Abstract
Objective

To evaluate non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation (nVNS) as an acute cluster headache (CH) treatment.
Background

Many patients with CH experience excruciating attacks at a frequency that is not sufficiently addressed by current symptomatic treatments.
Methods

One hundred fifty subjects were enrolled and randomized (1:1) to receive nVNS or sham treatment for ≤1 month during a double-blind phase; completers could enter a 3-month nVNS open-label phase. The primary end point was response rate, defined as the proportion of subjects who achieved pain relief (pain intensity of 0 or 1) at 15 minutes after treatment initiation for the first CH attack without rescue medication use through 60 minutes. Secondary end points included the sustained response rate (15-60 minutes). Subanalyses of episodic cluster headache (eCH) and chronic cluster headache (cCH) cohorts were prespecified.
Results

The intent-to-treat population comprised 133 subjects: 60 nVNS-treated (eCH, n = 38; cCH, n = 22) and 73 sham-treated (eCH, n = 47; cCH, n = 26). A response was achieved in 26.7% of nVNS-treated subjects and 15.1% of sham-treated subjects (P = .1). Response rates were significantly higher with nVNS than with sham for the eCH cohort (nVNS, 34.2%; sham, 10.6%; P = .008) but not the cCH cohort (nVNS, 13.6%; sham, 23.1%; P = .48). Sustained response rates were significantly higher with nVNS for the eCH cohort (P = .008) and total population (P = .04). Adverse device effects (ADEs) were reported by 35/150 (nVNS, 11; sham, 24) subjects in the double-blind phase and 18/128 subjects in the open-label phase. No serious ADEs occurred.
Conclusions

In one of the largest randomized sham-controlled studies for acute CH treatment, the response rate was not significantly different (vs sham) for the total population; nVNS provided significant, clinically meaningful, rapid, and sustained benefits for eCH but not for cCH, which affected results in the total population. This safe and well-tolerated treatment represents a novel and promising option for eCH. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01792817.

Bob P wrote on Sep 6^th, 2016 at 8:54am:

Abstract Objective To evaluate non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation (nVNS) as an acute cluster headache (CH) treatment. Background Many patients with CH experience excruciating attacks at a frequency that is not sufficiently addressed by current symptomatic treatments. Methods One hundred fifty subjects were enrolled and randomized (1:1) to receive nVNS or sham treatment for ≤1 month during a double-blind phase; completers could enter a 3-month nVNS open-label phase. The primary end point was response rate, defined as the proportion of subjects who achieved pain relief (pain intensity of 0 or 1) at 15 minutes after treatment initiation for the first CH attack without rescue medication use through 60 minutes. Secondary end points included the sustained response rate (15-60 minutes). Subanalyses of episodic cluster headache (eCH) and chronic cluster headache (cCH) cohorts were prespecified. Results The intent-to-treat population comprised 133 subjects: 60 nVNS-treated (eCH, n = 38; cCH, n = 22) and 73 sham-treated (eCH, n = 47; cCH, n = 26). A response was achieved in 26.7% of nVNS-treated subjects and 15.1% of sham-treated subjects (P = .1). Response rates were significantly higher with nVNS than with sham for the eCH cohort (nVNS, 34.2%; sham, 10.6%; P = .008) but not the cCH cohort (nVNS, 13.6%; sham, 23.1%; P = .48). Sustained response rates were significantly higher with nVNS for the eCH cohort (P = .008) and total population (P = .04). Adverse device effects (ADEs) were reported by 35/150 (nVNS, 11; sham, 24) subjects in the double-blind phase and 18/128 subjects in the open-label phase. No serious ADEs occurred. Conclusions In one of the largest randomized sham-controlled studies for acute CH treatment, the response rate was not significantly different (vs sham) for the total population; nVNS provided significant, clinically meaningful, rapid, and sustained benefits for eCH but not for cCH, which affected results in the total population. This safe and well-tolerated treatment represents a novel and promising option for eCH. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01792817.

  Here we can see clearly where we analyze carefully and thoroughly , can you see from several points of difference and comparison , can be achieved with the central idea that departs from the main argument , and if we analyze the image to my knowledge , since it is a particular case , we can conclude after several scientific studies , through some research that my comment makes no sense .... thank you for your attention.

                 Potter

Quote:

Here we can see clearly where we analyze carefully and thoroughly , can you see from several points of difference and comparison , can be achieved with the central idea that departs from the main argument , and if we analyze the image to my knowledge , since it is a particular case , we can conclude after several scientific studies , through some research that my comment makes no sense .... thank you for your attention.                  Potter

Exactly!

START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE

I've been using gammaCore for a number of years

Before starting D3 it was my first line of defence and worked very well.

I have a unit with me at all times and never go anywhere without it.

Mind you, I have only used it over a one week period since starting the D3 regimen.

Peter.

Peter510 wrote on Sep 7^th, 2016 at 7:15pm:

I have a unit with me at all times and never go anywhere without it. Mind you, I have only used it over a one week period since starting the D3 regimen.

This is a great example of not just how D3 does great stuff, but being prepared in case. (This really makes me remember the cub scout motto from quite a few years ago "Be prepared"!).