4.7 Article

Effect of Transcutaneous Vagus Nerve Stimulation in Erosive Hand Osteoarthritis: Results from a Pilot Trial

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE
卷 11, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jcm11041087

关键词

erosive hand osteoarthritis; pain; function; vagus nerve stimulation; inflammation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This open-label pilot study examined the efficacy and tolerance of transcutaneous auricular VNS (taVNS) on erosive hand osteoarthritis (EHOA) symptoms. The results showed that taVNS significantly reduced hand pain and improved the functional index, with no serious adverse events reported.
Beyond its effect on vegetative functions, the activation of the vagus nerve inhibits inflammation and reduces pain signaling. The aim of this open-label pilot study was to determine the efficacy and tolerance of transcutaneous auricular VNS (taVNS) on erosive hand osteoarthritis (EHOA) symptoms. Symptomatic EHOA patients with hand pain VAS >= 40/100 mm and >= 1 interphalangeal swollen joint(s) were included. The taVNS was performed for 4 weeks using an auricular electrode applied one hour per day and connected to a TENS device with pre-established settings. Clinical efficacy was evaluated by changes between baseline and at 4 weeks with hand pain VAS and the functional index FIHOA score, using a Wilcoxon t-test. The treatment tolerance was also evaluated. Eighteen patients (median age 69 years old, 83% women) were analyzed. At baseline, hand pain VAS was 60 mm [IQR 50; 78.2] and FIHOA 15 [10.7; 20.2]. After 4 weeks, taVNS significantly reduced hand pain VAS, with a median decrease of 23.5 mm [7.7; 37.2] (p = 0.001), as well as FIHOA, with a median decrease of 2 points [0.75; 5.2] (p = 0.01). No serious adverse events were reported. One patient stopped taVNS because of auricular discomfort. This first proof-of-concept trial indicated that taVNS is feasible and may decrease joint inflammation and clinical symptoms in EHOA, arguing for a randomized controlled study versus sham stimulation.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据