Suppr超能文献

用于丛集性头痛和偏头痛的非侵入性迷走神经刺激:一项卫生技术评估

Noninvasive Vagus Nerve Stimulation for Cluster Headache and Migraine: A Health Technology Assessment.

出版信息

Ont Health Technol Assess Ser. 2025 May 1;25(2):1-177. eCollection 2025.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Cluster headache and migraine are 2 distinct types of primary headache that can cause substantial pain, disability, and decreased quality of life. Noninvasive vagus nerve stimulation (nVNS) is a treatment option that delivers a mild electrical stimulation to a nerve in the neck. nVNS is intended to reduce the pain and duration of a headache attack, and to prevent headaches from occurring. We conducted a health technology assessment of nVNS for the acute treatment and prevention of cluster headache or migraine, which included an evaluation of effectiveness, safety, cost-effectiveness, the budget impact of publicly funding nVNS, and patient preferences and values.

METHODS

We performed a systematic literature search of the clinical evidence. We assessed the risk of bias of each included study using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and the quality of the body of evidence according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group criteria. We performed a systematic economic literature search and conducted 2 cost-utility and cost-effectiveness analyses with a 1-year time horizon from a public payer perspective. We also analyzed the budget impact of publicly funding nVNS for people with cluster headache and migraine in Ontario. To contextualize the potential value of nVNS, we spoke with people with cluster headache and migraine.

RESULTS

We included 8 randomized trials in the clinical evidence review (3 on cluster headache, 5 on migraine). For the acute treatment of cluster headache with nVNS, we found no statistically significant improvements in terms of overall response (pain relief), pain freedom, and duration of attacks (GRADEs: Low to Very low), or acute medication use (GRADE: Moderate). We observed little to no difference in mean pain intensity or adverse events (GRADE: Low). For the preventive treatment of cluster headache (based on 1 trial), nVNS reduced the frequency of attacks per week (GRADE: Low), improved response (GRADE: Low), reduced acute medication use (GRADE: Low), and improved quality of life (GRADE: Low to Very low). More overall adverse events were observed with nVNS, but results were uncertain (GRADE: Low). For the acute treatment of migraine (based on 1 study), nVNS improved response to treatment (i.e., pain relief; GRADE: Moderate to Low) but had little to no effect on sustained response (GRADE: Low). nVNS improved pain freedom, but the results were not statistically significant (GRADE: Moderate) and there was no difference in sustained pain freedom (GRADE: Low). There was little to no difference in mean pain intensity (GRADE: Very low) or acute medication use (GRADE: Low), and the risk of adverse events was very uncertain (GRADE: Very low). For the preventive treatment of migraine (based on 4 studies), nVNS may slightly reduce the number of headache and migraine days, but we could not exclude the possibility of no effect (GRADE: Low). nVNS made little to no difference in acute medication use (GRADE: Low), and the evidence was very uncertain for the impact on functional status (GRADE: Very low). nVNS may make little to no difference in adverse events, but the evidence was very uncertain (GRADE: Low to Very low).For the prevention of cluster headache, nVNS in addition to standard care was more effective and more costly than standard care alone. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for nVNS in addition to standard care compared with standard care alone was $27,338 per QALY gained. The probability of nVNS in addition to standard care being cost-effective was 88.5% at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) value of $50,000 per QALY gained and 97% at a WTP value of $100,000 per QALY gained. However, these results need to be interpreted with caution because the clinical inputs used to inform the model were of Low to Very low quality based on the GRADE framework. For the prevention of migraine, nVNS in addition to standard care was similarly effective but more costly than standard care alone. The ICER for nVNS in addition to standard care compared with standard care alone was $952,116 per QALY gained. nVNS was unlikely to be cost-effective at commonly used WTP values of $50,000 and $100,000 per QALY gained. The 5-year budget impact of publicly funding nVNS in Ontario for cluster headache was estimated to be $11.88 million for acute treatment and $9.92 million for preventive treatment. The 5-year budget impact of publicly funding nVNS for migraine was estimated to be $1.12 billion for acute treatment and $278.77 million for preventive treatment.People with cluster headache and migraine described the negative impact of these conditions on their day-to-day activities, work, social life and family relationships, and mental health. They reflected on their experiences of seeking proper treatment. One participant who had tried nVNS did not see positive effects on their symptoms, but all participants were interested in trying nVNS. Participants emphasized the importance of noninvasive treatment options for cluster headache and migraine.

