors and chronic migraine and severe migraine-related disability in a clinic-based sample of persons with migraine. BACKGROUND: Evidence evaluating relationships between modifiable psychological factors and chronic migraine and severe migraine-related disability is lacking in people with migraine presenting for routine clinical care. METHODS: Adults with migraine completed surveys during routinely scheduled visits to a tertiary headache center. Participants completed surveys assessing chronic migraine (meeting criteria for migraine with ≥15 headache days in the past month), severe migraine disability (Migraine Disability Assessment Scale score ≥ 21), and modifiable psychological factors (depressive symptoms [Patient Health Questionnaire-9], anxious symptoms [Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7], Pain Catastrophizing Scale and Headache Specific Locus of Control). Logistic regression evaluated relationships between modifiable psychological factors and chronic migraine and severe migraine disability. RESULTS: Among 90 eligible participants the mean age was 45.0 (SD = 12.4); 84.8% were women. One-third (36.0%) met study criteria for chronic migraine; half of participants (51.5%) reported severe migraine-related disability. Higher depressive symptoms (OR = 1.99, 95% CI = 1.11, 3.55) and chance HSLC (OR = 1.85, 95% CI = 1.13, 1.43) were associated with chronic migraine. Higher depressive symptoms (OR = 3.54, 95%CI = 1.49, 8.41), anxiety symptoms (OR = 3.65, 95% CI = 1.65, 8.06), and pain catastrophizing (OR = 1.95, 95% CI = 1.14, 3.35), were associated with severe migraine-related disability. CONCLUSIONS: Psychiatric symptoms and pain catastrophizing were strongly associated with severe migraine-related disability. Depression and chance locus of control were associated with chronic migraine. This study supports the need for longitudinal observational studies to evaluate the relationships among naturalistic variation in psychological factors, migraine-related disability, and migraine chronification.

Phantosmia and Migraine With and Without Headache.

Phantosmia is a rare migraine aura. We present two cases of phantosmias occurring before migraine headaches and also without headaches. To our knowledge, these are the third and fourth cases of phantosmias ever reported due to migraine aura without headache.

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. CLINICALTRIALSGOV 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.