A post hoc analysis of migraine-associated symptoms from the phase 3 randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled Trial of External trigeminal nerve stimulation for the Acute treatment of Migraine (TEAM) study.

IF 5.4 2区 医学 Q1 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Headache Pub Date : 2024-11-27 DOI:10.1111/head.14860
Gregory A Panza, Michael A L Johnson, Deena E Kuruvilla
{"title":"A post hoc analysis of migraine-associated symptoms from the phase 3 randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled Trial of External trigeminal nerve stimulation for the Acute treatment of Migraine (TEAM) study.","authors":"Gregory A Panza, Michael A L Johnson, Deena E Kuruvilla","doi":"10.1111/head.14860","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The Trial of External trigeminal nerve stimulation (eTNS) for the Acute treatment of Migraine (TEAM) study demonstrated that eTNS use during active migraine resulted in significantly higher rates of resolution of migraine-associated most bothersome symptom (MBS) compared to sham. However, no previous studies have examined the association between pretreatment MBS subtype and efficacy of eTNS treatment for active migraine.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>We conducted a post hoc analysis examining efficacy of eTNS for different pretreatment MBS subtypes using TEAM study data.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Pretreatment MBS subtypes included photophobia (n = 345), nausea (n = 109), phonophobia (n = 73), and vomiting (n = 11). We examined MBS sub-group × treatment group (verum n = 259; sham n = 279) interaction for each post-treatment outcome to explore differential effects conditional on the total sample. We further explored direct, between treatment group comparisons for each MBS subtype, as well as compared treatment outcomes among all MBS subtypes within the sham, verum, and total sample. Finally, clinical heterogeneity of treatment effect (HTE) was assessed using a 1% absolute treatment effect difference as the clinically important threshold.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Significant sub-group × treatment interactions were found for resolution of MBS at 2 h (p = 0.008), pain relief at 2 h (p = 0.001), rescue medication between 2 and 24 h (p = 0.012), sustained pain freedom at 24 h (p = 0.033), and sustained pain relief at 24 h (p = 0.003). Significant sub-group × treatment interactions were not found for pain freedom at 2 h (p = 0.054) or absence of all symptoms at 2 h (p = 0.265). Between treatment group comparisons indicated that pain freedom after 2 h of eTNS was not significantly different between the verum and sham groups for any pretreatment MBS. The verum group had a significantly greater proportion of participants who had resolution of nausea MBS after 2 h of treatment compared to sham (37/55 [67.3%] vs. 25/54 [46.3%], respectively; p = 0.028) and resolution of photophobia MBS compared to sham (85/162 [52.5] vs. 71/183 [38.8%], respectively; p = 0.011). There were no significant differences between treatment groups for phonophobia or vomiting. Pain freedom after 2 h of eTNS was not significantly different among pretreatment MBS groups. Within the sham group and total sample, a greater proportion of participants who had vomiting MBS had resolution of their MBS compared to any other pretreatment MBS (p < 0.05 after Bonferroni adjustment). A greater proportion of participants with nausea MBS used rescue medications between 2 and 24 h after eTNS compared to participants with photophobia or phonophobia MBS within the verum and total sample (p < 0.05 after Bonferroni adjustment). No statistical differences were found among MBS groups for any other treatment outcomes. Clinically important HTE was present in vomiting MBS for resolution of MBS and present in nausea MBS for pain freedom and pain relief after 2 h, need for rescue medication, and sustained pain freedom at 24 h post-treatment. There was no clinically relevant HTE in the nausea MBS group for resolution of MBS at 2 h, absence of all migraine-associated symptoms and sustained pain relief at 24 h, or for any endpoint for other MBS subtypes.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our results suggest the presence of both statistically significant HTE as well as clinically meaningful HTE. Statistical differences were primarily found for photophobia MBS, while clinically meaningful HTE was primarily found for nausea MBS. These findings may be clinically relevant for patients and clinicians when developing a treatment plan for acute treatment of migraine. Further studies are needed to elucidate the underlying pathophysiological differences between MBS subtypes and treatment optimization, particularly for patients with nausea MBS subtypes.</p>","PeriodicalId":12844,"journal":{"name":"Headache","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Headache","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/head.14860","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The Trial of External trigeminal nerve stimulation (eTNS) for the Acute treatment of Migraine (TEAM) study demonstrated that eTNS use during active migraine resulted in significantly higher rates of resolution of migraine-associated most bothersome symptom (MBS) compared to sham. However, no previous studies have examined the association between pretreatment MBS subtype and efficacy of eTNS treatment for active migraine.