CONCLUSIONS

nVNS may be an effective and generally safe treatment option for people with cluster headache or migraine, but the evidence was of Very low to Moderate certainty, and the degree of effect was dependent on the type of headache and the indication for treatment. nVNS in addition to standard care is likely to be cost-effective for the prevention of cluster headache, but not for the prevention of migraine. We estimate that publicly funding nVNS for the acute treatment of cluster headache in Ontario would result in an additional cost of $11.88 million over 5 years. Publicly funding nVNS for the preventive treatment of cluster headache in Ontario would result in an additional cost of $9.92 million over 5 years. Publicly funding nVNS for migraine would result in very high additional costs: $1.12 billion for acute treatment and $287.77 million for preventive treatment over 5 years. People with cluster headache and migraine were interested in nVNS as a noninvasive option for treatment and prevention.

摘要

背景

丛集性头痛和偏头痛是两种不同类型的原发性头痛,可导致严重疼痛、功能障碍及生活质量下降。非侵入性迷走神经刺激(nVNS)是一种治疗方法,通过对颈部神经进行轻微电刺激来发挥作用。nVNS旨在减轻头痛发作的疼痛程度和持续时间,并预防头痛发作。我们对nVNS用于急性治疗和预防丛集性头痛或偏头痛进行了一项卫生技术评估,其中包括对有效性、安全性、成本效益、公共资助nVNS的预算影响以及患者偏好和价值观的评估。

方法

我们对临床证据进行了系统的文献检索。我们使用Cochrane偏倚风险工具评估每项纳入研究的偏倚风险,并根据推荐分级评估、制定和评价(GRADE)工作组标准评估证据体的质量。我们进行了系统的经济文献检索,并从公共支付者的角度进行了两项为期1年的成本效用和成本效益分析。我们还分析了安大略省公共资助nVNS对丛集性头痛和偏头痛患者的预算影响。为了了解nVNS的潜在价值,我们与丛集性头痛和偏头痛患者进行了交流。

结果

我们在临床证据综述中纳入了8项随机试验(3项针对丛集性头痛,5项针对偏头痛)。对于使用nVNS急性治疗丛集性头痛,我们发现总体反应(疼痛缓解)、无痛状态和发作持续时间(GRADE分级:低至极低)或急性药物使用方面(GRADE分级:中等)无统计学显著改善。我们观察到平均疼痛强度或不良事件几乎没有差异(GRADE分级:低)。对于丛集性头痛的预防性治疗(基于1项试验),nVNS降低了每周发作频率(GRADE分级:低),改善了反应(GRADE分级:低),减少了急性药物使用(GRADE分级:低),并改善了生活质量(GRADE分级:低至极低)。使用nVNS观察到的总体不良事件更多,但结果不确定(GRADE分级:低)。对于偏头痛的急性治疗(基于1项研究),nVNS改善了治疗反应(即疼痛缓解;GRADE分级:中等至低),但对持续反应几乎没有影响(GRADE分级:低)。nVNS改善了无痛状态,但结果无统计学显著差异(GRADE分级:中等),持续无痛状态也无差异(GRADE分级:低)。平均疼痛强度(GRADE分级:极低)或急性药物使用方面几乎没有差异(GRADE分级:低),不良事件风险非常不确定(GRADE分级:极低)。对于偏头痛的预防性治疗(基于4项研究),nVNS可能会略微减少头痛和偏头痛天数,但我们不能排除无效的可能性(GRADE分级:低)。nVNS在急性药物使用方面几乎没有差异(GRADE分级:低),对功能状态影响的证据非常不确定(GRADE分级:极低)。nVNS在不良事件方面可能几乎没有差异,但证据非常不确定(GRADE分级:低至极低)。对于丛集性头痛的预防,除标准治疗外,nVNS比单独使用标准治疗更有效且成本更高。与单独使用标准治疗相比,除标准治疗外使用nVNS的增量成本效益比(ICER)为每获得一个质量调整生命年(QALY)27,338美元。在每获得一个QALY支付意愿(WTP)值为50,000美元时,除标准治疗外使用nVNS具有成本效益的概率为88.5%,在每获得一个QALY支付意愿值为100,000美元时,该概率为97%。然而,这些结果需要谨慎解释,因为用于模型的临床数据基于GRADE框架,质量为低至极低。对于偏头痛的预防,除标准治疗外,nVNS同样有效,但比单独使用标准治疗成本更高。与单独使用标准治疗相比,除标准治疗外使用nVNS的ICER为每获得一个QALY 952,116美元。在每获得一个QALY常用的支付意愿值50,000美元和100,000美元时,nVNS不太可能具有成本效益。在安大略省,公共资助nVNS用于丛集性头痛急性治疗的5年预算影响估计为1188万美元,预防性治疗为992万美元。公共资助nVNS用于偏头痛急性治疗的5年预算影响估计为11.2亿美元,预防性治疗为2.7877亿美元。丛集性头痛和偏头痛患者描述了这些疾病对他们日常活动、工作、社交生活、家庭关系和心理健康的负面影响。他们反思了寻求适当治疗的经历。一名尝试过nVNS的参与者未看到症状有积极改善,但所有参与者都对尝试nVNS感兴趣。参与者强调了丛集性头痛和偏头痛非侵入性治疗选择的重要性。

