Back

Audio-Visual Stimulation Therapy for Chronic Neuropathic Pain: A Sham-Controlled Randomized Clinical Trial

Tabacof, L.; Howard, R.; Bower, J.; Breyman, E.; Dewil, S.; Tosto-Mancuso, J.; Hanbury, R.; Carmouche, B.; Robberson, M.; Fry, A.; Putrino, D.

2024-08-13 rehabilitation medicine and physical therapy
10.1101/2024.08.12.24311569 medRxiv
Show abstract

Neuropathic Pain (NP) affects 10% of the general population, decreasing quality of life for millions of Americans and contributing to higher physical and mental health care costs. The most widely used treatments for NP involve medications that show limitations in efficacy and burdensome side effects. This randomized controlled trial explored the efficacy of a wearable Audio-Visual Stimulation neuromodulation device (Sana) as a novel intervention for chronic NP in 64 participants. Outcomes were assessed at baseline, after 8-weeks of daily use of the assigned Sana or Sham device, and after 4 weeks of discontinued use. For the main outcome (Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory total), there were statistically significant improvements in the Active arm that were greater than those in the Sham Arm at Week-14 (Mean Difference = 10.04, p = 0.01). Both groups showed significant improvements at the end of the treatment period (Week-10), and the Active arm maintained this improvement after an additional 4 weeks of non-use, while the Sham arm almost returned to baseline (Active Change = 13.26, p <=0.001 | Sham Change = 3.22, p = 0.214). Participants in the Active arm had significant decreases in use of anxiolytic, opiate, antidepressant, and anticonvulsant medications compared to the Sham arm. The study provides strong evidence supporting the efficacy of a novel AVS Device in generating durable improvements in NP, with superiority over Sham at 14 weeks. The Sana device may also reduce the reliance on pain medications and is a safe and easy to use treatment option for patients.

Published in BMC Neurology (predicted rank #4) · training set

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.