Remote electrical neuromodulation is safe and effective for acute migraine

  • Yarnitsky D & al.
  • Headache
  • 9 May 2019

  • curated by Sarfaroj Khan
  • UK Clinical Digest
Access to the full content of this site is available only to registered healthcare professionals. Access to the full content of this site is available only to registered healthcare professionals.

Takeaway

  • Remote electrical neuromodulation (REN) is an effective treatment for acute migraine with a favourable safety and tolerability profile.
  • It may be an effective alternative for acute migraine treatment with comparable or superior efficacy to commercially available neuromodulation devices.

Why this matters

  • REN has the potential to improve patient adherence, migraine management, and the health and quality of life of patients with migraine.

Study design

  • A randomised, double-blind, sham-controlled, study of 252 patients with migraine who were randomly assigned 1:1 ratio to active (n=126) and sham simulation group (n=126).
  • Migraine pain levels recorded at baseline, 2 and 48 hours and most bothersome symptoms (MBS) recorded at baseline and 2 hours post-treatment.
  • Primary outcome: proportion of patients achieving pain relief at 2 hours post-treatment.
  • Secondary outcome: pain-free, MBS relief, pain and MBS relief, and MBS freedom at 2 hours post-treatment.
  • Funding: None disclosed.

Key results

  • In modified-to-intention treat analysis (n=202), higher proportion of patients in active vs sham group at 2 hours post-treatment achieved:
    • pain relief (66.7% vs 38.8%; P<.0001>
    • pain-free relief (37.4% vs 18.4%; P=.003)
    • MBS relief (46.3% vs 22.2%; P=.0008)
    • pain and MBS relief (40.0% vs 15.2%; P=.0004)
  • No significant difference was seen in MBS freedom between 2 groups (P=.55).
  • The 2-hour pain relief (P=.004) and pain-free (P=.014) superiority was sustained 48 hours post-treatment in active group vs sham group.
  • In intention-to-treat analysis (n=252), the incidence of device-related adverse events was low (3.6%) and similar between the 2 groups (4.8% vs 2.4%; P=.499).

Limitations

  • Low rate of severe baseline pain intensity and high rate of mild pain intensity.

Please confirm your acceptance

To gain full access to GPnotebook please confirm:

By submitting here you confirm that you have accepted Terms of Use and Privacy Policy of GPnotebook.

Submit