Preprint Effect of Percutaneous Auricular Nerve Stimulation on Fatigue in Adults with Post-COVID Fatigue (PAuSing-pCF): [...], 2026, Shahmandi et al

forestglip

Moderator
Staff member
Effect of Percutaneous Auricular Nerve Stimulation on Fatigue in Adults with Post-COVID Fatigue (PAuSing-pCF): Results of a Randomised, Sham-Controlled Trial

Shahmandi, Marzieh; Cherlin, Svetlana; Germann, Maria; Maffitt, Natalie J.; Burton, Olivia A.; Ashhad, Amn; Baker, Anne M. E.; Charlton, Norman; Baker, Aidan S.; Zaaimi, Boubker; Ng, Wan-Fai; Soteropoulos, Demetris S.; Baker, Stuart N.; Wason, James M.S.; Baker, Mark R.

Background
Post-COVID fatigue (pCF) affects 2.3% of the UK population and causes physical and mental fatigue, impacting daily life. Management is largely adapted from chronic fatigue syndrome, with limited evidence in post-COVID populations. Fatigue in pCF is linked to dysfunction in central, peripheral, and autonomic nervous systems, suggesting a role for vagus nerve dysfunction. Transcutaneous auricular vagus nerve stimulation (taVNS) is a non-invasive, home-based intervention, but its effectiveness in pCF remains unclear.

Methods
PAuSing-pCF was a single-site, single-blind, randomised, sham-controlled trial in adults with pCF. Participants were assigned to active non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation (taVNS), sham tragus, or active pinna stimulation for 8 weeks, then all crossed over to taVNS for another 8 weeks. The primary outcome was change in Fatigue Visual Analogue Scale (F-VAS) at 8 weeks. Analyses used an intention-to-treat basis, applying regression and mixed-effects models, with additional complier average causal effect (CACE) analyses. Secondary outcomes included patient-reported questionnaires and neurophysiological measures from wearable devices.

Results
Of 114 participants (taVNS n = 39; sham n = 36; placebo n = 39), 90 completed the trial. Fatigue decreased over time across all groups.

At 8 weeks, F-VAS change did not differ between taVNS and controls (sham vs taVNS: 2.76, 95% CI −5 to 11, p = 0.50; placebo vs taVNS: 2.05, 95% CI −6 to 10, p = 0.62), with similar results in CACE analyses.

In the taVNS group, regression analyses showed associations between fatigue and baseline neurophysiological measures at 16 weeks, but not 8 weeks. Extending taVNS to 16 weeks yielded no further improvement.

Among secondary outcomes, only the fatigue impact scale score showed a significant effect at 8 weeks, with higher fatigue in placebo than taVNS.

Conclusions
Non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation did not significantly improve fatigue at 8 weeks compared to sham or placebo. Further research is needed to clarify mechanisms and identify subgroups who may benefit from neuromodulation in pCF.

Web | DOI | PDF | NIHR Open Research | Preprint
 
Last edited:
I had previously made a post about this paper when I thought it was a new version of the paper at the following thread, but I have deleted that post as it no longer makes sense.

Percutaneous Auricular Nerve Stimulation for Treating Post-COVID Fatigue (PAuSing-pCF), 2026, Germann et al

The previous paper was testing efficacy of their intervention only in the subgroup meeting a minimum adherence threshold. There are some comments on that thread pointing out issues with their interpretation of the results.

This thread's paper is looking at the whole group.
 
Edit: I was wrong, there are lots of details in the supplementary files.

The paper is very light on the details. Some basic line charts would have been useful. But I guess putting effort into a null result is too much to ask for..
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure I'd say they didn't put effort or details into this. It looks to me like they thoroughly describe the results, and they uploaded a lot of supplementary files, including raw participant-level data:
If anything, this seems fairly detail-heavy compared to most papers we see.
 
I'm not sure I'd say they didn't put effort or details into this. It looks to me like they thoroughly describe the results, and they uploaded a lot of supplementary files, including raw participant-level data:
If anything, this seems fairly detail-heavy compared to most papers we see.
Ah, that’s on me for not looking at the supplementary files! Thank you, I agree that this was thorough after all.
 
Back
Top Bottom