A Randomized, Double Blind, Sham-Controlled Clinical Trial to Evaluate the Efficacy of Electrical Vestibular Nerve Stimulation (VeNS), Compared to a Sham Control for Generalized Anxiety Disorder.
Sai Sailesh Kumar Goothy, Rohit S Chouhan, R Vijaya Raghavan, Wiktoria Ratajczak, Sinead Watson, Rachel Robinson, Shirin Macias, Jason Mckeown
{"title":"A Randomized, Double Blind, Sham-Controlled Clinical Trial to Evaluate the Efficacy of Electrical Vestibular Nerve Stimulation (VeNS), Compared to a Sham Control for Generalized Anxiety Disorder.","authors":"Sai Sailesh Kumar Goothy, Rohit S Chouhan, R Vijaya Raghavan, Wiktoria Ratajczak, Sinead Watson, Rachel Robinson, Shirin Macias, Jason Mckeown","doi":"10.1177/15500594251328080","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Aims and Objectives:</b> It has been hypothesised that vestibular stimulation may have a modulatory effect on anxiety. The aim of this randomised, double blind, sham-controlled trial was to determine the efficacy and safety of a non-invasive electrical vestibular nerve stimulation (VeNS) device as a treatment for anxiety compared to a sham stimulation device. <b>Materials and methods:</b> A total of 60 participants (mean age [SD]: 35.6 [8.1]) with a generalized anxiety disorder assessment (GAD-7) score of ≥10 were randomised to receive either an active VeNS device (n = 34) or a sham control device (n = 26). Both groups were asked to complete 20 stimulation sessions (30 min duration) at a rate of 3-5 sessions per week at a research clinic. The primary outcome was change in GAD-7 score from baseline to the end of study (when each participant finished their 20 stimulation sessions). Secondary outcomes were change in Insomnia Severity Index (ISI), and the Short Form 36 Health Survey (SF-36) scores (8 domains). <b>Results:</b> One participant allocated to the sham group withdrew from the study. The mean (SD) number of weeks it took to complete the 20 stimulation sessions was 5.8. The active group had a statistically greater reduction in GAD-7 score compared to the sham group (-7.4 versus -2.2, <i>P </i>< .001; respectively). A total of 97% (n = 33) of the active group achieved a clinically meaningful reduction (defined as ≥4-point reduction) in GAD-7 from baseline to the follow up visit compared to 24% (n = 6) of the sham group (<i>P </i>< .001). Additionally, the active group showed a significant improvement in ISI (-4.9 versus 2.2, <i>P </i>< .001) and greater improvements on all eight SF36 domains (<i>P </i>< .001) compared with the sham group. There was no device related reported adverse events. <b>Conclusion:</b> Regular non-invasive electrical vestibular nerve stimulation appears to have a clinically meaningful benefit when used as an intervention for Generalized Anxiety Disorder.</p>","PeriodicalId":93940,"journal":{"name":"Clinical EEG and neuroscience","volume":" ","pages":"15500594251328080"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical EEG and neuroscience","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15500594251328080","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Aims and Objectives: It has been hypothesised that vestibular stimulation may have a modulatory effect on anxiety. The aim of this randomised, double blind, sham-controlled trial was to determine the efficacy and safety of a non-invasive electrical vestibular nerve stimulation (VeNS) device as a treatment for anxiety compared to a sham stimulation device. Materials and methods: A total of 60 participants (mean age [SD]: 35.6 [8.1]) with a generalized anxiety disorder assessment (GAD-7) score of ≥10 were randomised to receive either an active VeNS device (n = 34) or a sham control device (n = 26). Both groups were asked to complete 20 stimulation sessions (30 min duration) at a rate of 3-5 sessions per week at a research clinic. The primary outcome was change in GAD-7 score from baseline to the end of study (when each participant finished their 20 stimulation sessions). Secondary outcomes were change in Insomnia Severity Index (ISI), and the Short Form 36 Health Survey (SF-36) scores (8 domains). Results: One participant allocated to the sham group withdrew from the study. The mean (SD) number of weeks it took to complete the 20 stimulation sessions was 5.8. The active group had a statistically greater reduction in GAD-7 score compared to the sham group (-7.4 versus -2.2, P < .001; respectively). A total of 97% (n = 33) of the active group achieved a clinically meaningful reduction (defined as ≥4-point reduction) in GAD-7 from baseline to the follow up visit compared to 24% (n = 6) of the sham group (P < .001). Additionally, the active group showed a significant improvement in ISI (-4.9 versus 2.2, P < .001) and greater improvements on all eight SF36 domains (P < .001) compared with the sham group. There was no device related reported adverse events. Conclusion: Regular non-invasive electrical vestibular nerve stimulation appears to have a clinically meaningful benefit when used as an intervention for Generalized Anxiety Disorder.
目的和目的:前庭刺激可能对焦虑有调节作用。这项随机、双盲、假对照试验的目的是确定与假刺激装置相比,非侵入性前庭神经电刺激(VeNS)装置治疗焦虑的有效性和安全性。材料和方法:共有60名广泛性焦虑障碍评估(GAD-7)评分≥10分的参与者(平均年龄[SD]: 35.6[8.1])被随机分为两组,一组接受主动VeNS装置(n = 34),另一组接受假对照装置(n = 26)。两组都被要求在一个研究诊所以每周3-5次的速度完成20次刺激(持续时间30分钟)。主要结果是GAD-7评分从基线到研究结束(当每个参与者完成他们的20次刺激时)的变化。次要结局是失眠严重指数(ISI)和SF-36健康调查(SF-36)得分(8个域)的变化。结果:一名被分配到假手术组的参与者退出了研究。完成20次增产作业所需的平均(SD)周数为5.8周。与假手术组相比,活动组在GAD-7评分上有更大的下降(-7.4对-2.2)P P P P P P P P P P P P P P结论:常规的非侵入性前庭神经电刺激在作为广泛性焦虑障碍的干预时似乎具有临床意义的益处。