| Literature DB >> 35978394 |
Carlos F Tirado1, Stephanie N Washburn2, Alejandro Covalin2, Caroline Hedenberg1, Heather Vanderpool2, Caroline Benner2, Daniel P Powell2, Melanie A McWade2, Navid Khodaparast3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: As pharmacological treatments are the primary option for opioid use disorder, neuromodulation has recently demonstrated efficacy in managing opioid withdrawal syndrome (OWS). This study investigated the safety and effectiveness of transcutaneous auricular neurostimulation (tAN) for managing OWS.Entities:
Keywords: Addiction; Non-opioid treatment; Opioid withdrawal symptoms; Transcutaneous auricular neurostimulation; Trigeminal nerve stimulation; Vagus nerve stimulation
Year: 2022 PMID: 35978394 PMCID: PMC9385243 DOI: 10.1186/s42234-022-00095-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Bioelectron Med ISSN: 2332-8886
Fig. 1Clinical Study Design Diagram
Fig. 2Form and Fit of tAN Device Around the Ear Neural Structures
Fig. 3CONSORT Flow Diagram
Baseline characteristics of the intention-to-treat population
| Group 1 ( | Group 2 ( | All ( | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 34.2 (7.3) | 32.5 (7.4) | 33.4 (7.3) | |
| (21–47) | (19–44) | ||
| 15.3 (2.7) | 14.5 (2.7) | 14.9 (2.7) | |
| (10–21) | (9–19) | (9–21) | |
| 12.9 (7.0) | 10.8 (6.4) | 11.8 (6.7) | |
| (1–27) | (0.5–24.0) | ||
| 1406.3 (1031.6) | 1209.3 (566.5) | 1311.0 (831.8) | |
| (300–4000) | (150–2000) | (150–4000) | |
| Female | 6 (37.5%) | 5 (33.3%) | 11 (35.5%) |
| Male | 10 (62.5%) | 10 (66.7%) | 20 (64.5%) |
| White | 14 (87.5%) | 12 (80.0%) | 26 (83.9%) |
| Hispanic or Latino | 1 (6.3%) | 3 (20.0%) | 4 (12.9%) |
| Black or African American | 1 (6.3%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (3.2%) |
| Depression | 4 (25.0%) | 6 (40.0%) | 10 (33.3%) |
| Anxiety | 3 (18.8%) | 7 (46.7%) | 10 (33.3%) |
| Bipolar Disorder | 4 (25.0%) | 4 (26.7%) | 8 (26.7%) |
| Heroin | 14 (93.3%) | 13 (86.7%) | 27 (90.0%) |
| Prescription Narcotics | 1 (6.7%) | 4 (26.7%) | 5 (16.7%) |
| Buprenorphine/Naloxone | 1 (6.7%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (3.3%) |
| Methadone | 0 (0%) | 1 (6.7%) | 1 (3.3%) |
| Fentanyl | 0 (0%) | 1 (6.7%) | 1 (3.3%) |
| Alprazolam | 5 (33.3%) | 4 (26.7%) | 9 (30.0%) |
| THC | 3 (20.0%) | 5 (33.3%) | 8 (26.7%) |
| Alcohol | 4 (26.7%) | 5 (33.3%) | 9 (30.0%) |
| Methamphetamine | 5 (33.3%) | 7 (46.7%) | 12 (40.0%) |
| Cocaine | 4 (26.7%) | 2 (13.3%) | 6 (20.0%) |
| Other | 1 26.7%) | 4 (26.7%) | 5 (16.7%) |
1Means analyzed using unpaired t-test with Welch’s correction and Chi Square or Fisher’s Exact test used for proportions
2Data not available for one participant in Group 1
3Participants may have more than one co-morbidity
4Participants may have used more than one opioid
Change in COWS scores across time in intention-to-treat population and without data imputation
| Timepoint | Intention-to-Treat | Data Not Imputed | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean (SD) Reduction | 95% CI | Percent Change | p-value | n | Mean (SD) Reduction | 95% CI | Percent Change | p-value | Percentage of Participants with Clinically Meaningful Reduction (n/N%) | |
