ArticleCureus2024
A Feasibility Trial on Intranasal Evaporative Cooling for Acute Migraine in an At-Home Setting.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA significant proportion of people with migraine do not achieve sufficient relief of their acute migraine symptoms with the currently available medications. A previous study showed that intranasal evaporative cooling reduced headache and migraine-associated symptoms when given in an outpatient clinic setting. This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility of self-administering the same intervention for acute migraine in an at-home setting. The findings of this study were intended to inform the design and implementation of a planned full-scale randomized controlled trial (RCT).
methodsWe conducted a prospective single-group clinical feasibility trial in southern Sweden. Participants meeting the criteria for episodic migraine, with or without aura, were recruited through local advertisements. After a screening period, during which two migraine attacks were registered and evaluated under usual care, participants treated their next three migraine attacks at home with 10 minutes of intranasal cooling (RhinoChill®, BrainCool AB, Lund, Sweden). The primary outcome was a reduction in headache, nausea, photophobia, and phonophobia immediately after treatment. The secondary outcome was tolerability, and treatment effects within 24 hours.
resultsSix out of 15 participants completed the study, using the cooling treatment for three consecutive migraine attacks. The main reasons for drop-out were pain/discomfort from treatment and lack of effect. A total of 23 treatments were registered by 10 participants. Small effects on pain and other migraine symptoms were observed immediately after treatment. The treatment was considered very unpleasant (Visual Analogue Scale 7.3/10) and not superior to usual care.
conclusionsThe RhinoChill® intranasal cooling treatment at home was found to be non-feasible due to pain and discomfort, resulting in a high drop-out rate. Additionally, it had only minor effects on migraine pain and symptoms. The findings of this study led to the cancellation of a planned full-scale RCT.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.