ABSTRACT
This review is intended to identify key gaps in the mechanistic knowledge and execution of aVNS studies, to be addressed in future works, and aid the successful translation of neuromodulation therapies.
Background The auricular branch of the vagus nerve runs superficial to the surface of the skin, 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.
Methods 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. As is common for early-stage studies, 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.
Results 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 (VNS) therapy, albeit with concerns over quality of blinding. Preliminary evidence shows that aVNS ameliorated pathological pain but not evoked pain.
Discussion 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 in the long term – a major source of concern identified in the Cochrane analysis.
Conclusion 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.
Competing Interest Statement
EL is an employee of LivaNova PLC. JCW and KAL are scientific board members and have stock interests in NeuroOne Medical Inc., a company developing next generation epilepsy monitoring devices. JCW also has an equity interest in NeuroNexus technology Inc., a company that supplies electrophysiology equipment and multichannel probes to the neuroscience research community. KAL is also a paid member of the scientific advisory board of Cala Health, Blackfynn, Abbott and Battelle. KAL also is a paid consultant for Galvani and Boston Scientific. KAL is a consultant to and co-founder of Neuronoff Inc. None of these associations are directly relevant to the work presented in this manuscript.
Funding Statement
The work presented here was funded by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency Biological Technologies Office (BTO) program title Targeted Neuroplasticity Training (TNT) under the auspices of Doug Weber and Tristan McClure-Begley through the Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command Pacific with cooperative agreement no. N66001-17-2-4010. The views, opinions, and/or findings expressed are those of the author and should not be interpreted as representing the official views or policies of the Department of Defense or the U.S. Government.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Not applicable for systematic review.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
Not applicable.
