Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Abstract Objective Using a double‐dummy pilot randomized controlled trial design, we aimed to determine the feasibility and acceptability of comparing remote electrical neuromodulation (REN) to typical care intravenous pharmacologic interventions for the treatment of children and adolescents visiting the emergency department (ED) with migraine, and to compare parallel‐group versus crossover trial designs. Background There are limited data to guide the management of migraine in the ED. Children and adolescents are interested in neuromodulation, and specifically REN, for treatment in this setting, but there are no existing data on this approach. Methods We employed a double‐dummy, double‐blind, pilot randomized controlled trial that tested two designs in two phases: a parallel‐group design and a crossover design (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT05102591). The intervention arms consisted of: (i) active REN stimulation with matched normal saline placebo intravenously, and (ii) matched sham REN stimulation, intravenous metoclopramide (0.15 mg/kg, maximum 10 mg), and intravenous ketorolac (0.5 mg/kg, maximum 30 mg). Youth aged 8.0–<18.0 years visiting a Canadian tertiary care pediatric ED with migraine attacks as per criteria B–E of the International Classification of Headache Disorders third edition were eligible. Primary outcomes were focused on trial feasibility and acceptability, and preliminary efficacy and safety data were also collected. Results A total of 34% (22/65) of those who screened eligible were enrolled. Three participants (14%) withdrew prior to receiving any study interventions. In all, 10 participants were allocated to typical care, and nine to REN. All treated participants (19/19) completed all assessments. Recruitment was higher during the parallel‐group phase: 1.1 participants/month versus 0.6 participants/month, and 36% (17/47) versus 28% (five of 18) of screened eligible were enrolled in the parallel‐group and crossover phases, respectively. Participants reported positive impressions of REN use in the ED, e.g., higher mean (standard deviation SD) levels of interest in using REN only at 3.7 (1.0) versus 2.8 (1.0) in using intravenous interventions only for a future ED visit. Participants and clinical staff reported overall positive impressions regarding the study protocol. Employing an 11‐point pain numerical rating scale, the mean (SD) reduction in pain severity score was 2.1 (1.3) and 2.9 (2.9) from baseline to 1 h, and 2.4 (1.6) and 4.0 (3.5) from baseline to 2 h for REN and intravenous interventions, respectively. One participant in the typical care group and none in the REN group experienced adverse events. Conclusion We demonstrated the feasibility and acceptability of our trial protocol and of using REN to treat youth presenting to the ED with migraine. The parallel‐group design generated a higher recruitment rate than the crossover design. Our preliminary efficacy and safety data suggest that REN could be non‐inferior to typical care, but we were not powered for these outcomes. Further research on REN's use in the ED setting is warranted.
Orr et al. (Tue,) studied this question.