Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30340460›Full record

Trial reportThe journal of headache and pain2018

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.

Licia Grazzi, Cristina Tassorelli, Marina de Tommaso, Giulia Pierangeli, Paolo Martelletti, Innocenzo Rainero, Pierangelo Geppetti, Anna Ambrosini, Paola Sarchielli, Eric Liebler and 2 more

Erratum issued Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in The journal of headache and pain, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. It is linked to trial NCT02686034 (A Prospective, Multi-centre, Randomized, Double-blind, Sham-controlled Study of gammaCore® Non-invasive Vagus Nerve Stimulator), which is not on this map. Cited by 21 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT02686034 nacompletednot on this map

A Prospective, Multi-centre, Randomized, Double-blind, Sham-controlled Study of gammaCore® Non-invasive Vagus Nerve Stimulator (nVNS), for the Acute Treatment of Migraine

TypeinterventionalSponsorElectroCore INCRan2016 to 2017Enrolled285ConditionsMigraineArmsgammaCore-S, gammaCore-S Sham
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 34 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Hallmarks of primary headache: part 1 - migraine.The journal of headache and pain · 2024
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Noninvasive Neuromodulation in Migraine.Current pain and headache reports · 2020
    Review
  17. Review of Abdominal Migraine in Children.Gastroenterology & hepatology · 2020
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors at 8 institutions in 1 country.

Licia GrazziNeuroalgology Unit, Carlo Besta Neurological Institute and Foundation, Milan, Italy. licia.grazzi@istituto-besta.it.
Cristina TassorelliHeadache Science Centre, IRCCS C. Mondino Foundation, Pavia, Italy.
Marina de TommasoNeurophysiology and Pain Unit, University of Bari Aldo Moro, Bari, Italy.
Giulia PierangeliIRCCS Istituto delle Scienze Neurologiche di Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
Paolo MartellettiDepartment of Clinical and Molecular Medicine, Sapienza University, Rome, Italy.
Innocenzo RaineroDepartment of Neuroscience, University of Turin, Turin, Italy.
Pierangelo GeppettiHeadache Centre, University Hospital of Careggi, Florence, Italy.
Anna AmbrosiniIRCCS Neuromed, Pozzilli (IS), Italy.
Paola SarchielliNeurologic Clinic, Santa Maria della Misericordia Hospital, Perugia, Italy.
Eric LieblerelectroCore, Inc, Basking Ridge, NJ, USA.
Piero BarbantiHeadache and Pain Unit, IRCCS San Raffaele Pisana, Rome, Italy.
PRESTO Study Group
IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele · ITIstituto delle Scienze Neurologiche di Bologna · ITIstituto Neurologico Mediterraneo · ITUniversity of Pavia · ITAzienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Careggi · ITFondazione IRCCS Istituto Neurologico Carlo Besta · ITOspedale Santa Maria · ITUniversity of Turin · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe 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.

methodsPatients 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.

resultsA 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).

conclusionsThis 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 registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02686034 .

Indexed as

Acute DiseaseAdultDouble-Blind MethodFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedMigraine DisordersProspective StudiesSelf CareTreatment OutcomeVagus Nerve StimulationMigraineNeuromodulationPain intensityPost hoc analysisRescue medicationVagus nerve stimulation

Identifiers

PMID30340460
PMCPMC6742918
OpenAlexW2896560509

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.