结论

nVNS可能是丛集性头痛或偏头痛患者的一种有效且总体安全的治疗选择,但证据的确定性为极低至中等,效果程度取决于头痛类型和治疗指征。除标准治疗外,nVNS预防丛集性头痛可能具有成本效益,但预防偏头痛则不然。我们估计,在安大略省公共资助nVNS用于丛集性头痛急性治疗将在5年内导致额外成本1188万美元。公共资助nVNS用于丛集性头痛预防性治疗将在5年内导致额外成本992万美元。公共资助nVNS用于偏头痛将导致非常高的额外成本:5年内急性治疗为11.2亿美元,预防性治疗为2.8777亿美元。丛集性头痛和偏头痛患者对nVNS作为治疗和预防的非侵入性选择感兴趣。

相似文献

1
Noninvasive Vagus Nerve Stimulation for Cluster Headache and Migraine: A Health Technology Assessment.
Ont Health Technol Assess Ser. 2025 May 1;25(2):1-177. eCollection 2025.
2
Intrathecal Drug Delivery Systems for Cancer Pain: A Health Technology Assessment.
Ont Health Technol Assess Ser. 2024 Jan 11;24(2):1-162. eCollection 2024.
3
Indocyanine Green Fluorescence Imaging for Colorectal Surgery: A Health Technology Assessment.
Ont Health Technol Assess Ser. 2025 Jul 10;25(3):1-124. eCollection 2025.
6
Drugs for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting in adults after general anaesthesia: a network meta-analysis.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020 Oct 19;10(10):CD012859. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012859.pub2.
8
Negative pressure wound therapy for surgical wounds healing by primary closure.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022 Apr 26;4(4):CD009261. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009261.pub7.
10
Telehealth interventions: remote monitoring and consultations for people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021 Jul 20;7(7):CD013196. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013196.pub2.

本文引用的文献

1
European Academy of Neurology guidelines on the treatment of cluster headache.
Eur J Neurol. 2023 Oct;30(10):2955-2979. doi: 10.1111/ene.15956. Epub 2023 Jul 28.
2
Pharmacologic prevention of migraine.
CMAJ. 2023 Feb 6;195(5):E187-E192. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.221607.
3
Diagnosis and acute management of migraine.
CMAJ. 2023 Jan 30;195(4):E153-E158. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.211969.
4
Guidelines of the International Headache Society for Controlled Clinical Trials in Cluster Headache.
Cephalalgia. 2022 Dec;42(14):1450-1466. doi: 10.1177/03331024221120266. Epub 2022 Oct 21.
5
Epidemiology and treatment utilization for Canadian patients with migraine: a literature review.
J Int Med Res. 2022 Sep;50(9):3000605221126380. doi: 10.1177/03000605221126380.
7
Chronic Migraine Pathophysiology and Treatment: A Review of Current Perspectives.
Front Pain Res (Lausanne). 2021 Aug 25;2:705276. doi: 10.3389/fpain.2021.705276. eCollection 2021.
10

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验