Objective: We conducted a post hoc analysis examining efficacy of eTNS for different pretreatment MBS subtypes using TEAM study data.

Methods: Pretreatment MBS subtypes included photophobia (n = 345), nausea (n = 109), phonophobia (n = 73), and vomiting (n = 11). We examined MBS sub-group × treatment group (verum n = 259; sham n = 279) interaction for each post-treatment outcome to explore differential effects conditional on the total sample. We further explored direct, between treatment group comparisons for each MBS subtype, as well as compared treatment outcomes among all MBS subtypes within the sham, verum, and total sample. Finally, clinical heterogeneity of treatment effect (HTE) was assessed using a 1% absolute treatment effect difference as the clinically important threshold.

Results: Significant sub-group × treatment interactions were found for resolution of MBS at 2 h (p = 0.008), pain relief at 2 h (p = 0.001), rescue medication between 2 and 24 h (p = 0.012), sustained pain freedom at 24 h (p = 0.033), and sustained pain relief at 24 h (p = 0.003). Significant sub-group × treatment interactions were not found for pain freedom at 2 h (p = 0.054) or absence of all symptoms at 2 h (p = 0.265). Between treatment group comparisons indicated that pain freedom after 2 h of eTNS was not significantly different between the verum and sham groups for any pretreatment MBS. The verum group had a significantly greater proportion of participants who had resolution of nausea MBS after 2 h of treatment compared to sham (37/55 [67.3%] vs. 25/54 [46.3%], respectively; p = 0.028) and resolution of photophobia MBS compared to sham (85/162 [52.5] vs. 71/183 [38.8%], respectively; p = 0.011). There were no significant differences between treatment groups for phonophobia or vomiting. Pain freedom after 2 h of eTNS was not significantly different among pretreatment MBS groups. Within the sham group and total sample, a greater proportion of participants who had vomiting MBS had resolution of their MBS compared to any other pretreatment MBS (p < 0.05 after Bonferroni adjustment). A greater proportion of participants with nausea MBS used rescue medications between 2 and 24 h after eTNS compared to participants with photophobia or phonophobia MBS within the verum and total sample (p < 0.05 after Bonferroni adjustment). No statistical differences were found among MBS groups for any other treatment outcomes. Clinically important HTE was present in vomiting MBS for resolution of MBS and present in nausea MBS for pain freedom and pain relief after 2 h, need for rescue medication, and sustained pain freedom at 24 h post-treatment. There was no clinically relevant HTE in the nausea MBS group for resolution of MBS at 2 h, absence of all migraine-associated symptoms and sustained pain relief at 24 h, or for any endpoint for other MBS subtypes.

