Safety and tolerability of transnasal evaporative cooling for the acute treatment of migraine in an at-home setting: A randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled, decentralized clinical trial.

IF 3.9 2区 医学 Q1 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Headache Pub Date : 2026-10-01 Epub Date: 2026-07-08 DOI:10.1111/head.70184
MaryAnn Mays, Kristina M Fanning, Stewart J Tepper
{"title":"Safety and tolerability of transnasal evaporative cooling for the acute treatment of migraine in an at-home setting: A randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled, decentralized clinical trial.","authors":"MaryAnn Mays, Kristina M Fanning, Stewart J Tepper","doi":"10.1111/head.70184","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives/background: </strong>Transnasal evaporative cooling (TNEC) is thought to modulate activity in the sphenopalatine ganglion and maxillary division of the trigeminal nerve. The safety, tolerability, and potential for therapeutic benefits of TNEC in adults with migraine have not been assessed in a fully decentralized setting. Our objectives were to determine the safety and tolerability of a TNEC device in adults with migraine and generate hypotheses for testing in studies designed to assess efficacy.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This prospective, double-blind, sham-controlled, randomized, decentralized clinical trial was conducted in the United States between November 2023 and June 2024. Eligible adults 18-65 years of age who self-reported migraine for ≥1 year were randomized to one of three active treatment groups (4, 6, or 10 L/min of dehumidified air) or to a sham control (2 L/min of ambient air delivered intermittently for ~10% of total time). Tolerability was measured by the percentage of participants who discontinued their treatment session due to discomfort. The assessment of TNEC treatment effects was hypothesis-generating; reported p-values are nominal. The trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT06051604).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Participants (N = 137) had a mean (SD) age of 39.4 (10.1) years, 79.6% (109/137) were female, and 85.4% (117/137) were White. The most common adverse events were rhinorrhea (2.2% [3/137]) and nasal irritation, ear pressure, runny nose, and sore throat (each 1.5% [2/137]). No participants (0% [0/128]) discontinued treatment early due to discomfort. At 2 h posttreatment, 57.6% ([19/33] 95% confidence interval [CI] = 39.2-74.5) of participants in the sham group had pain relief compared with 48.4% ([15/31] 95% CI = 30.2-66.9) of participants who received 4 L/min TNEC (p = 0.462), 61.8% ([21/34] 95% CI = 43.6-77.8) of those who received 6 L/min (p = 0.727), and 70.0% ([21/30] 95% CI = 50.6-85.3) who received 10 L/min (p = 0.306). The percentage of participants with pain freedom at 2 h posttreatment was higher in the TNEC 10 L/min group than in the sham group (33.3% [10/30] vs. 12.1% [4/33], p = 0.043).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Treatment with TNEC was safe and feasible in a decentralized setting, and it was tolerable at high flow rates. Observed treatment effects in the acute treatment of migraine need to be confirmed in larger, adequately powered clinical trials.</p>","PeriodicalId":12844,"journal":{"name":"Headache","volume":" ","pages":"2078-2089"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Headache","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/head.70184","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/7/8 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives/background: Transnasal evaporative cooling (TNEC) is thought to modulate activity in the sphenopalatine ganglion and maxillary division of the trigeminal nerve. The safety, tolerability, and potential for therapeutic benefits of TNEC in adults with migraine have not been assessed in a fully decentralized setting. Our objectives were to determine the safety and tolerability of a TNEC device in adults with migraine and generate hypotheses for testing in studies designed to assess efficacy.

Methods: This prospective, double-blind, sham-controlled, randomized, decentralized clinical trial was conducted in the United States between November 2023 and June 2024. Eligible adults 18-65 years of age who self-reported migraine for ≥1 year were randomized to one of three active treatment groups (4, 6, or 10 L/min of dehumidified air) or to a sham control (2 L/min of ambient air delivered intermittently for ~10% of total time). Tolerability was measured by the percentage of participants who discontinued their treatment session due to discomfort. The assessment of TNEC treatment effects was hypothesis-generating; reported p-values are nominal. The trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT06051604).

