Practical and clinical utility of non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation (nVNS) for the acute treatment of migraine. A post hoc analysis of the randomized, sham-controlled, double-blind PRESTO trial

Background: The PRESTO study of non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation (nVNS; gammaCore®) featured key primary and secondary end points recommended by the International Headache Society to provide Class I evidence that for patients with an episodic migraine, nVNS significantly increases the probability of having mild pain or being pain-free 2 h post stimulation. Here, we examined additional data from PRESTO to provide further insights into the practical utility of nVNS by evaluating its ability to consistently deliver clinically meaningful improvements in pain intensity while reducing the need for rescue medication. Methods: Patients recorded pain intensity for treated migraine attacks on a 4-point scale. Data were examined to compare nVNS and sham with regard to the percentage of patients who benefited by at least 1 point in pain intensity. We also assessed the percentage of attacks that required rescue medication and pain-free rates stratified by pain intensity at treatment initiation. Results: A significantly higher percentage of patients who used acute nVNS treatment (n = 120) vs sham (n = 123) reported a ≥ 1-point decrease in pain intensity at 30 min (nVNS, 32.2%; sham, 18.5%; P = 0.020), 60 min (nVNS, 38.8%; sham, 24.0%; P = 0.017), and 120 min (nVNS, 46.8%; sham, 26.2%; P = 0.002) after the first attack. Similar significant results were seen when assessing the benefit in all attacks. The proportion of patients who did not require rescue medication was significantly higher with nVNS than with sham for the first attack (nVNS, 59.3%; sham, 41.9%; P = 0.013) and all attacks (nVNS, 52.3%; sham, 37.3%; P = 0.008). When initial pain intensity was mild, the percentage of patients with no pain after treatment was significantly higher with nVNS than with sham at 60 min (all attacks: nVNS, 37.0%; sham, 21.2%; P = 0.025) and 120 min (first attack: nVNS, 50.0%; sham, 25.0%; P = 0.018; all attacks: nVNS, 46.7%; sham, 30.1%; P = 0.037). Conclusions: This post hoc analysis demonstrated that acute nVNS treatment quickly and consistently reduced pain intensity while decreasing rescue medication use. These clinical benefits provide guidance in the optimal use of nVNS in everyday practice, which can potentially reduce use of acute pharmacologic medications and their associated adverse events. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02686034

Advancing Hardware Security Using Polymorphic and Stochastic Spin-Hall Effect Devices

Protecting intellectual property (IP) in electronic circuits has become a serious challenge in recent years. Logic locking/encryption and layout camouflaging are two prominent techniques for IP protection. Most existing approaches, however, particularly those focused on CMOS integration, incur excessive design overheads resulting from their need for additional circuit structures or device-level modifications. This work leverages the innate polymorphism of an emerging spin-based device, called the giant spin-Hall effect (GSHE) switch, to simultaneously enable locking and camouflaging within a single instance. Using the GSHE switch, we propose a powerful primitive that enables cloaking all the 16 Boolean functions possible for two inputs. We conduct a comprehensive study using state-of-the-art Boolean satisfiability (SAT) attacks to demonstrate the superior resilience of the proposed primitive in comparison to several others in the literature. While we tailor the primitive for deterministic computation, it can readily support stochastic computation; we argue that stochastic behavior can break most, if not all, existing SAT attacks. Finally, we discuss the resilience of the primitive against various side-channel attacks as well as invasive monitoring at runtime, which are arguably even more concerning threats than SAT attacks.Comment: Published in Proc. Design, Automation and Test in Europe (DATE) 201

Noninvasive vagus nerve stimulation as acute therapy for migraine. The randomized PRESTO study

Objective: To evaluate the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of noninvasive vagus nerve stimulation (nVNS; gammaCore; electroCore, LLC, Basking Ridge, NJ) for the acute treatment of migraine in a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, sham-controlled trial. Methods: A total of 248 participants with episodic migraine with/without aura were randomized to receive nVNS or sham within 20 minutes from pain onset. Participants were to repeat treatment if pain had not improved in 15 minutes. Results: nVNS (n = 120) was superior to sham (n = 123) for pain freedom at 30 minutes (12.7% vs 4.2%; p = 0.012) and 60 minutes (21.0% vs 10.0%; p = 0.023) but not at 120 minutes (30.4% vs 19.7%; p = 0.067; primary endpoint; logistic regression) after the first treated attack. A post hoc repeatedmeasures test provided further insight into the therapeutic benefit of nVNS through 30, 60, and 120 minutes (odds ratio 2.3; 95% confidence interval 1.2, 4.4; p = 0.012). nVNS demonstrated benefits across other endpoints including pain relief at 120minutes and was safe and well-tolerated. Conclusion: This randomized sham-controlled trial supports the abortive efficacy of nVNS as early as 30 minutes and up to 60 minutes after an attack. Findings also suggest effective pain relief, tolerability, and practicality of nVNS for the acute treatment of episodic migraine

Risk of angioedema following invasive or surgical procedures in HAE type I and II : the natural history

Background: Hereditary angioedema (HAE), caused by deficiency in C1-inhibitor (C1-INH), leads to unpredictable edema of subcutaneous tissues with potentially fatal complications. As surgery can be a trigger for edema episodes, current guidelines recommend preoperative prophylaxis with C1-INH or attenuated androgens in patients with HAE undergoing surgery. However, the risk of an HAE attack in patients without prophylaxis has not been quantified. Objectives: This analysis examined rates of perioperative edema in patients with HAE not receiving prophylaxis. Methods: This was a retrospective analysis of records of randomly selected patients with HAE type I or II treated at the Frankfurt Comprehensive Care Centre. These were examined for information about surgical procedures and the presence of perioperative angioedema. Results: A total of 331 patients were included; 247 underwent 700 invasive procedures. Of these procedures, 335 were conducted in 144 patients who had not received prophylaxis at the time of surgery. Categories representing significant numbers of procedures were abdominal (n = 113), ENT (n = 71), and gynecological (n = 58) procedures. The rate of documented angioedema without prophylaxis across all procedures was 5.7%; in 24.8% of procedures, the presence of perioperative angioedema could not be excluded, leading to a maximum potential risk of 30.5%. Predictors of perioperative angioedema could not be identified. Conclusion: The risk of perioperative angioedema in patients with HAE type I or II without prophylaxis undergoing surgical procedures ranged from 5.7% to 30.5% (CI 3.5–35.7%). The unpredictability of HAE episodes supports current international treatment recommendations to consider short-term prophylaxis for all HAE patients undergoing surgery

Dinocampus coccinellae as a parasitoid of the invasive ladybird Harmonia axyridis in Europe

A