Conclusion: Our results suggest the presence of both statistically significant HTE as well as clinically meaningful HTE. Statistical differences were primarily found for photophobia MBS, while clinically meaningful HTE was primarily found for nausea MBS. These findings may be clinically relevant for patients and clinicians when developing a treatment plan for acute treatment of migraine. Further studies are needed to elucidate the underlying pathophysiological differences between MBS subtypes and treatment optimization, particularly for patients with nausea MBS subtypes.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
三期随机、双盲、假对照三叉神经外刺激治疗偏头痛急性期试验(TEAM)研究中偏头痛相关症状的事后分析。
背景:用于偏头痛急性期治疗的三叉神经外刺激(eTNS)试验(TEAM)研究表明,与假治疗相比,在偏头痛活动期使用 eTNS 可显著提高偏头痛相关最令人烦恼症状(MBS)的缓解率。然而,之前的研究并未考察治疗前 MBS 亚型与活动性偏头痛 eTNS 治疗效果之间的关联:我们利用 TEAM 研究数据进行了一项事后分析,研究了 eTNS 治疗不同治疗前 MBS 亚型的疗效:治疗前的 MBS 亚型包括畏光(n = 345)、恶心(n = 109)、畏声(n = 73)和呕吐(n = 11)。我们检查了每个治疗后结果的 MBS 亚组 × 治疗组(真药组 n = 259;假药组 n = 279)交互作用,以探索在总样本条件下的差异效应。我们还进一步探讨了每种 MBS 亚型的直接治疗组间比较,以及假药、真药和总样本中所有 MBS 亚型的治疗结果比较。最后,以1%的绝对治疗效果差异作为临床重要阈值,对治疗效果的临床异质性(HTE)进行了评估:结果:在 2 小时内缓解 MBS(p = 0.008)、2 小时内疼痛缓解(p = 0.001)、2 至 24 小时内使用抢救药物(p = 0.012)、24 小时内持续无痛(p = 0.033)和 24 小时内持续疼痛缓解(p = 0.003)方面,发现了显著的亚组 × 治疗交互作用。在 2 小时无疼痛(p = 0.054)或 2 小时无所有症状(p = 0.265)方面,未发现明显的亚组 × 治疗交互作用。治疗组之间的比较表明,对于任何治疗前的 MBS,接受 eTNS 治疗 2 小时后的疼痛自由度在真药组和假药组之间均无显著差异。与假治疗相比,真治疗组在治疗 2 小时后缓解恶心 MBS 的比例明显更高(分别为 37/55 [67.3%] vs. 25/54 [46.3%];p = 0.028),与假治疗相比,缓解畏光 MBS 的比例也明显更高(分别为 85/162 [52.5] vs. 71/183 [38.8%];p = 0.011)。治疗组之间在畏声和呕吐方面没有明显差异。在接受 eTNS 治疗 2 小时后,MBS 治疗组之间的疼痛自由度无明显差异。在假治疗组和所有样本中,与其他治疗前的 MBS 相比,有更大比例的呕吐 MBS 患者的 MBS 得到了缓解(p 结论:在假治疗组和所有样本中,有更大比例的呕吐 MBS 患者的 MBS 得到了缓解:我们的研究结果表明,存在统计学意义上的 HTE 以及临床意义上的 HTE。统计差异主要体现在畏光 MBS 上,而有临床意义的 HTE 则主要体现在恶心 MBS 上。在制定偏头痛急性期治疗方案时,这些发现可能对患者和临床医生具有临床意义。还需要进一步的研究来阐明偏头痛急性发作亚型之间潜在的病理生理学差异和治疗优化,尤其是恶心型偏头痛急性发作亚型患者。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Headache
Headache 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
9.40
自引率
10.00%
发文量
172
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Headache publishes original articles on all aspects of head and face pain including communications on clinical and basic research, diagnosis and management, epidemiology, genetics, and pathophysiology of primary and secondary headaches, cranial neuralgias, and pains referred to the head and face. Monthly issues feature case reports, short communications, review articles, letters to the editor, and news items regarding AHS plus medicolegal and socioeconomic aspects of head pain. This is the official journal of the American Headache Society.
期刊最新文献
Validity, reliability, and sensitivity to change of the Arabic version of the Migraine-Specific Quality-of-Life Questionnaire after prophylactic treatment. A post hoc analysis of migraine-associated symptoms from the phase 3 randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled Trial of External trigeminal nerve stimulation for the Acute treatment of Migraine (TEAM) study. Deep brain stimulation for chronic refractory cluster headache: A case series about long-term outcomes and connectivity analysis. Facial variant of epicrania fugax secondary to a cerebellopontine angle meningioma. Group text messaging as a residency teaching tool in outpatient neurology and headache: A mixed-methods observational study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1