Results: Participants (N = 137) had a mean (SD) age of 39.4 (10.1) years, 79.6% (109/137) were female, and 85.4% (117/137) were White. The most common adverse events were rhinorrhea (2.2% [3/137]) and nasal irritation, ear pressure, runny nose, and sore throat (each 1.5% [2/137]). No participants (0% [0/128]) discontinued treatment early due to discomfort. At 2 h posttreatment, 57.6% ([19/33] 95% confidence interval [CI] = 39.2-74.5) of participants in the sham group had pain relief compared with 48.4% ([15/31] 95% CI = 30.2-66.9) of participants who received 4 L/min TNEC (p = 0.462), 61.8% ([21/34] 95% CI = 43.6-77.8) of those who received 6 L/min (p = 0.727), and 70.0% ([21/30] 95% CI = 50.6-85.3) who received 10 L/min (p = 0.306). The percentage of participants with pain freedom at 2 h posttreatment was higher in the TNEC 10 L/min group than in the sham group (33.3% [10/30] vs. 12.1% [4/33], p = 0.043).

Conclusions: Treatment with TNEC was safe and feasible in a decentralized setting, and it was tolerable at high flow rates. Observed treatment effects in the acute treatment of migraine need to be confirmed in larger, adequately powered clinical trials.

经鼻蒸发冷却在家庭环境中治疗偏头痛的安全性和耐受性:一项随机、双盲、假对照、分散的临床试验
目的/背景:经鼻蒸发冷却(TNEC)被认为可以调节蝶腭神经节和三叉神经上颌分支的活动。TNEC在成人偏头痛患者中的安全性、耐受性和潜在的治疗益处尚未在完全分散的环境中进行评估。我们的目的是确定TNEC装置在成人偏头痛患者中的安全性和耐受性,并为评估疗效的研究提供假设。方法:该前瞻性、双盲、假对照、随机、分散临床试验于2023年11月至2024年6月在美国进行。自我报告偏头痛≥1年的18-65岁符合条件的成年人被随机分为三个积极治疗组(4、6或10 L/min的除湿空气)或假对照组(2 L/min的间歇环境空气输送约占总时间的10%)。耐受性是通过参与者因不适而停止治疗的百分比来衡量的。TNEC治疗效果的评估是假设生成的;报告的p值为名义值。该试验已在clinicaltrials.gov注册(NCT06051604)。结果:参与者(N = 137)的平均(SD)年龄为39.4(10.1)岁,79.6%(109/137)为女性,85.4%(117/137)为白人。最常见的不良事件为鼻漏(2.2%[3/137])、鼻刺激、耳压、流鼻涕和喉咙痛(各占1.5%[2/137])。没有参与者(0%[0/128])因不适而早期停止治疗。治疗后2小时,假手术组57.6%([19/33]95%可信区间[CI] = 39.2-74.5)的受试者疼痛缓解,而接受4 L/min TNEC的受试者疼痛缓解率为48.4% ([15/31]95% CI = 30.2-66.9) (p = 0.462),接受6 L/min TNEC的受试者疼痛缓解率为61.8% ([21/34]95% CI = 43.6-77.8) (p = 0.727),接受10 L/min TNEC的受试者疼痛缓解率为70.0% ([21/30]95% CI = 50.6-85.3) (p = 0.306)。TNEC 10 L/min组治疗后2 h疼痛缓解的比例高于假手术组(33.3%[10/30]比12.1% [4/33],p = 0.043)。结论:在分散的环境下,TNEC治疗是安全可行的,并且在高流量下是可以忍受的。在偏头痛急性治疗中观察到的治疗效果需要在更大的、有充分动力的临床试验中得到证实。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Headache
Headache 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
9.40
自引率
10.00%
发文量
172
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Headache publishes original articles on all aspects of head and face pain including communications on clinical and basic research, diagnosis and management, epidemiology, genetics, and pathophysiology of primary and secondary headaches, cranial neuralgias, and pains referred to the head and face. Monthly issues feature case reports, short communications, review articles, letters to the editor, and news items regarding AHS plus medicolegal and socioeconomic aspects of head pain. This is the official journal of the American Headache Society.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书