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
Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Wisconsin - Madison, Madison, WI, United States.
Wisconsin Institute for Translational Neuroengineering (WITNe) - Madison, Madison, WI, United States.
Front Neurosci. 2021 Apr 30;15:664740. doi: 10.3389/fnins.2021.664740. eCollection 2021.
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. 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. 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. 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.
迷走神经的耳支走行表浅,这使其成为非侵入性刺激技术调节迷走神经活动的理想靶点。因此,针对多种病症进行了许多早期临床试验。这些试验对于同一适应症的结果往往相互矛盾。我们使用Cochrane偏倚风险工具对耳迷走神经刺激(aVNS)随机对照试验(RCT)进行了系统评价,以确定导致这些矛盾结果的因素。大多数aVNS研究被评估为存在“一些”或“高”偏倚风险,这使得难以在更广泛的背景下解释其结果。有证据表明,在较高刺激剂量期间心率会适度下降,有时会高于感觉不适的水平。不同研究关于心率变异性的结果相互矛盾,并且受到试验设计的阻碍,包括不适当的洗脱期以及用于量化心率变异性的多种方法。有早期证据表明aVNS可能会降低循环水平以及内毒素诱导的炎症标志物水平。关于癫痫的研究达到了与之前测试植入式迷走神经刺激疗法的RCT相似的主要终点。初步证据表明,aVNS可改善病理性疼痛,但不能改善诱发性疼痛。基于Cochrane分析的结果,我们列出了结果报告方面的常见改进措施,可立即实施以提高证据质量。从长远来看,aVNS研究的现有数据以及药物开发的显著经验教训凸显了直接测量局部神经靶点参与度的必要性。直接测量电极周围的神经活动将为优化电极设计、放置和刺激波形参数提供数据,以改善靶点参与度并最小化非靶点激活。此外,必须使用直接测量靶点参与度以及对盲法成功进行一致评估,以改进对照设计——这是Cochrane分析中确定的一个主要关注点。直接测量神经靶点参与度以及对盲法成功进行一致评估的需求适用于其他诱发感觉异常的神经调节疗法及其对照设计的开发。