Migraine is a neurological disease characterized by severe and recurrent headaches. Children and adolescents with migraine often present to the emergency department (ED) with acute attacks, where migraine accounts for up to \~30% of all pediatric ED visits for headache. Based on the limited evidence, many centers have adopted protocols whereby children and adolescents who visit the ED with acute attacks of migraine are treated with an IV neuroleptic (metoclopramide or prochlorperazine) and an IV non-steroidal anti-inflammatory (ketorolac). This combination of interventions is largely considered to be standard of care despite no rigorous evidence to support this practice. Side effect rates with the neuroleptics (metoclopramide or prochlorperazine) are considerable. Therefore, the current standard of care for managing children and adolescents visiting the ED with acute attacks of migraine poses concern to patients and is associated with significant pain and frequent side effects. Over the past few years, there has been a growth in research investigating the efficacy and safety of non-invasive neuromodulation for the management of acute attacks of migraine. At present, there are several commercially available, non-invasive neuromodulation devices that effectively and safely treat acute attacks of migraine in adults. Because none of these devices have a high level evidence in children, adolescents, nor in the ED setting, there is clinical equipoise as to which device would be most appropriate to study for treating children and adolescents visiting the ED with acute attacks. Throughout our patient engagement work, children and adolescents with migraine have identified that they are interested in trying remote electrical neuromodulation for treating migraine attacks in the ED. The investigators completed a pilot randomized controlled trial (RCT) to determine the feasibility and acceptability of executing a phase III RCT, in which children and adolescents visiting the ED with acute attacks of migraine were randomized to REN or standard of care IV treatment. The trial had two phases: initially the design was a parallel-group design, and after 14 months of recruitment to that design, an amendment was made to allow participants to cross over to the other treatment arm if the initial intervention was not effective, in a crossover design. This change was made in response to participant and staff feedback around the parallel-group design.
See this in plain English?
AI-rewrites the medical criteria so a patient or caregiver can understand them. Always confirm with the trial site.
Assessment of Recruitment Rate
Timeframe: Evaluated monthly and at the end of recruitment (i.e., 2 years or once the final participant has completed the study)