Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30382909›Full record

Trial reportThe journal of headache and pain2018

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.

Paolo Martelletti, Piero Barbanti, Licia Grazzi, Giulia Pierangeli, Innocenzo Rainero, Pierangelo Geppetti, Anna Ambrosini, Paola Sarchielli, Cristina Tassorelli, 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 26 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.5field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 58 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Non-invasive neuromodulation in the acute treatment of migraine: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2022
    Pooled it
  3. Efficacy of transauricular vagus nerve stimulation for the treatment of chemotherapy-induced painful peripheral neuropathy: a randomized controlled exploratory study.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2024
    Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Vagus Nerve Stimulation in Ischemic Stroke.Current neurology and neuroscience reports · 2023
    Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors at 8 institutions in 2 countries.

Paolo MartellettiDepartment of Clinical and Molecular Medicine, Sapienza University, Rome, Italy.
Piero BarbantiHeadache and Pain Unit, Istituto di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico (IRCCS) San Raffaele Pisana, Rome, Italy.
Licia GrazziNeuroalgology Unit, Carlo Besta Neurological Institute and Foundation, Milan, Italy.
Giulia PierangeliIRCCS Istituto delle Scienze Neurologiche di Bologna, Bologna, 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.
Cristina TassorelliHeadache Science Centre, IRCCS C. Mondino Foundation, Pavia, Italy.
Eric LieblerelectroCore, Inc., Basking Ridge, NJ, USA. eric.liebler@electrocore.com.
Marina de TommasoNeurophysiology and Pain Unit, University of Bari Aldo Moro, Bari, Italy.
PRESTO Study Group
Istituti di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico · ITIstituto delle Scienze Neurologiche di Bologna · ITIstituto Neurologico Mediterraneo · ITUniversity of Pavia · ITAzienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Careggi · ITSapienza University of Rome · ITUniversity of Bari Aldo Moro · ITVencore (United States) · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNon-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.

methodsAfter 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.

resultsThe 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.

conclusionsThese 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 registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02686034 .

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedAnalgesicsDouble-Blind MethodFemaleHumansItalyMaleMiddle AgedMigraine DisordersPain ManagementTreatment OutcomeVagus Nerve StimulationYoung AdultAnalgesicsDouble-blindMigraineNeuromodulationOpen-labelPain intensityVagus nerve stimulation

Identifiers

PMID30382909
PMCPMC6755599
OpenAlexW2898654348

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.