Cargando…

Auricular Vagus Neuromodulation—A Systematic Review on Quality of Evidence and Clinical Effects

Background: The auricular branch of the vagus nerve runs superficially, which makes it a favorable target for non-invasive stimulation techniques to modulate vagal activity. For this reason, there have been many early-stage clinical trials on a diverse range of conditions. These trials often report...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Verma, Nishant, Mudge, Jonah D., Kasole, Maïsha, Chen, Rex C., Blanz, Stephan L., Trevathan, James K., Lovett, Eric G., Williams, Justin C., Ludwig, Kip A.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8120162/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33994937
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2021.664740
_version_ 1783691998293655552
author Verma, Nishant
Mudge, Jonah D.
Kasole, Maïsha
Chen, Rex C.
Blanz, Stephan L.
Trevathan, James K.
Lovett, Eric G.
Williams, Justin C.
Ludwig, Kip A.
author_facet Verma, Nishant
Mudge, Jonah D.
Kasole, Maïsha
Chen, Rex C.
Blanz, Stephan L.
Trevathan, James K.
Lovett, Eric G.
Williams, Justin C.
Ludwig, Kip A.
author_sort Verma, Nishant
collection PubMed
description Background: The auricular branch of the vagus nerve runs superficially, which makes it a favorable target for non-invasive stimulation techniques to modulate vagal activity. For this reason, there have been many early-stage clinical trials on a diverse range of conditions. These trials often report conflicting results for the same indication. Methods: Using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool we conducted a systematic review of auricular vagus nerve stimulation (aVNS) randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to identify the factors that led to these conflicting results. The majority of aVNS studies were assessed as having “some” or “high” risk of bias, which makes it difficult to interpret their results in a broader context. Results: There is evidence of a modest decrease in heart rate during higher stimulation dosages, sometimes at above the level of sensory discomfort. Findings on heart rate variability conflict between studies and are hindered by trial design, including inappropriate washout periods, and multiple methods used to quantify heart rate variability. There is early-stage evidence to suggest aVNS may reduce circulating levels and endotoxin-induced levels of inflammatory markers. Studies on epilepsy reached primary endpoints similar to previous RCTs testing implantable vagus nerve stimulation therapy. Preliminary evidence shows that aVNS ameliorated pathological pain but not evoked pain. Discussion: Based on results of the Cochrane analysis we list common improvements for the reporting of results, which can be implemented immediately to improve the quality of evidence. In the long term, existing data from aVNS studies and salient lessons from drug development highlight the need for direct measures of local neural target engagement. Direct measures of neural activity around the electrode will provide data for the optimization of electrode design, placement, and stimulation waveform parameters to improve on-target engagement and minimize off-target activation. Furthermore, direct measures of target engagement, along with consistent evaluation of blinding success, must be used to improve the design of controls—a major source of concern identified in the Cochrane analysis. The need for direct measures of neural target engagement and consistent evaluation of blinding success is applicable to the development of other paresthesia-inducing neuromodulation therapies and their control designs.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8120162
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-81201622021-05-15 Auricular Vagus Neuromodulation—A Systematic Review on Quality of Evidence and Clinical Effects Verma, Nishant Mudge, Jonah D. Kasole, Maïsha Chen, Rex C. Blanz, Stephan L. Trevathan, James K. Lovett, Eric G. Williams, Justin C. Ludwig, Kip A. Front Neurosci Neuroscience Background: The auricular branch of the vagus nerve runs superficially, which makes it a favorable target for non-invasive stimulation techniques to modulate vagal activity. For this reason, there have been many early-stage clinical trials on a diverse range of conditions. These trials often report conflicting results for the same indication. Methods: Using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool we conducted a systematic review of auricular vagus nerve stimulation (aVNS) randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to identify the factors that led to these conflicting results. The majority of aVNS studies were assessed as having “some” or “high” risk of bias, which makes it difficult to interpret their results in a broader context. Results: There is evidence of a modest decrease in heart rate during higher stimulation dosages, sometimes at above the level of sensory discomfort. Findings on heart rate variability conflict between studies and are hindered by trial design, including inappropriate washout periods, and multiple methods used to quantify heart rate variability. There is early-stage evidence to suggest aVNS may reduce circulating levels and endotoxin-induced levels of inflammatory markers. Studies on epilepsy reached primary endpoints similar to previous RCTs testing implantable vagus nerve stimulation therapy. Preliminary evidence shows that aVNS ameliorated pathological pain but not evoked pain. Discussion: Based on results of the Cochrane analysis we list common improvements for the reporting of results, which can be implemented immediately to improve the quality of evidence. In the long term, existing data from aVNS studies and salient lessons from drug development highlight the need for direct measures of local neural target engagement. Direct measures of neural activity around the electrode will provide data for the optimization of electrode design, placement, and stimulation waveform parameters to improve on-target engagement and minimize off-target activation. Furthermore, direct measures of target engagement, along with consistent evaluation of blinding success, must be used to improve the design of controls—a major source of concern identified in the Cochrane analysis. The need for direct measures of neural target engagement and consistent evaluation of blinding success is applicable to the development of other paresthesia-inducing neuromodulation therapies and their control designs. Frontiers Media S.A. 2021-04-30 /pmc/articles/PMC8120162/ /pubmed/33994937 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2021.664740 Text en Copyright © 2021 Verma, Mudge, Kasole, Chen, Blanz, Trevathan, Lovett, Williams and Ludwig. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Neuroscience
Verma, Nishant
Mudge, Jonah D.
Kasole, Maïsha
Chen, Rex C.
Blanz, Stephan L.
Trevathan, James K.
Lovett, Eric G.
Williams, Justin C.
Ludwig, Kip A.
Auricular Vagus Neuromodulation—A Systematic Review on Quality of Evidence and Clinical Effects
title Auricular Vagus Neuromodulation—A Systematic Review on Quality of Evidence and Clinical Effects
title_full Auricular Vagus Neuromodulation—A Systematic Review on Quality of Evidence and Clinical Effects
title_fullStr Auricular Vagus Neuromodulation—A Systematic Review on Quality of Evidence and Clinical Effects
title_full_unstemmed Auricular Vagus Neuromodulation—A Systematic Review on Quality of Evidence and Clinical Effects
title_short Auricular Vagus Neuromodulation—A Systematic Review on Quality of Evidence and Clinical Effects
title_sort auricular vagus neuromodulation—a systematic review on quality of evidence and clinical effects
topic Neuroscience
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8120162/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33994937
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2021.664740
work_keys_str_mv AT vermanishant auricularvagusneuromodulationasystematicreviewonqualityofevidenceandclinicaleffects
AT mudgejonahd auricularvagusneuromodulationasystematicreviewonqualityofevidenceandclinicaleffects
AT kasolemaisha auricularvagusneuromodulationasystematicreviewonqualityofevidenceandclinicaleffects
AT chenrexc auricularvagusneuromodulationasystematicreviewonqualityofevidenceandclinicaleffects
AT blanzstephanl auricularvagusneuromodulationasystematicreviewonqualityofevidenceandclinicaleffects
AT trevathanjamesk auricularvagusneuromodulationasystematicreviewonqualityofevidenceandclinicaleffects
AT lovettericg auricularvagusneuromodulationasystematicreviewonqualityofevidenceandclinicaleffects
AT williamsjustinc auricularvagusneuromodulationasystematicreviewonqualityofevidenceandclinicaleffects
AT ludwigkipa auricularvagusneuromodulationasystematicreviewonqualityofevidenceandclinicaleffects