| 30 minutes | 6.4 (4.2) | [3.9, 8.9] | 42.0% | < 0.0001 | 31 | 6.4 (4.2) | [3.9, 8.9] | 42.0% | < 0.0001 | 24 (77.4%) |
| 60 minutes | 7.0 (4.7) | [4.2, 9.7] | 45.9% | < 0.0001 | 31 | 7.0 (4.7) | [4.2, 9.7] | 45.9% | < 0.0001 | 26 (83.9%) |
| 120 minutes | 7.4 (4.3) | [4.9, 9.9] | 49.6% | < 0.0001 | 27 | 7.6 (4.3) | [5.3, 11.0] | 51.8% | < 0.0001 | 25 (92.6%) |
| Day 2 | 7.5 (4.4) | [4.9, 10.0] | 50.0% | < 0.0001 | 20 | 8.1 (4.0) | [6.0, 12.0] | 56.3% | < 0.0001 | 19 (95.0%) |
| Day 3 | 7.9 (4.1) | [5.5, 10.0] | 53.3% | < 0.0001 | 20 | 8.8 (3.4) | [7.2, 12.0] | 61.5% | < 0.0001 | 20 (100%) |
| Day 4 | 8.1 (4.2) | [5.6, 11.0] | 54.5% | < 0.0001 | 15 | 9.9 (3.3) | [7.3, 12.0] | 66.2% | < 0.0001 | 16 (100%) |
| Day 5 | 8.4 (5.0) | [5.5, 11.0] | 56.1% | < 0.0001 | 13 | 10.7 (4.9) | [6.5, 15.0] | 70.4% | < 0.0001 | 12 (92.3%) |
1Timepoints denote number of minutes after start of active tAN
2Repeated measures ANOVA
3Mixed-effects model (REML)
4Clinically meaningful reduction defined as a 15% or greater reduction in score
Fig. 4COWS Scores Across Time in the Pooled Population Without Data Imputation. Legend: *** denotes p < 0.0001. Timepoints denote the number of minutes from the start of active tAN, which is either at the start or end of the double-blind period, depending on group assignment. Dark blue line indicates the mean COWS score of study participants at each timepoint. Orange lines indicate individual participant COWS score at each timepoint
Fig. 5Comparison of COWS Scores: Active and Sham tAN at the end of the double-blind period. Legend: P-value; Two-sided independent Welch’s t-test; Data representing the intent-to-treat population. Group 1 received active tAN and Group 2 received sham tAN (no stimulation) during this period. Colored dots indicate individual COWS score percent reductions for the respective treatment groups
Change in PHQ-9 and PCL-5 scores at Day 5 in the population without data imputation
| Questionnaire | n | Mean (SD) Reduction | 95% CI | Percent Reduction | P value | Percentage of Participants with Clinically Meaningful Reduction (n/N%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PHQ-9 | 14 | 5.1 (6.0) | [8.532, 1.611] | 29.5 (35.0)% | 0.0074 | 6 (42.9%) |
| PCL-5 | 14 | 9.8 (8.9) | [14.95, 4.621] | 29.8 (32.7)% | 0.0013 | 5 (35.7%) |
1Excludes one participant with score over 2 standard deviations above the mean
2Two-tailed, paired t-test
3Defined as at least a 5-point decrease for PHQ-9 and at least a 10-point decrease for PCL-5
Change in (transformed 0–100) WHO-QoL-BREF scores at Day 5 in the population without data imputation
| Domain | n | Mean (SD) Increase | 95% CI | P value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Physical Health | 14 | 10.5 | [−6.325, 27.24] | 0.2013 |
| Psychological Health | 14 | 6.5 | [−11.40, 24.49] | 0.4446 |
| Social Relationships | 14 | 17.3 | [−3.281, 37.80] | 0.0926 |
| Environment | 14 | 12.3 | [−4.964, 29.52] | 0.1479 |
1Excludes one participant with score over 2 standard deviations above the mean
2Two-tailed, paired t-test